Plato Republic 6.495

ἐλέγομεν . 491 B ff.

εἰς should be taken with ὄλεθρος and διαφθορά, as Schneider points out. They are spoiled ‘with reference to’ or ‘for’ the best of all vocations. Jowett wrongly connects εἰς with βελτίστης.

φαμέν . 491 A, B.

ἐκ τούτων κτλ. Corruptio optimi pessima.

οἱ ‐‐ ἐργαζόμενοι was true of Alcibiades: see Grote VIII p. 116 and Lysias In Alc. I 16, 30, 35 ff. Isocrates' attempt in his περὶ ζεύγους to make out that Alcibiades was a benefactor to his city is a futile and fantastic performance.

ῥυέντες κτλ. With the metaphor cf. 485 D. For σμικρὰ—δρᾷ see 419 E note

προσήκει : sc. φιλοσοφία: “nam philosophia cum virgine ἐπικλήρῳ comparatur, qualem in matrimonium ducere proximis cognatis aut permissum aut iniunctum fuit” (Stallbaum). See Meier u. Schömann Att. Proc. pp. 614—617.

ἀτελῆ κτλ. ἀτελῆ is said with reference to the rites of marriage: cf. Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. IV 45 ἐπ’ ἀτελεῖ γάμῳ and Soph. Ant. 1240 f. τὰ νυμφικὰ | τέλη λαχὼν δείλαιος ἔν γ’ Ἅιδου δόμοις. With τε followed by δέ cf. X 611 D and other examples quoted by Hoefer de part. Pl. p. 16.

ἀληθῆ is like ἀληθῶς ζῴη in 490 B, a passage where the same kind of imagery is employed.

ᾔσχυνάν τε κτλ. Is the aorist gnomic or past? It is usually taken as gnomic, but Plato may be thinking of his own times, in which Philosophy had come to shame, because the unworthy had defiled her.

σὺ φῄς . Cf. 489 D and 487 C, D.

ἐκ τῶν τεχνῶν κτλ. It has been supposed that Plato has in view Antisthenes and the Cynic Diogenes, the latter of whom apparently started life as a moneychanger (D. L. VI 20). But the description which follows applies to sophists and sophistical rhetoricians rather than to the Cynic philosophers. The poet Gray says “this seems to be aimed at Protagoras, who was an ordinary countryman and a woodcutter” (see Gellius Noct. Att. V 3 and other authorities cited by Frei Quaest. Prot. pp. 6 ff.). Hermann ( Gesch. u. Syst. p.628) cites Euthydemus and Dionysodorus as cases in point (cf. 496 A note). Each of these sophists had formerly taught the art of fighting in full armour ( Euthyd. 271 C — 272 B, 273 E). As speech-writing and rhetoric generally were counted among the arts, we may think also of Isocrates, who loved above everything to call himself a φιλόσοφος ( Antid. 271 ff.). But although these and other examples may be quoted in illustration of what Plato here says, the tone of the whole passage shews that Plato is describing a familiar phenomenon of his own times, when clever and ambitious young men were in the habit of forsaking their handicrafts and devoting themselves to ‘culture.’ Cf. Prot. 318 E τὰς γὰρ τέχνας αὐτοὺς πεφευγότας ἄκοντας πάλιν αὖ ἄγοντες ἐμβάλλουσιν εἰς τέχνας (sc. Hippias etc.), λογισμούς τε καὶ ἀστρονομίαν καὶ γεωμετρίαν καὶ μουσικὴν διδάσκοντες, and my article in Cl. Rev. XV p. 220.

