Plato Republic 5.470

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.) — 5.470 focus

Notes on the current edition

Republic

1. For the practice cf. Aeschylus Septem 275-279 and Agamemnon 577-579. Italian cities and American states have restored to one another the flags so dedicated from old wars. Cf. Cicero De inventione ii. 70
at tamen aeternum inimicitiarum monumentum Graios de Graiis statuere non oportet.
2. For similar caution cf. on 427 B-C.
3. I have so translated in order to imply that the Plato of the Republic is already acquainted with the terminology of the Sophist. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, notes 375 and 377, followed by Wilamowitz, Platon, i. p. 504. But most editors take διαφορά here as dissension, and construe applied to the disagreements of two things, which may be right. Cf. Sophist 228 A
στάσιν . . . τὴν τοῦ φύσει συγγενοῦς ἔκ τινος διαφθορᾶς διαφοράν
.
4. Plato shared the natural feeling of Isocrates, Demosthenes, and all patriotic Greeks. Cf. Isocrates Panegyricus 157, 184, Panath. 163; Menexenus 237 ff., Laws 692 C and 693 A. It is uncritical then with Newman ( op. cit. p. 430) and many others to take as a recantation of this passage the purely logical observation in Politicus 262 D that Greek and barbarinan is an unscientific dichotomy of mankind. Cf. on the whole question the dissertation of Friedrich Weber, Platons Stellung zu den Barbaren.
5. Cf. 414 E, Menexenus 237 E, Timaeus 40 B, Laws 740 A, Aeschylus Septem 16.
6. Cf. Epistles 354 A, Herodotus ii. 178, Isocrates Phil. 122, Panegyricus 96, Evagoras 40, Panath. 241. The word is still significant for international politics, and must be retained in the translation.

Commentary

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

ἐὰν μή τι ‐‐ λέγῃ . Apollo might not wish to surrender his rights, and Plato would do no violence to the patron god of his city (IV 427 B). It was usual to dedicate a tithe of the spoil to the gods ( Xen. Hell. III 3. 1 ).

τί δέ; κτλ. So Schneider punctuates. Stallbaum and others place the mark of interrogation after ἐμπρήσεως, comparing VII 515 B, IX 582 C (where however see my notes), and other examples: but the analogy of 469 B and 469 C, as well as the emphasis on γῆς, is in favour of Schneider's view. We may compare the use of the genitive instead of περί with the genitive after verbs of speaking, asking about etc.; cf. IX 576 D and Jebb on Soph. Trach. 169 .

ὥσπερ καὶ ‐‐ δύο . Literally ‘as these names, war and civil discord, are named two, so also they are two.’ ὀνομάζεται δύο is opposed to εἷναι δύο, which means δύο οὐσίας εἶναι ‘are,’ ‘express two realities,’ as is further explained in ὄντα—διαφοραῖν. Instead of ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα, ταῦτα ὀνόματα—see cr. n.—is now usually read. With this reading, the sense would be ‘as these things’ (viz. War and Discord) ‘are called by two names, so also they are in reality two,’ ὄντα ἐπὶ κτλ. That is to say, ὄντα ἐπί would be said of things; but it is clearly intended to be said of names: cf. κέκληται ἐπί just below. Schneider noticed the difficulty, but thought the confusion between names and things excusable. It is surely a grave blemish in a passage which is written expressly to distinguish between the two. Richards would transpose and read ὥσπερ καὶ— στάσις, ὄντα ἐπὶ δυοῖν τινοῖν διαφοραῖν, οὕτω καὶ ε<*>ναι δύο, or make ὄντα—διαφοραῖν follow ὀνόματα. This solution effects, at great cost, what is only after all a partial cure.

ὄντα ἐπὶ κτλ. ἐπί governs διαφοραῖν, and δυοῖν τινοῖν, which is neuter, depends on διαφοραῖν. The literal meaning is ‘being applied to two kinds of disagreements, arising in two things.’ The two things—continues Plato—are τὸ οἰκεῖον ( ξυγγενές), and τὸ ἀλλότριον ( ὀθνεῖον). Disagreement—for διαφορά is substituted <*>χθρά—in τὸ οἰκεῖον is called στάσις, in τὸ ἀλλότριον, πόλεμος. ὄντα— διαφοραῖν is a marvellous example of Greek brevity, simplicity, and precision. Schneider, and J. and C., explain the words correctly; but D. and V. plunge everything into confusion by taking δυοῖν τινοῖν with διαφοραῖν.

φημὶ γὰρ κτλ. : a formal declaration of Plato's political faith in the Panhellenic ideal, which Cimon— Πανελλήνων πρόμος, as Cratinus calls him ( Archil. 1 ed. Meineke)—and Callicratidas (see Grote VII pp. 406—415) had striven to realise in fact, and which Isocrates as well as Plato constantly proclaimed in theory. See on I 336 A, and cf. Spengel Isokrates u. Plato pp. 7 ff. and Isocrates Panegyricus passim. The rallying points of Plato's Panhellenism are two—internally, the Delphic oracle (IV 427 B, C notes), and externally, hostility with Persia: cf. Menex. 245 C ff. See also on πολεμίους φύσει below.

