Plato Republic 8.551

φιλοχρηματισταὶ κτλ. Although Aristotle ( Pol. Ε 12. 1316^{a} 39 ff.) pronounces it ἄτοπον to think that oligarchy arises ὅτι φιλοχρήματοι καὶ χρηματισταὶ οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς, there is no doubt that the special oligarchy which Plato probably has in view, viz. Sparta in the fourth century B.C., became to all intents and purposes an oligarchy chiefly from this cause, as in fact Aristotle himself recognises ib. 7. 1307^{a} 34 ff.: cf. also Β 9. 1270^{a} 14 ff. It should also be remembered that Plato's selection of the αἰτία τῆς φθορᾶς is primarily determined by his psychological standpoint: see on 543 A.

ἐγένοντο . See 548 D note

νόμον τίθενται κτλ. In Sparta, apparently, matters never went so far as this, although those who were unable to make the statutory contribution to the public mess forfeited their citizenship, according to the laws of Lycurgus, and later abuses swelled the ranks of the ὑπομείονες from this cause: see Arist. Pol. Β 9. 1271^{a} 34 and Hermann-Thumser l.c. pp. 258— 260 notes ‘The minimum amount of property qualifying for privilege in an oligarchy’ was of course different in different oligarchical States: cf. Whibley Gk Olig. p. 22.

οὗ μὲν μᾶλλον κτλ. See again Whibley l.c. pp. 126—132. As an example of a moderate oligarchy (in the Platonic sense) we may take the Solonian constitution, which was, broadly speaking, the ideal of the moderate oligarchs at Athens towards the end of the fifth century (Beloch Att. Pol. p. 74: cf. Thuc. VIII 97. 2), and is commended by Plato in Laws 698 B ff.

ἢ βίᾳ κτλ. “To an Athenian, as to ourselves, this would naturally suggest a revolution against a democratic system such as took place at the establishment of the Four Hundred in 411 B.C., or of the Thirty in 404 B.C., and constantly throughout Greece during the Peloponnesian war” (Bosanquet). The remark applies with equal force to πρὸ τούτου φοβήσαντες (cf. Thuc. VIII 66. 2), and it can scarcely be doubted that the familiar struggles of oligarchy against democracy in his own as well as other times supplied Plato with this detail of the picture. But the employment of force would be equally necessary in order to transform a timarchy into an oligarchy, owing to the opposition to be apprehended from the impoverished and relatively poorer sections of the timarchs, who would under an oligarchy be formally and for ever excluded from office. The conspiracy of Cinadon partly illustrates Plato's point; for it was supported by ὑπομείονες, and suppressed by force ( Xen. Hell. III 3. 4 —11 with Grote IX pp. 70 ff.). Krohn ( Pl. St. p. 211) asserts that Plato has already forgotten 545 C, D, where constitutional change was said to originate from στάσις in the ruling class. But the struggle between those timarchs who have, and those who have not, the proposed τίμημα, is in reality στάσις between the rulers, for until timarchy is abrogated by law, the poor, if otherwise qualified, are de iure rulers as well as the rich. In Sparta it would be otherwise, because those who failed to pay their contributions to the ξυσσίτια ceased ipso facto to be rulers; only Plato's timarchy is not in this particular a copy of Sparta, but rather resembles Crete (547 D, 551 A notes). See also on 545 C.

κατεστήσαντο κτλ. For the aorist cf. 548 D note ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν is illustrated on I 341 B. ἔφαμεν refers to 544 C.

πρῶτον μέν : sc. ἁμάρτημά ( ἐστιν ).

ὅρος ‐‐ ἐστιν : ‘terminus eius qualis sit.’ ὅρος is the limit or defining mark which separates it from all the other πολιτεῖαι: cf. I 331 D. Few will approve of Badham's conjecture τοῦτο αὐτὸ ὁρᾷς αὐτῆς οἷόν ἐστιν, especially as ὅρος echoes ὅρον in 551 A. οἷός ἐστιν, ἄθρει· εἰ γὰρ νεῶν κτλ. (Liebhold) is scarcely less unhappy. The text is above suspicion.

εἰ νεῶν κτλ. The illustration is a favourite one both with Socrates and Plato: cf. Xen. Mem. III 9. 11 and supra VI 488 A ff. notes There is probably no aposiopesis after ἐπιτρέποι: we should translate ‘Just consider if one were to choose pilots on the census principle and refuse to let a poor man steer though better qualified!’