ἐφιέμενοι κτλ. is an anacoluthon. The natural flow of the sentence is interrupted by the question ἢ οὐκ ἀνάγκη; which is intended to obtain Adeimantus' assent to τὰς ψυχὰς—τυγχάνουσιν. On resuming, Plato interposes a comparison, and to this the general idea which forms the logical predicate to πολλοί is accommodated in ποἶ ἄττα—φαῦλα. The sentence was thus understood by the editor of q; for τυγχάνουσιν, which seems a difficulty on this theory, is in q τυγχάνοντες. But τυγχάνοντες would be extremely inelegant; and Plato writes τυγχάνουσιν to correspond to λελώβηνται. Even in other cases a finite verb sometimes replaces a participle in the second of two contrasted clauses, e.g. Ap. 21 E . J. and C. explain the passage in nearly the same way, as well as (apparently) Schneider and Stallbaum. It is impossible for many reasons to connect τυγχάνουσιν with ἐφιέμενοι and so escape the anacoluthon. I formerly suspected the text, and proposed <ἀπο> τυγχάνουσιν (‘miss the mark,’ i.e. fail to win the distinction which they covet). Another solution might be to place the troublesome τυγχάνουσιν after πολλοί. But neither change is in any degree probable; and it is better to acquiesce in the reading of the MSS. Plato's anacolutha are a device for imparting life and reality to his dialogues. A careful translation should preserve them all.

ἀποτεθρυμμένοι : lit. ‘broken off’ i.e. ‘truncated,’ ‘maimed.’ The word is rare, and apparently used only here by Plato. Schneider thus explains the preposition: “quorum animis quasi arboribus cacumina defracta et vires ad enitendum necessariae debilitatae sunt.” A comparison of Theaet. 173 A πολλὰ κάμπτονται καὶ συγκλῶνται and Prot. 325 D ὥσπερ ξυλον διαστρεφόμενον καὶ καμπτόμενον εὐθύνουσιν ἀπειλαῖς καὶ πληγαῖς makes it not unlikely that the metaphor is as Schneider supposes. On the vox nihili ἀποτεθρυωμένοι (in the margin of Flor. A) see Ruhnken on Timaeus Lex. s.v. Timaeus seems to have found it in his text of the Republic.

διὰ τὰς βαναυσίας . Cf. Xen. Oec. 4. 2 αἵ γε βαναυσικαὶ καλούμεναι (sc. τέχναι)— καταλυμαίνονται—τὰ σώματα τῶν τε ἐργαζομένων καὶ τῶν ἐπιμελομένων, ἀναγκάζουσαι καθῆσθαι καὶ σκιατραφεῖσθαι, ἔνιαι δὲ καὶ πρὸς πῦρ ἡμερεύειν. τῶν δὲ σωμάτων θηλυνομένων καὶ αἱ ψυχαὶ πολὺ ἀρρωστότεραι γίγνονται. It is probable that βαναυσία was “primarily a military conception, dependent for its origin on the obvious fact that certain modes of life and the exercise of certain trades disqualify from prowess in the field” (Greenidge Gk. Const. History p. 22, quoting in support Hdt. II 165—167). “Sedentary and within-door arts,” says Bacon (quoted by Newman Politics of Aristotle I p. 105), “have in their nature a contrariety to a military disposition.” In practice the term is freely applied by the writers of the best period to every kind of mechanical or illiberal labour or pursuit. Aristotle defines βαναυσία in these words: βάναυσον δ’ ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ τοῦτο νομίζειν καὶ τέχνην ταύτην καὶ μάθησιν, ὅσαι πρὸς τὰς χρήσεις καὶ τὰς πράξεις τὰς τῆς ἀρετῆς ἄχρηστον ἀπεργάζονται τὸ σῶμα τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τὴν ψυχὴν ἢ τὴν διάνοιαν ( Pol. Θ 2. 1337^{b} 8 ff.). See also Whibley Gk. Olig. pp. 42 ff. and Newman l.c. pp. 104—115. The ancients mostly derived the word from βαῦνος ‘a furnace’ and αὔω, “quasi βάναυσος qui caminum accendit” (Stephanus-Hase Thes. s. v.). In view of the Boeotian βανά= γυνή and βανῆκας· γυναῖκας Βοιωτοί in Hesychius, I have conjectured in Cl. Rev. VII p. 112 that βάναυσος, which does not look like an Attic word, may be connected with βανά. If so, the word perhaps originally meant ‘effeminate’ ‘unmanly’: cf. θηλυνομένων in the extract quoted from Xenophon. In any case, however, the ancient etymology can hardly be right.

