τῆς ‐‐ σχηματίζονται
: ‘circumstance and pomp of majesty, which they put on to the world outside.’ Cf.
προστήσασθαι X 599 A note and (with Schneider) II 365 C
πρόθυρα μὲν καὶ σχῆμα — περιγραπτέον. τῶν τυραννικῶν seems to be usually taken as masculine, in which case it might have been omitted without any loss to the meaning. I think it is the genitive of
τὰ τυραννικά: cf. B below
ἐν οἷς μάλιστα γυμνὸς ἂν ὀφθείη τῆς τραγικῆς σκευῆς.
εἰ οὖν οἰοίμην κτλ.
‘If then I should think it right for all of us to listen to the man who is both capable of judging’ etc. The dialogue form is strained almost to breaking in this remarkable sentence. We are all to be silent and listen to Plato himself. Plato might fairly claim from his psychological studies and experience as a teacher, to be
δυνατὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἦθος <*>νδὺς διιδεῖν and so
δυνατὸς κρῖναι, and he had lived under the same roof with Dionysius I of Syracuse. The poet Gray was one of the first to observe that Plato is here meant.
ἐν οἷς
=‘among whom’ is surely better and more natural than
ἐν αἷς, which Richards has conjectured. The tyrant lays aside the mask in his own family.
τραγικῆς σκευῆς
=“theatrical garb” (D. and V.) again betrays “a feeling of the kinship between the shows of tyranny and those of tragedy” (Bosanquet: cf. VIII 568 A note). Dionysius I was himself a writer of tragedies, and notoriously jealous—so we are told—of his poetical reputation (Grote X pp. 302 ff.): but it would be frigid to suppose that this was in Plato's mind when he wrote the word
τραγικῆς .
αὖ τοῖς
was first conjecturally restored by Heindorf (on
Soph. 262 A
), following Ficinus, instead of the vulgate
αὐτοῖς. It has since been found to be the reading of most of the other MSS as well as A.
κελεύοιμεν
. The singular
κελεύοιμι (
q Flor. U) is still read by Stallbaum. There is surely no reason why Socrates should not associate Glauco with himself in this hypothetical invitation.
ὀρθότατ) ἂν ‐‐ προκαλοῖο
forms the apodosis to what Socrates has said (cf. 582 E), but refers “ad initium potius quam ad exitum orationis Socraticae” (Schneider. Cf. V 465 E note). Glauco admits most fully the claim that Plato has earned a right to speak with authority on this subject.
προσποιησώμεθα κτλ.
Plato cannot appear
in propria persona, so that it is necessary for Socrates and Glauco to pretend that they also belong to the number of those ‘who would be able to judge’ and have met with
τύραννοι and
τυραννικοί. The fiction is rendered necessary by the laws of dialogue as
ἵνα— ἐρωτῶμεν frankly states. We must beware of supposing that it is
Plato who ‘pretends’: Plato does not pretend, but
is
δυνατὸς μὲν κρῖναι, ξυνῳκηκὼς δὲ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κτλ. (577 A). Richards objects to
ἄν with
δυνατῶν, and it is certainly unusual to find
ἄν with an adjective in this way. But as
δυνατῶν can itself take an infinitive, it hardly differs from the participle
δυναμένων, and the suggestions
δυνατῶν ὄντων, or
δυνατῶν ἂν <ὄντων>, are unattractive. I should add in conclusion that nearly all critics are now agreed in holding that Plato throughout the whole of this passage is referring to his own experience of Dionysius I: see for example Susemihl
Gen. Entw. II pp. 240, 294 ff., Teichmüller
Lit. Fehd. I p. 110, Hirmer
Entst. u. Komp. d. Pl. Pol. pp. 667 ff., with Zeller^{4} II p. 413 note 1. The date of Plato's first visit to the elder Dionysius was in or near 388 B.C. Compare
Epp. VII 324 A—327 D. Whether this epistle be genuine or not, the visit is abundantly attested, as Zeller proves (l.c. pp. 413—415 notes), and it is strange that J. and C. should still have doubts upon the subject. See also on V 473 D, VI 496 B, 499 B and infra 579 B note
καθ) ἕκαστον κτλ.
