οὐ χρυσίου κτλ.
Cf. VIII 547 B
φύσει ὄντε πλουσίω τὰς ψυχάς and
Phaedr. ad fin.
πλούσιον δὲ νομίζοιμι τὸν σοφόν.
πτωχοὶ κτλ.
: ‘men who are poor and an-hungered for lack of goods of their own.’ So Schneider and Bosanquet rightly explain the passage.
πεινᾶν is used almost in its original etymological sense (
πεῖνα from
πέν‐ης, πέν‐ομαι): cf.
Xen.
Cyr. VII 5. 50
and VIII 3. 39
ὦ μακάριε σὺ τά τε ἄλλα καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἐκ πένητος πλούσιος γεγένησαι· πολὺ γὰρ οἴομαί σε καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἥδιον πλουτεῖν, ὅτι πεινήσας χρημάτων πεπλούτηκας. The contrast with
πλούσιοι, and the presence of
πτωχοί, make it easy to catch the meaning. The translation ‘hunger after private advantages’ (D. and V., Jowett) is in my opinion incorrect.
τἀγαθόν
‘their good’ (Bosanquet), hardly ‘the chief good’ (Jowett). Not possessing any
ἴδια ἀγαθά in the shape of virtue, they are fain to make up for it at the expense of the State.
περιμάχητον κτλ.
For the construction cf. (with J. and C.)
Phaed. 69 B
.
τοῦ ἄρχειν
is personified and
ἰέναι ἐπ’ αὐτό should be translated ‘woo her.’ Cf. VI 489 D note
οἳ κτλ.
The copula is rarely omitted in a relative clause except in statements of proportion like
Gorg. 465 C
. An example occurs in II 370 E: see also Kühner-Blass
Gr. Gr. II 1, p. 41. We ought not to revert to the old reading
οἵπερ for
οἳ περὶ (with
q and E. S. Thompson,
Camb. Phil. Soc. Proc. XXI p. 14, who also suggests
οἵπερ περὶ), even if— which is far from clear—
ὅσπερ can, as Thompson says, dispense with the copula more easily than
ὅς .
λέγονται δή τινες κτλ.
With
εἰς θεοὺς ἀνελθεῖν cf. Plut.
de ser. num. vind. 566 A
ἔλεγε δὲ ταύτῃ τὸν Διόνυσον εἰς θεοὺς ἀνελθεῖν. If Plato's words are to be taken in their full significance, we can hardly (with J. and C.) suppose that the allusion is to Heracles, Pollux etc., for Heracles' descent to Hades was an incident which happened long before his ascent to Heaven; and Pollux's life among the gods was intermittent. Cf. Schneider in his translation p. 304 note 187. Schneider himself suggests that Plato is thinking of legends about e.g. Aesculapius' deliverance from Hades, after Zeus had smitten him (cf. III 408 C and Roscher's
Lexicon d. Mythologie I p. 620), and others have thought of Briareos and the
ἑκατόγχειροι: see
Il. I 402—405 and cf. Hes.
Theog. 617—721. Mr Walter Headlam has pointed out to me that Semele was also raised from Hades to Heaven, citing Paus. II 31. 2 and ib. 37. 5: cf. also Plut. l.c.
Διόνυσον εἰς θεοὺς ἀνελθεῖν καὶ τὴν Σεμέλην ἀνάγειν ὕστερον. These examples are certainly more to the point. It is worthy of remark that Justin Martyr in a remarkable passage of his
Apologia pro Christianis speaks of the ascent of Asclepius and others into Heaven as Pagan parallels to the Christian doctrine of the Ascension:
Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν—σταυρωθέντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα ἀνεληλυθέναι εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, οὐ παρὰ τοὺς παρ’ ὑμῖν λεγομένους υἱοὺς τῷ Διῒ καινόν τι φέρομεν. πόσους γὰρ υἱοὺς φάσκουσι τοῦ Διὸς οἱ παρ’ ὑμῖν τιμώμενοι συγγραφεῖς ἐπίστασθε, Ἑρμῆν μὲν λόγον τὸν ἑρμηνευτικὸν καὶ πάντων διδάσκαλον· Ἀσκληπιὸν δὲ καὶ θεραπευτὴν γενόμενον, κεραυνωθέντα, ἀνεληλυθέναι εἰς οὐρανόν· Διόνυσον δὲ διασπαραχθέντα κτλ. (l.c. I 21: cf. also
Dialogus cum Tryphone 69). I was once half inclined to suspect that the clause
ὥσπερ ἐξ Αἵδου —ἀνελθεῖν (although it appears in all MSS) might be an early satirical adscript by some Pagan scribe on the doctrine of our Lord's descent into Hell, and subsequent resurrection and ascent into Heaven.
τινες might well be a specific allusion (518 B note), and there is more than a suspicion of satire in
δή. But I have no longer any doubt that the text is sound.