πολεμεῖν μαχομένους . Hirschig and others transpose these words, on slight MS authority, including a marginal correction in A. But it is hard to see why they should have become displaced. By adopting the order in the text Plato restricts μαχομένους to πολεμεῖν: otherwise the participle would naturally go with πολεμίους φύσει too. The MS order also lays more stress on the emphatic πολεμεῖν than Hirschig's transposition would do. Cf. (with Stallbaum) Ap. 18 D .

πολεμίους φύσει . The universal Greek view: see e.g. Hdt. I 4 ad fin., Eur. Hec. 1199 , Isocrates Paneg. 158 al., and Nägelsbach Nachhom. Theol. pp. 305— 307. “We should bear in mind,” says Bosanquet, “that Greek civilisation was to Plato much what white civilisation is to us.” This is, in part at least, true; but sentiments of chivalry and romance were far more powerful factors in fostering the ancestral feud with Persia than any apprehensions for the safety of Greek civilisation. The idea of a war against Persia always stirred the pulse of Hellas with a sense of continuity with the heroic past; and it was more than a meaningless ceremony when Agesilaus sacrificed at Aulis, and Alexander visited Achilles' tomb. See Grote IX p. 81 and XI pp. 395—397. None the less, in spite of his emphatic expression of the old Greek policy of splendid isolation, it is difficult to overestimate the effect of Plato's writings, and especially of the Republic, in breaking down the barrier between Barbarian and Greek. See on 470 E.

νοσεῖν κτλ. Compare the melancholy picture of the state of contemporary Greece in Isocr. Paneg. 115—117. Hartman would cancel καὶ στασιάζειν; but see 451 B note

συγχωρῶ κτλ. ‘I agree to view the matter in this way.’ οὕτως ὀνομάζειν would be more pointed, but is unnecessary. We are hardly justified in making νομίζειν=‘to hold this language’ (with J. and C.): for φωνῇ νομίζειν, φωνὴν νομίζειν and the like have a somewhat different meaning. See StephanusHase Thes. s. v. νομίζειν.

ὅτι ‐‐ ὡς . ὡς can hardly be exclamatory, as J. and C. suppose. For the anacoluthon cf. Hdt. III 71 ad fin. ἴστε ὑμῖν ὅτι, ἢν ὑπερπέσῃ ἡ νῦν ἡμέρη, ὡς οὐκ ἄλλος φθὰς ἐμεῦ κατήγορος ἔσται and other examples cited in Kühner Gr. Gr. II p. 886. τῇ—στάσει is not ‘that which we have acknowledged to be sedition’ (Jowett), but ‘that which, as things now are, is allowed to be sedition,’ viz. when one city is divided against itself ( διαστῇ πόλις). Plato, it will be observed, does not deny that the abuses which he condemns occasionally happened in Greek civil strife: they certainly often did. He only asserts (and the admission is interesting and important) that the public conscience of Greece condemned them. The conduct of Athens in emergencies of this kind was sometimes honourable and patriotic: see for example Grote VII p. 318, VIII pp. 69, 70.

τρόφον τε καὶ μητέρα . Cf. III 414 E. Not patriotism only, but filial love, such as Virgil felt for Italy ( Georg. II 136—176), inspires these words.

μέτριον εἶναι : sc. δοκεῖ. Plato is still describing Greek public opinion.

διανοεῖσθαι κτλ. The converse of Bias's maxim φιλεῖν ὡς μισήσοντας (D. L. I 87). ἐκείνης=‘than the other,’ viz. the γνώμη which διανοεῖται ὡς οὐ διαλλαγησομένων καὶ ἀεὶ πολεμησόντων. In view of Arist. Rhet. II 21. 1395^{a} 25, where an orator is recommended, if he wishes to seem amiable, to say οὐ δεῖ ὥσπερ φας<*>, φιλεῖν ὡς μισήσοντας, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον μισεῖν ὡς φιλήσοντας, it is tempting on a first glance to regard ἐκείνης as the maxim of Bias itself: but the other interpretation is more natural and relevant. On Bias' saying see Jebb's Appendix on Soph. Ajax 679 ff.

οὐχ Ἑλληνὶς ἔσται ; Plato speaks hopefully, as if his perfect city were but one Greek city among many— a living example to the brotherhood of Hellas. It may be admitted that the city of II—IV has not a few claims to be called Hellenic. But the ‘third city’— that of the philosopher-king—is not Hellenic, nor even, in any proper sense, an earthly city at all: it is an ideal, an ensample in the heavens — ἐν οὐρανῷ παράδειγμα τῷ βουλομένῳ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὁρῶντι ἑαυτὸν κατοικίζειν (IX 592 B). The animating spirit of V 473 B—VII is assuredly not Hellenic exclusiveness, but the enthusiasm of humanity, if by ‘humanity’ we understand (with Plato) the divine element in man, in virtue of which we are most distinctively and truly human. See on VI 501 B, IX 589 D. In a certain sense it is even true that Platonism is the “strongest protest ever raised against pre-Christian hellenism” (Krohn Pl. St. p. 33). But Plato's is no barren protest; for his city foreshadows the future while it passes judgment on the past. Cf. VI 499 C note and IX 592 B notes, with Zeller^{4} II 1. pp. 921—923 and the same author's article on Der platonische Staat in seiner Bedeutung für die Folgezeit in his Vorträge u. Abhandlungen I pp. 68—88.