καθ) ἕκαστον=‘point by point,’ ‘in detail,’ not ‘singly’ (D. and V.), which would be
καθ’ ἑκάτερον here, since only two objects of comparison are involved.
ἀθρῶν: sc.
ἑκάτερον, viz. the city and the man (J. and C.). On
ὡς πόλιν εἰπεῖν and
ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν (‘I might almost say’) see I 341 B note
ἁνήρ
. See cr. n. I have followed the advice of a reviewer of my
Text of the Republic in
Hermath. XXIV p. 256 and accepted Campbell's
ἁνήρ. It is difficult to dispense with the article here: cf.
τῆς τε πόλεως καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρός above.
ἀνελευθερίας κτλ.
In
ἀνελευθερίας there is here a strong suggestion of the etymological meaning (“Unfreiheit” Schneider).
μικρόν, as J. and C. observe, is introduced to make the parallel between State and individual as complete as possible. From another point of view it might be held that the
μοχθηρότατον in the tyrannical soul is not
σμικρόν but
πολύ (573 D—576 B).
καὶ ἡ τυραννουμένη κτλ.
There is no
βούλησις, in the true sense of that term, except
τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ: cf. I 336 A with the
Gorgias quoted ad loc. and
Men. 77 C
ff. Or in other words Virtue alone is free: cf.
ἀρετὴ δὲ ἀδέσποτον X 617 E with note ad loc. See also Nettleship
Lect. and Rem. II p. 317.
ὡς ‐‐ ψυχῆς
. The restriction (for which cf. 579 E) is necessary, for the
μοχθηρότατον part of the
τυραννουμένη ψυχή will have its way.
ἑλκομένη κτλ.
Badham's
ἐλαυνομένη would be less suitable with
βίᾳ than
ἑλκομένη (cf. VII 515 E), and is otherwise a gratuitous alteration. On
ταραχῆς see VIII 547 A, 557A, 561 C notes In the tyrannical soul the fatal principle of
ἀνομοιότης attains its highest development. With
μεταυελείας cf.
ὁ δ’ ἀκρατὴς μεταμελητικός (Arist.
Eth. Nic. VII 9. 1150^{b} 30).
ἄπληστον
: like the sieve in
Gorg. 493 A
—D (Nettleship). Nothing can ‘fill up the cistern’ of his lust.
τήν τε ‐‐ πόλιν
. I follow the Oxford editors in putting
τε for
γε (see cr. n.).
γε is not indefensible; but the balance with
τόν τε τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα is strongly in favour of
τε: see the examples cited in Hoefer
de part. Plat. p. 12.
ὀδυρμοὺς δέ
. See cr. n. Jowett defended
τε: Campbell and all the other editors do better in accepting the text of
Ξ. A few MSS have
γε: and Plato may have written
ὀδυρμοὺς δέ γε as Schneider suggests.
ἐν ἀνδρὶ κτλ.
: ‘and in an individual,’ viz. as contrasted with a
πόλις, whence the emphatic position to which the words are assigned. In
ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ the idiom is akin to ‘partitive apposition’: see IV 431 A note
τήν γε πόλιν
. γε is restrictive: our verdict on the
individual has still to be pronounced. Cf. 582 B, C. J. and C. are the only editors who retain
τε here (see cr. n.), but the anacoluthon would be too harsh, and
τὸν ἔχοντά τε in 575 A is different: see note ad loc.
τοιοῦτος μάλιστα
: i.q.
ἄθλιος μάλιστα. The subject is
οὗτος, and
ὁ τοιοῦτος μάλιστα is in the predicate.
τυραννικὸς ὤν
. “Have a care of inserting any negative particle here, as H. Stephanus would do, which would wholly destroy the sense” (Thomas Gray). Cf. 575 C, D and 579 C.
δυστυχὴς ᾖ
. Cobet (
V. L.^{2} p. 534) revives Bekker's
δυστυχήσῃ: but the MS reading is preferable: “significatur infelicitatem ei qui tyrannus factus sit, usque adesse perpetuoque eum comitari” (Schneider). Cf. VIII 561 A note and
δυστυχεῖ εἷναι 580 A.