δοκεῖς οὖν τι κτλ. In the ‘little bald tinker’ several critics have recognised Isocrates: see for example Teichmüller Lit. Fehd. I p. 105 and Jackson's article on the Sophists in the Enc. Brit. ἐκ δεσμῶν λελυμένου—ἐν βαλανείῳ δὲ λελουμένου is an admirable example of rhetorical παρομοίωσις, and satirises the tricks of style for which Isocrates was notorious. But all the sophistical rhetoricians of the school of Gorgias affected meretricious ornaments of this kind (see Hug on Symp. 194 E ff. and especially Cope's Rhetoric of Aristotle III pp. 105, 106), and Plato's shafts are not levelled at Isocrates alone. As usual, he individualises the type, and if the resultant picture resembles Isocrates, so much the worse for him. Plato would not be sorry (cf. Euthyd. 305 ff., with Spengel's Isokr. u. Pl. pp. 36—40), and doubtless intended his readers to think of Isocrates, as they certainly would. See also on 498 E.

ἀργύριον κτλ. Cf. Cratin. Seriph. 2 Meineke ἀνδρῶν νεοπλουτοπονήρων | αἰσχρῶν .

φαλακροῦ καὶ σμικροῦ . Was Isocrates bald and short? The bust of him in the Villa Albani is not bald, and it would be pressing the personality to the verge of absurdity to take these words so seriously. The poverty ( πενίαν etc.) and loneliness is of course the daughter's (cf. 495 C ἔρημον καὶ ἀτελῆ φιλοσοφίαν λείποντες), not her father's, as D. and V. suppose. In other words τοῦ δεσπότου belongs only to τὴν θυγατέρα.

διαφέρει . See on 484 D. Herwerden ejects the word, quite needlessly, as usual.

ποἶ ἄττα ‐‐ δόξας . Cf. Symp. 210 D πολλοὺς καὶ καλοὺς λόγους καὶ μεγαλοπρεπεῖς τίκτῃ καὶ διανοήματα ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ἀφθόνῳ. τίκτειν or γεννᾶν ἐν is the usual expression for begetting on or out of: cf. τόκος ἐν καλῷ Symp. 206 B .

προσήκοντα κτλ. : ‘deserving to be called sophisms.’ The fallacies in the Euthydemus are cases in point : cf. 495 D note With φρονήσεως ἀληθινῆς ἐχόμενον cf. Euthyd. 306 D . ἄξιον, which occurs in A after φρονήσεως, is probably, as Cobet supposed, a marginal note directing attention to this vigorous and highly elaborated passage: cf. 504 E note and see the curious description by Diogenes Laertius (III 65 f.) of the different σημεῖα by which it was customary to draw attention to noteworthy or difficult places in the text of Plato. Schneider and Jowett can hardly be right in retaining the word. Stephanus' conjecture οὐδὲ ἄξιον οὐδὲ φρονήσεως ἀληθινῆς is awkward and not likely to be correct. Campbell neatly conjectures ἀξίως, but Cobet's solution, which Ast foreshadowed, is more probable.