ὀστράκου ‐‐ περιστροφή
. On the different interpretations given by the ancients of this proverb see App. VI. The proverb is derived from the game of
ὀστρακίνδα, the authorities for which are cited by Grasberger
Erziehung u. Unterricht I pp. 57—60. The players were divided into two parties, separated by a line. A shell, black on one side, and white on the other, was thrown on the ground by one of the boys, who shouted
νὺξ ἡμέρα or
νὺξ ἢ ἡμέρα, ‘Heads or Tails,’ as he threw it. According as the white or black fell uppermost, one side ran away and the other gave chase. Plato means that education is not, like the ‘spinning of a coin,’ an affair of no consequence, to be settled off-hand, and by chance, but a slow and laborious scientific process, dealing with the gravest of all possible issues. See also App. VI.
ψυχῆς περιαγωγὴ κτλ.
: ‘the turning round of a soul from a day which is as night into the true day, that is, the ascent into Being’ (not the tarrying in
γιγνόμενον, which is the
νυκτερινὴ ἡμέρα). In
νυκτερινῆς τινος ἡμέρας (for which see 520 C notes) Plato,
more suo, plays on the exclamation ‘
νὺξ ἡμέρα’: cf. IV 422 D, E notes (It may be noted that Plato's adaptation is from
νὺξ ἡμέρα rather than from
νὺξ ἢ ἡμέρα.) The words
τοῦ ὄντος—ἐπάνοδον explain the figure,
οὖσαν ‘that is’ being used as in
φορὰν οὖσαν βάθους 528 D. The daylight in which the
ἀπαίδευτος lives is darkness; the true day is the ascent of the soul out of the
ὁρατόν and
δοξαστόν into the
νοητόν: cf. 517 B
τὴν δὲ ἄνω ἀνάβασιν καὶ θέαν τῶν ἄνω τὴν εἰς τὸν νοητὸν τόπον τῆς ψυχῆς ἄνοδον τιθεὶς οὐχ ἁμαρτήσει τῆς γ’ ἐμῆς ἐλπἰδος. This and this alone is true philosophy. The phrase
τὴν τοῦ ὄντος ἐπάνοδον is copied by Alcinous from Plato (
Isag. p. 7 ed. Hermann). Cf. also Clement
Strom. V 14 p. 196 Migne
ψυχῆς περιαγωγὴ ἐκ νυκτερινῆς τινος ἡμέρας εἰς ἀληθινὴν τοῦ ὄντος (vv. ll.
ὄντος and
ὄντως ὄντος)
οὖσαν ἐπάνοδον κτλ. Other views on the text and interpretation of this passage are discussed in App. VI.
μέντοι
. For
μέντοι in questions see on I 339 B.
ἔφαμεν
. Cf. III 403 E, 416 D and VIII 543 B.
δεῖ ἄρα κτλ.
The subject of
προσέχειν is
τὸ μάθημα ὃ ζητοῦμεν: its object is
τοῦτο. With
προσέχειν ‘insuper habere’ (a rare use) cf.
προσγενέσθαι II 375 E note
ἔν γε τῷ πρόσθεν
. II 376 E ff.
τετεύτακεν
. τευτάζων· πραγματευόμενος, ἐνδιατρίβων (Tim.
Lex. S.V., where Ruhnken elaborately illustrates the word. See also Stephanus-Hase
Thes. S.V.).
τευτάζω is always, I believe, semi-contemptuous in Plato (
Phil. 56 E
.
Tim. 90 B
). Brugmann's connexion of the word with
σεύω (
Vergl. Gr. I p. 362) may not be right, but the notion that
τευτάζω is for
ταὐτάζω (L. and S.) is certainly wrong.
ὅσην κτλ.
There is (as J. and C. remind us) a sense in which
φιλοσοφία itself is
μουσική: cf. III 403 C note and VI 499 D.
ἀντίστροφος κτλ.
is best explained by III 410 C—412 A, and
κατά τε ἁρμονίαν—εὐρυθμίαν by III 400 D, E.
τοῖς λόγοις
. II 377 ff., III 392 A ff.
ἔφη
is repeated as in
Phaed. 78 A
: cf. I 348 D note and VIII 557 C,
Euthyd. 296 D
(
ἦν δ ἐγώ repeated). Here “iteratum
ἔφη—ethicam, ut ita dicam, vim habet” (Schneider). I formerly omitted the word (with Flor. T), but now believe it genuine.
ἔθη (
Π ^{2},
v and two other MSS, with Eusebius
Praep. Ev. XIV 13. 3) is unsuitable in point of sense, and also because of
ἄττα.
ἀληθινώτεροι
: not=‘more true’ but ‘true on the other hand.’ The comparative only points the contrast with
μυθώδεις: cf. Homer's well-known
γυναικῶν θηλυτεράων.
