θεοῦ μοῖραν
is best explained by
Men. 94 B
ff. and 99 C, D. Distinguished statesmen like Pericles, Themistocles etc. are
θεῖοι, just as much as the
χρησμῳδοί, μάντεις, and
ποιητικοί: they are
ἐπίπνοι—καὶ κατεχόμενοι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅταν κατορθῶσι λέγοντες πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα πράγματα (99 D). Education did not produce them, nor have they any scientific knowledge of statesmanship; for which reason also they cannot teach their sons to be statesmen (
Men. 94 B
,
Prot. 320 A
). It was by this theory that Plato accounted for the fact that good men appear from time to time even in corrupt States:
εἰσὶ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἄνθρωποι ἀεὶ θεῖοί τινες, οὐ πολλοὶ—φυόμενοι οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἐν εὐνομουμέναις πόλεσιν ἢ καὶ μή (
Laws 951 B). There is more than a touch of irony in the epithet
θεῖος when Plato applies it to Themistocles, Pericles and other successful politicians with whom he had little sympathy, but
θεοῦ μοῖραν is not ironical here (cf. 492 A), nor is Plato ever otherwise than grateful for the birth of statesmen who are truly
θεῖοι. But they do not solve the difficulty, for the scientific knowledge of
πολιτική is not only better and more stable in itself, but guarantees the permanent prosperity of a State, because it can be transmitted to posterity. Nor can we be sure that our statesmen ‘by grace of God’ will appear when they are most wanted. For a full discussion of
θεία μοῖρα in Plato see Zeller^{4} II 1, p. 594 note 4.
ἕκαστος
: sc.
δοξάτω. Cf. I 334 B note and
Phaed. 80 A
, B, where
ψυχή, the reading of the best MSS, should be retained. Baiter is certainly wrong in reading
ἕκαστον (with Stephanus and
v): for with personal subjects
δοκεῖ is used personally. Dümmler (
Chr. Beitr. p. 12) and Teichmüller (
Lit. Fehd. I p. 104) suppose that Plato means Isocrates in particular. It is possible enough that he had Isocrates in his mind, but the description applies to many besides him: cf. IV 426 C note
δοξάζουσιν
= ‘opine’ is technical: cf. V 479 E. With
θρέμματος etc. cf. “The beast with many heads Butts me away” Shakespeare
Coriol. IV 1; and a similar figure in Solon ap. Arist.
Ath. Pol. 12 ad fin. and
Theaet. 174 D
.
ἑκάστας
. See cr. n. Van Prinsterer's emendation is now universally accepted.
οἵας αὖ κτλ.
The party-cry.
καλέσειεν
(though
κατεμάνθανεν) is written because of
καταμαθὼν δέ, after which
ἐκάλει would be less suitable. The situation is now treated as a possible one, after the picture has once been allowed.
ὡς τέχνην συστησάμενος
. Cf. the Stoic definition of
τέχνη as a
σύστημα ἐκ καταλήψεων κτλ. (Zeno
Fr. 12 Pearson).
ὀνομάζοι κτλ.
: ‘employs all these terms in accordance with’ (literally ‘in dependence on’) ‘the opinions of the mighty Beast.’ This interpretation is better than to suppose with Stallbaum that Plato means ‘applies all these names to the opinions’ etc., though
ὀνομάζειν τι ἐπί τινι is idiomatically used in that way.
τἀναγκαῖα ‐‐ καλοῖ
. τἀναγκαῖα does not mean “the physical necessities and exigencies of the great beast's nature” (J. and C.), but simply ‘the inevitable.’ Whatever happens, a public teacher or Sophist must conform to the opinions of the Beast (492 D). In what follows there is a hint of the profound philosophical view that the Works of Necessity are evil (cf.
Tim. 29 E
, 47 E ff.), and that Moral Freedom consists in following what is good. See on X 617 E.
δοκεῖ
. Ast would read
δοκοῖ, but
ἄν of course goes with
εἶναι: cf. IV 422 B. See for this idiom my note on
Prot. 351 B
and Blaydes on
Ar.
Wasps 1405
.
ὁ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν κτλ.