ὑπὸ φυγῆς καταληφθέν : ‘arrested by exile,’ so as not ἐκπεσεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ἐπιτηδεύματος (495 A): cf. κατασχεῖν below. Stallbaum's explanation ‘overtaken by exile,’ which D. and V. apparently accept, is in my judgment wrong. The reading καταλειφθέν ( q and several other MSS, followed by Ast and one or two other scholars) is less expressive and picturesque, though it gives a fair sense if interpreted as καταλειφθὲν τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ. Van Heusde's conjecture ἀπὸ φυγῆς καταλειφθέν would (as Schneider observes) mean ‘those who survived after exile’ and is wholly inadmissible, as well as ἀπὸ φυγῆς καταληφθέν (‘debarred from exile’), which Herwerden proposes, inserting also ἤ after ἦθος. Has Plato any special instances in view? Steinhart ( Einleitung p. 208) thinks of Anaxagoras, and even of Plato himself. But it cannot be said that either of them was saved by exile from deserting Philosophy, and Plato was hardly exiled, even metaphorically speaking. Krohn ( Pl. St. pp. 117, 384) declares for Xenophon. It is however more than doubtful, even after Boeckh's attempt to overthrow the tradition about unfriendliness between Xenophon and Plato ( De simultate quam Pl. c. Xen. exercuisse fertur 1811), whether Plato would have gone out of his way to pay a compliment to his fellow-disciple. Can Plato be thinking of his friend Dio? If so, this passage must have been written in or after 367 B.C., the year of Dio's banishment from Syracuse. A personal reference is easily combined with the description of a class, and a tribute to Dio would be very pleasing here. I have lately found the same conjecture in Thomas Gray's notes on the Republic. See also Introd. § 4 and (for Plato's connexion with Dio) Grote X pp. 332 ff. See also 499 B note

ὅταν κτλ. There is no reason to suppose (with e.g. Steinhart Einleitung p. 208) that Plato means Euclides of Megara. Heraclitus is a good instance, although Ephesus was hardly a σμικρὰ πόλις .

βραχὺ δέ πού τι κτλ. Some have thought of Phaedo of Elis, and Simon the Athenian, both of whom were members of the Socratic circle (Steinhart l.c. p. 208). The latter (whose very existence has been denied by some recent critics, but—as Hirzel Der Dialog pp. 102 ff. shews—on wholly inadequate grounds) was once a shoemaker (D. L. II 122). We may also in some respects compare the architect-philosopher Hippodamus of Miletus: see Susemihl and Hicks' Politics of Aristotle I pp. 331—334. Zeller^{4} II 1, p. 52 note 1 thinks Plato may have had Socrates himself in view, but the δαιμόνιον σημεῖον accounts for him.

Θεάγους . Cf. Ap. 33 E , where it is implied that Theages died before Socrates. The tribute which Plato pays to his memory is all the more touching because Greek literature too seldom recognises that physical weakness may be combined with mental and moral strength: see III 406 C note Plutarch ( de tuenda san. praecepta 126 C, quoted by Stallbaum) remarks καὶ γὰρ φιλοσοφεῖν ἀρρωστίαι πολλοὺς παρέχουσι—a reminiscence, perhaps, of Plato.

τὸ δαιμόνιον σημεῖον . Socrates regarded his divine sign as a special if not unique revelation from God, without submitting it to further analysis. As here, so in Ap. 31 D , it is this which forbids him to enter on political life ( τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ὅ μοι ἐναντιοῦται τὰ πολιτικὰ πράττειν). What the phenomenon really was, is a question which different writers have answered differently, according to their different points of view: see Zeller^{4} II 1 pp. 75—91. The subject is treated with great fulness in Ribbing's Socrat. Stud. II pp. 1 ff. and in Riddell's edition of the Apology pp. 109—117. τῶν ἔμπροσθεν γέγονε does not deny that such a sign may be vouchsafed to others in the future. Schneider conjectures that Plato added this limitation with a view to himself—an unlikely supposition, although no doubt the present passage is in some measure intended as a defence of Plato's abstention from political life: cf. 496 D note

ἢ γάρ που κτλ. Cobet and Herwerden reject ἄλλῳ, because ἤ τις ἢ οὐδείς is the regular phrase: cf. Ap. 17 B and Hdt. III 140. But the separation of ἤ from τινι makes ἄλλῳ desirable to help out the meaning of τινι, and to ἄλλῳ in itself there cannot possibly be any objection.