πρὸς τοιοῦτόν τι κτλ.
: ‘useful for any such purpose as you now require.’
ἀγαθόν goes with
πρός: cf. with Schneider
Xen.
Mem. IV 6. 10
<*>ῤ οὖν τοὺς μὲν ἀγαθοὺς πρὸς τὰ δεινὰ καὶ ἐπικίνδυνα ὄντας ἀνδρείους ἡγεῖ εἶναι, τοὺς δὲ κακοὺς δειλούς; The words
οἷον—ζητεῖς are equivalent to
πρὸς οἷον—ζητεῖς sc.
μάθημα ἀγαθὸν εἶναι: cf.
ἐν πόλει ᾗ=
ἐν πόλει ἐν ᾗ (520 D note), and (for
ζητεῖς with infinitive) IV 443 B. The Oxford editors connect
ἀγαθόν with
τοιοῦτον and not with
μάθημα, referring
οἷον σὺ νῦν ζητεῖς ‘probably to
μάθημα’—a highly unnatural interpretation, because it separates
οἷον from
τοιοῦτον, and leaves
πρός out in the cold.
ἄγον (
γρ Π and Eusebius l. c.) for
ἀγαθόν is an obvious but wholly unnecessary ‘emendation.’ The present passage is Plato's authoritative statement of the relation between his two curricula of education. The aim of the first is morality, and its method habituation; in the second knowledge is attained by a scientific discipline. Cf. II 376 E, VI 502 E notes
αἵ τε κτλ.
On
τε used
ἀνακολούθως see II 373 B note “Quid addere Socrates in animo habuerit, Glauconis intercipientis verba docent:
καὶ μὴν τί ἔτ) <*>λλο λείπεται μάθημα” (Schneider).
ἔδοξαν
. VI 495 D.
διάνοιαι
scarcely means the mathematical sciences here, as J. and C. suggest, but simply ‘modes of thought’: cf. VI 511 D note Plato does not, I believe, use the plural of
διάνοια in its peculiar technical sense, and in any case such a meaning is here unsuitable.
τὸ ἕν τε κτλ.
Cf.
Laws 818 C
μήτε ἓν μήτε δύο μήτε τρία μήθ’ ὅλως ἄρτια καὶ περιττὰ δυνάμενος γιγνώσκειν, μηδὲ ἀριθμεῖν τὸ παράπαν εἰδώς and [
Epin.] 977 C.
ἀριθμόν τε καὶ λογισμόν
. See on
λογιστική τε καὶ ἀριθμητική 525 A.
ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις κτλ.
Plato speaks as if he were bored to death by Palamedes' damnable iteration. Plays on the subject of Palamedes were written by all three dramatists (see the fragments of Aeschylus 180 ff., Sophocles 426 ff., Euripides 582 ff. Dindorf), and the invention of number or the like is ascribed to him by Aesch. l.c.
Soph.
Fr. 379
and Eur. l.c. Aeschylus also gives Prometheus the credit of the discovery (
P. V. 459 f.).
καίτοι κτλ.
‘Well, what d'ye think of Agamemnon for a general now?’
καίτοι (lit. ‘and yet’ sc. if this was true) is often thus used to introduce a question ‘cum quadam indignatione’ (real or, as here, feigned); for examples see Kugler
de part.
τοι
ap. Pl. p. 18.
ποῖόν τινα is derisive, as
ποῖος constantly is: see on 1330 A. D. and V.'s translation “Yet what do you think of Agamemnon as a general?” misses the
ἦθος of the original, which is correctly reproduced by Schneider and Jowett.
καὶ λογίζεσθαί τε κτλ.
καί ‘also,’ because “et aliarum rerum et arithmetices peritum imperatorem esse decet” (Schneider). Cf. VI 506 A. The word is omitted by
Π ^{1}
q
Ξ and some other MSS.
καί may of course be spurious, but it was not likely to have been added by a scribe, and the balance of MS evidence is in its favour. The other variants (
ἤ and
ἢ τό and
μᾶλλον ἤ in place of
καί) are corruptions due to the erroneous idea that
ἄλλο τι is ‘any other’ and not ‘nonne.’
μᾶλλον δὲ κτλ.
μᾶλλον δέ is ‘vel potius,’ as usual.
ἄνθρωπος=‘human being,’ not ‘anything of a man’ (D. and V.), which suggests an entirely wrong idea. We may compare the Latin use of
homo, for example in Cic.
ad Quint. II 11. 5 “sed cum veneris, virum te putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris:
hominem non putabo.” For the sense cf.
Laws 819 D, where the Greek ignorance of arithmetic appears to Plato
ούκ <*>νθρώπινον ἀλλὰ ὑηνῶν τινῶν εἶναι μᾶλλον θρεμμάτων. The knowledge of number is one of the characteristic differences between man and the lower animals: see
Tim. 39 B
and [
Epin.] 978 C.