Jackson thinks of Isocrates again (
Proceedings of the Camb. Philol. Soc. II 1882 p. 13). See above on 493 A.
ὅτι μὲν γὰρ κτλ.
An anacoluthon. The apodosis which requires to be supplied is ‘that much is certain’ or the like: cf. V 465 A note I formerly thought the anacoluthon too harsh, and proposed to read
ὅ τι μὲν γὰρ ἄν—ἐπιδεικνύμενος, ἢ κτλ., taking
ὅ τι as the object of
ἐπιδεικνύμενος, and
ἢ ποίησιν (‘either poetry’ etc.) as in apposition to
ὅ τι: but the text is better as it stands. Richards' proposal to read
ἔστι for
ὅτι is very unpleasing.
ποίησιν
. Compare a striking passage in
Laws 659 B, C, where Poetry is said to have deteriorated after she accepted
οἱ πολλοί as her judge. See also
Laws 700 E, 797 B,
Gorg. 502 B
ff. and infra X 605 A.
κυρίους αὑτοῦ
. We should certainly (with Schneider and the majority of editors) read
αὑτοῦ and not
αὐτοῦ (which Stallbaum and others adopt, referring it to
ποίησιν etc.). The MSS (except
q) mostly read
αὐτοῦ, but their authority in this matter is of no account. Cobet would read
αὐτούς and eject
τοὺς πολλούς—on what ground, it is difficult even to conjecture.
πέρα τῶν ἀναγκαίων
. By coming forward in a public capacity as a poet or statesman or the like, he ‘makes the Many his masters more than is necessary.’ In a private station, he is, comparatively speaking, independent; but even then the Many are (in a certain sense) of necessity his masters: see 496 D. Ast and Stallbaum take the phrase with
ἡ Διομήδεια ἀνάγκη. “Iungenda sunt verba sic:
ἀνάγκη (
ἐστὶν )
αὐτῷ πέρα τῶν ἀναγκαίων (ultra necessaria quae progrediatur)
ἡ Διομήδεια λεγομένη, ut vocabulis
ἡ λεγομένη Διομήδεια istud
πέρα ἀναγκαίων declaretur” (Stallbaum). If this is what Plato meant, he expresses it in a harsh and dangerously ambiguous way, and it would be preferable to cancel
πέρα τῶν ἀναγκαίων (with Cobet and Herwerden). But there is fortunately no occasion for such drastic treatment.
ἡ Διομήδεια κτλ.
Most of the MSS write
Διομηδεία (sic), but
Διομήδειά γε at the end of a line in
Ar.
Eccl. 1029
makes it clear that the word is proparoxyton, unless, as Schneider supposes (
Addit. p. 47), Aristophanes shortens the final syllable by poetic license. The proverb, which is used of an overmastering necessity, is illustrated by Leutsch u. Schneidewin
Paroem. Gr. I p. 59, II p. 367, and also by Blaydes on Ar. l.c. Two explanations of it were given. According to the first, which is adopted by the Scholiast on this passage, the phrase originated in the treatment meted out by Diomede to Odysseus, when they were returning from Ilium to the Greek camp after stealing the Palladium. Odysseus attempted to kill Diomede, but failed, and Diomede paid him out by tying his arms together and driving him home with blows from the flat of his sword. The Scholiast on Ar. l.c. explains differently.
Διομήδεια:
ὅτι Διομήδης ὁ Θρᾴξ, πόρνας ἔχων θυγατέρας, τοὺς παριόντας ξένους ἐβιάζετο αὐταῖς συνεῖναι ἕως οὗ κόρον σχῶσι καὶ ἀναλωθῶσιν οἱ ἄνδρες. ἃς καὶ ὁ μῦθος ἵππους ἀνθρωποφάγους εἶπεν. I agree with Schneider that the proverb is more likely to have originated from the first story than from a euhemeristic explanation of the man-eating mares of Diomede of Thrace.
αὐτῶν
. The
μισθαρνοῦντες ἰδιῶται, not ‘the Many.’ Plato is probably thinking of actual eulogies of the Athenians by Isocrates and others like him.
ἀναμνήσθητι
. See V 475 E.