τούτων ‐‐ γενόμενοι : ‘those who have become members of this small band.’ J. and C. quote an exact parallel from Thuc. III 56. 6 ὧν ἡμεῖς γενόμενοι: cf. also supra II 360 A, Phaed. 69 D , Parm. 127 D ( τὸν τῶν τριάκοντα γενόμενον) and Laws 754 D. γευόμενοι is found in some inferior MSS, and was accepted till Schneider, who restored the true reading. Liebhold absurdly conjectures ἑλόμενοι .

ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν . See on I 341 B.

τῷ δικαίῳ was restored by Schneider instead of τῶν δικαίων, on the sole authority of Vind. F. It has since been found that τῷ δικαίῳ is actually the reading of A. ἡ τῶν δικαίων βοήθεια would mean something quite different, as Schneider shews; viz. “auxilium vel a iustis vel rebus in iustis, vel contra iustos seu iusta latum vel ferendum.” With the general sentiment cf. Ap. 31 E —32 A, a passage which proves —if proof were needed—that Liebhold's extraordinary proposal to read σπουδάζοι for σῴζοιτο is untenable.

εἰς θηρία ἄνθρωπος κτλ. Herwerden would read ἀνθρώπους ‘among men who are as beasts.’ But the point is that the philosopher in existing commonwealths is like a lonely human being in the midst of wild beasts. Cf. Timon of Athens IV 3 “The commonwealth of Athens is become a forest of beasts.” The comparison may have been suggested to Plato by Pherecrates' Ἄγριοι, to which he alludes in Prot. 327 D . In Pherecrates' play the Ἄγριοι were savages, to whom apparently some Athenians betook themselves, in the hope of finding more happiness than they enjoyed in Athens: see Kock's Com. Graec. Fr. I pp. 146—150. Plato points out that there are savages enough at home. In πᾶσιν ἀγρίοις the emphasis is on πᾶσιν: we should translate ‘to hold out alone where all are savages.’ Cf. ὑπὸ πάντων πολεμίων IX 579 B. Herwerden weakens the effect by adding οὖσιν after ἀγρίοις.

λαβών : singular, in spite of γενόμενοι in 496 C. Cf. I 347 A note

οἷον ἐν χειμῶνι κτλ. Jowett construes χειμῶνι with κονιορτοῦ; but χειμὼν κονιορτοῦ for ‘a storm of dust’ is scarcely a Greek idiom. κονιορτοῦ—φερομένου is of course a descriptive genitive absolute. In this way Schneider also took the passage. ζάλη is ‘tempestuous rain’ μετὰ ὄμβρου πνοή, as Hesychius explains. χαλάζης was once conjectured by Ast, but he afterwards rightly withdrew the suggestion. Herwerden proposes οἷον ἐν ζάλῃ κονιορτοῦ ὑπὸ κτλ., and Richards ἐν χειμῶνι καὶ κονιορτοῦ ζάλῃ (or ζάλῃ κονιορτοῦ). Neither proposal is supported by any of the ancient citations, except that of Themistius ( Or. VIII p. 104 C) whose reproduction of this passage is in other respects, as in this, extremely inaccurate: see Schneider's note. And ζάλη κονιορτοῦ is, to say the least, a questionable phrase. It is not well to mar the wonderful force and beauty of writing such as this by tasteless and inept conjectures. The passage has often been compared with Lucretius' “Suave mari magno,” but the difference is greater than the resemblance. The Platonic philosopher is content ( ἀγαπᾷ), if he can keep his own soul pure, because he cannot, as things now are, save both himself and others. But it is no pleasure for him to see “quibus ipse malis careat,” for he would fain help others if they would but let him. That they will not is a misfortune, not for others only, but for him ( αὐτός τε μᾶλλον αὐξήσεται κτλ.). We seem to catch in Plato's words a certain tone of sorrow, as if he had not himself attained the highest of which he was capable, because he could not find a philosophic city in which to dwell: see Morgenstern De Plat. rep. p. 161, where reference is made to Ap. 31 E and to the Platonic Epistles V 322 A, B, VII 324 B—326 B, 330 C—331 D: cf. also Gorg. 515 A — 522 E, and Susemihl Gen. Entw. II p. 190.