ἀλλ’ εὖ μάλα κτλ.
: ‘but carefully study by means of argument the two individuals in question.’
τὼ τοιούτω is literally ‘the two such people,’ i.e. the two
τυραννικοί, viz. the
τυραννικός who lives an
ἰδιώτης βίος, and the
τυραννικός who becomes a
τύραννος. It is the relative position of these two individuals in respect of misery which is the question before us now, and the rest of this chapter aims at answering it by argument: see 579 C, D, where the conclusion of the reasoning is given. No satisfactory explanation of the MS reading
τῷ τοιούτῳ λόγῳ σκοπεῖν (cr. n.) has yet been offered. Some hold that
τοιούτῳ refers forward (“nach folgender Regel,” Schleiermacher, Prantl), but
τῷ τοιούτῳ cannot be thus used, although
τοιούτῳ by itself might be. Others translate “by the help of such a process of reasoning as we now employ” (J. and C. etc.). I doubt whether this meaning, which does not, by the way, furnish a sufficiently pointed antithesis to
οἴεσθαι, is easily conveyed by
τῷ τοιούτῳ. The translations “bei einer solchen Untersuchung” (Schneider), “where the argument is of such a nature” (J. and C., comparing the altogether different
τοῖς τοιούτοις κακοῖς in 579 C), and ‘in this high argument’ are untenable on grammatical grounds; nor can we easily explain the dative as meaning ‘in the interests of’ (“videndum ne dativus eam rem significet, cuius gratia accurate quaerendum esse Socrates dicat” Schneider). The emendations proposed are (1)
τὼ τοιούτω λόγω (Stephanus), (2)
τὸ τοιοῦτον λόγῳ or
τὸν τοιοῦτον λόγῳ (Ast), (3) fortasse
εὖ μάλ’ ἐν κτλ. (W. H. Thompson
J. Ph. V p. 218). Did Stephanus mean by
τὼ τοιούτω λόγω something like the
δίκαιος and
ἄδικος λόγος of the
Clouds?
τοιούτω could not convey so much, but Stephanus was, I believe, on the right track when he restored
τὼ τοιούτω. The corruption was all the easier, because the dual is constantly corrupted in the MSS of the
Republic: thus in III 410 E all MSS have
ἀμφότερα, in III 412 A
ἐπιτεινομένῳ was written by A^{1}, in IV 422 E
πολέμια is the reading of A, and in IV 442 D both A and
Π give
τῷ ἀρχομένῳ for
τὼ ἀρχομένω. Cf. also III 395 A note
ὅσοι πλούσιοι
. We ought not, with J. and C., to understand
ὄντες. The adjective logically belongs to
ἰδιωτῶν, but is idiomatically placed in the relative clause: see Kuhner
Gr. Gr. II pp. 924 ff.
ἐκείνου
. On the transition from plural to singular see I 347 A note
τί γὰρ κτλ.
: ‘Why of course, what should they be afraid of?’ sc. in their slaves.
τί is not ‘why,’ but ‘what,’ as
οὐδέν shews: cf. V 449 B note Campbell, making
τί ‘why,’ translates
οὐδέν by ‘Oh, for no reason,’ and refers to
Prot. 310 B
; but there too
οὐδέν is ‘nothing’: see my note ad loc.
εἴ τις θεῶν κτλ.
It is a mistake to suppose from this passage that the treatment of slaves in Athens or Greece generally was exceptionally cruel or unkind. Granted the existence of slavery at all, what Plato here says would nearly always be found true, especially where, as in Athens, the slaves belonged for the most part to an alien and inferior race. See Gilbert
Gk Const. Ant. E. T. pp. 170—174. Fifty slaves would of course be more than the average number belonging to a single citizen. In Athens, during the fourth century B.C., the slaves were probably little, if at all, more numerous than the free-born population and metoecs (Beloch
Die Bevölk. d. Gr.Röm. Welt p. 99).
ὁπόσῳ
. On
ὁπόσῳ following
ποίῳ see I 348 B note