πονηρὰν κτλ. “Adimantus quasi non videre, sed quid videat renuntiare iussus, πονηράν, inquit, τὴν ναυτιλίαν αὐτοὺς ναυτίλλεσθαι sc. ὁρῶ” (Schneider). Cf. VII 535 C note This explanation is, I think, easier than that of Stallbaum, who prints ἄθρει γάρ· εἰ νεῶν κτλ., understand ing (after ἐπιτρέποι) τί λέγοις ἂν περὶ τούτου; or the like, and λέγοιμι ἄν to govern the accusative with infinitive. J. and C.'s solution is in principle the same as Stallbaum's. The text may be corrupt, but no convincing emendation has hitherto been offered. The different proposals are εἰκός (Ast, Richards) and ἂν εἴη δέος (Liebhold) for ἦ δ’ ὅς: < φαίην ἂν> added after ἦ δ’ ὅς (Stephanus): πονηρὰ εἴη ἂν ναυτιλία αὐτοῖς ναυτίλλεσθαι (Ast): πονηρὰν <ἀνάγκη> κτλ. Richards—but it would surely be better to add the word after ναυτιλίαν. I have sometimes fancied that Plato wrote πονηράν, ἦ δ’ ὅς, τὴν ναυτιλίαν αὐτοῖς ναυτίλλεσθαι, taking the accusative as in apposition to the previous sentence (cf. in some respects Hipp. Mai. 291 E and infra 567 C); but, for a reason to be mentioned presently on 551 D, perhaps ναυτιλίαν <ἀνάγκη> is right.

περὶ ἄλλου κτλ. See cr. n. ἤ τινος is retained by Schneider, who takes it as neuter, and ὁτουοῦν as masculine. The words can hardly be anything except a gloss or variant on ὁτουοῦν: the corrections ἥστινος or ἡστινοσοῦν (Ast) are much less easy and probable. περὶ governs ἀρχῆς, on which ἄλλου ὁτουοῦν, which is neuter, depends. Cobet's περὶ ἄλλης οὕτως ὁτουοῦν ἀρχῆς (‘about any other ἀρχή whatsoever’) does not suit with πλὴν πόλεως (i.e. ἄλλου—not ἄλλης —ὁτουοῦν πλὴν πόλεως).

μὴ μίαν κτλ. Aristotle ( Pol. Ε 12. 1316^{b} 6 ff.) urges that this is equally true of all States where inequality of property prevails: but Plato would not allow that it is true of his ideal city, or even of timarchy except in so far as timarchy is itself oligarchical (548 A).

ἀνάγκῃ . See cr. n. The word could be dispensed with here, and, as all those MSS which are in the habit of writing the iota subscript at all regularly appear to have the nominative and not the dative, it is possible, and even perhaps probable, that this is the ἀνάγκη which Richards desiderated in 551 C: see note ad loc.

τὸ ἀδυνάτους κτλ. The sense of course is ‘to be—probably—unable’ i.e. ‘that they are in all probability unable.’ Richard says ἴσως is ‘feeble’: to me it seems exactly the right word in the right place. The conjectures σῶς (Badham) and ἰσχυρῶς (Richards) are each of them for different reasons very unpleasing, and even if the passage were corrupt ἰσχυρῶς is far too violent a change to deserve consideration.

χρωμένους κτλ. In illustration the Oxford editors cite Thuc. III 27. The Spartans in particular had regularly to arm and employ the πλῆθος, both Perioeci and Helots, in their wars (see e.g. Thuc. VII 19. 3), and were consequently sometimes exposed to grave dangers (Thuc. IV 80).

ὡς ἀληθῶς ὀλιγαρχικούς : ‘literally olig-archical or masters of few’ ( Herren von wenigen, Schneider). Cf. ὀλιγαρχικῶς 555 A note and (for ὡς ἀληθῶς) VI 511 B note Jowett's translation “few to fight as they are few to rule” does not bring out the peculiar force of ὀλιγαρχικούς here.

φιλοχρημάτους : with emphasis on φιλο‐ (Schneider, who compares 568 B for ἅτε without the copula). The sentiment is illustrated by Bosanquet from Arist. Pol. B 9. 1271^{b} 13 εἰσφέρουσί τε κακῶς (of the Spartans): cf. also infra 554 E f. and Theophr. Char. 26, where the ὀλιγαρχικός cries πότε παυσόμεθα ὑπὸ λειτουργιῶν καὶ τριηραρχιῶν ἀπολλύμενοι; and more in Hermann-Thumser l. c. p. 685 note 1.

πάλαι . IV 434 A ff.