Plato Republic 5.458

πρὶν ἐξευρεῖν κτλ. Cf. Men. 86 E .

θέντες κτλ. εἶναι goes with θέντες: “das Dasein des gewünschten als gegeben annehmend” (Schneider). A few inferior MSS omit εἶναι; but “apparet εἶναι facile supervacaneum, minime vero explicationis gratia addendum videri librariis potuisse” (id.). To write ἤδη for εἶναι (with Vind. E: cf. also Postgate in J. Ph. XV p. 113) is too great a change, and otherwise objectionable, in view of the ἤδη which follows.

καὶ ὕστερον . καί is ‘and’ (Jowett), not ‘also’ (Campbell).

ᾗ δυνατά . Stallbaum (with q and a few late MSS) reads εἰ δυνατά, which is more accurate, no doubt. But in saying ‘how it is possible’ instead of ‘whether it is possible’ Socrates hints that he will be able to prove the possibility of his scheme. We have here in fact a sort of prophecy of 473 B ff. Schneider ( Addit. p. 39) cites a close parallel from Tim. 27 C ᾗ γέγονεν ἢ καὶ ἀγενές ἐστιν.

ὅτι πάντων κτλ. Cf. Ar. Eccl. 583 καὶ μὴν ὅτι μὲν χρηστὰ διδάξω πιστεύω. See App. I.

αὐτοὺς ‐‐ νόμοις . In issuing their commands, the rulers will either themselves obey the laws (i.e. issue such orders as the laws direct) or act in accordance with the spirit of the laws: see next note. αὐτούς=ipsos sc. as well as τοὺς ἀρχομένους. The reading αὐτοῖς (K and Ficinus) is intrinsically good, and may be right: for it accentuates the contrast between cases prescribed for by actual law, and such as are left to the rulers' discretion. But there is hardly sufficient ground for deserting A.

μιμουμένους : sc. τοὺς νόμους. In matters not actually prescribed for by legislative enactment, the rulers will ‘imitate,’ i.e. will issue commands in harmony with the spirit of, such laws as do exist. The reading of q^{2}, μὴ πειθομένους, recommended by Herwerden, gives a poor, if not actually an erroneous, meaning.

ὁμοφυεῖς . See on 456 B.

ἀναμεμιγμένων . ἀναμεμιγμένοι would be more usual, but the genitive lays more stress on the participial clause: cf. Thuc. III 13. 6 βοηθησάντων δὲ ὑμῶν προθύμως πόλιν τε προσλήψεσθε κτλ., and other examples quoted in Kühner Gr. Gr. II p. 666. See also infra on 459 C. Here, too, it should be noted that the addition of a parenthetical οἶμαι helps to render ἀναμεμιγμένων independent of ἔσονται. The genitive absolute in ἰδίᾳ δὲ—κεκτημένου may also, as Jackson suggests, have influenced Plato's choice of construction in this clause. Plato perhaps thought of Sparta when he wrote the present sentence: cf. Plut. Lyc. 15. 1 ἦν μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα παρορμητικὰ πρὸς γάμους· λέγω δὲ τὰς πομπὰς τῶν παρθένων καὶ τὰς ἀποδύσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐν ὄψει τῶν νέων, ἀγομένων οὐ γεωμετρικαῖς, ἀλλ’ ἐρωτικαῖς, ὥς φησιν ὁ Πλάτων, ἀνάγκαις.

γεωμετρικαῖς γε : sc. ἀναγκαῖα, with which the dative goes, as in Soph. 252 D ταῖς μεγίσταις ἀνάγκαις ἀδύνατον (cited by J. and C.). We have here one of the earliest assertions of the famous doctrine which has played so large and important a part in the history of philosophy—the doctrine of the so-called ‘necessity’ of mathematical reasoning. See for instance Mill's Logic Book II c. 5. In the rest of this sentence Schneider suspects that Glauco is paraphrasing some passage of poetry. τὸν πολὺν λεών certainly sounds tragic.

γάμους ‐‐ ἱερούς . Cf. Laws 841 D ταῖς μετὰ θεῶν καὶ ἱερῶν γάμων ἐλθούσαις εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν. The nuptials of Zeus and Hera were known as the Θεογαμία, or ἱερὸς γάμος, and were celebrated by a special festival in Athens and elsewhere: see H. Graillot's article on ἱερὸς γάμος in Daremberg and Saglio's dictionary, where the authorities are cited, or Farnell's Cults of the Greek States I pp. 184—192. To Greek religious sentiment the marriage of Zeus and Hera was (as Graillot says) the ideal type of all human marriages, and for this reason Plato characteristically applies the expression ἱερὸς γάμος to his ideal of marriage in his ideal city. Cf. also Proclus in Tim. 16 B τῶν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις λεγομένων ἱερῶν γάμων, οἶς καὶ ὁ Πλάτων εἰς δύναμιν ἐξομοιῶν περὶ τοὺς πολίτας καὶ τοὺς τῶνδε γάμους ἱεροὺς γάμους προσηγόρευσε, and see Abel Orphic. p. 243. It is clear from Plato's words that he would have repudiated with scorn the charge of seeking to abolish marriage. We have already seen that he endeavours to make the State into one vast family (457 B note); and it is in the same spirit that he now tries to raise marriage from a private into a public institution, without sacrificing any of the religious ceremonies and associations by which the union of the sexes was hallowed in the eyes of his contemporaries: cf. 459 E. If his vaulting idealism “o'erleaps itself and falls on the other,” that is no reason why we should impugn his motives, or refuse our homage to his unquenchable faith in the possibilities of human nature.