αὐτῶν τῶν δούλων
. “Quum ingenui desint, a quibus auxilium petat, nonnullis ex servorum ipsorum, quos timet, numero adulari cogitur” (Schneider). This explanation, which Vermehren also approves (
Pl. Stud. p. 114), exactly meets the case, and there is no reason either to change
αὐτῶν to
αὖ (with Stephanus) or to delete
τῶν δούλων (with Ast and Herwerden).
οὐδὲν δεόμενος
: ‘when he needn't.’ He is under no obligation to set them free: why then should he make them a present of their freedom? The innuendo is in Plato's neatest style. For the language cf. (with Schneider) Plut.
Tib. Gracch. 21. 2
δείσασα περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἡ βουλὴ ψηφίζεται μηδὲν δεομένη πέμπειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἀσίαν. The conjecture
οὐδὲν δεομένους (Groen v. Prinsterer
Prosop. Plat. p. 211, Ast, and Herwerden, who appeals in vain to Plut.
Cato Maior 12. 3, Dem. 11. 9, and Isocr.
Areop. 25) is, as Schneider shews, inept; for if the slaves do not need to be set free, because they are practically free already, “ne ero quidem opus est ut ad eos coercendos illam aliamve ineat rationem.”
ἄλλους ‐‐ γείτονας
. These freeborn neighbours in Plato's simile represent surrounding independent States, who detest tyranny, and help the tyrant's subjects. See Newman's
Politics of Aristotle II p. 315.
ὑπὸ πάντων πολεμίων
: ‘by none but enemies’: cf.
πᾶσιν ἀγρίοις in VI 496 D. The tyrant's splendid but awful isolation is admirably brought out by Plato: see also on VIII 567 B. In this respect Plato's similitude faithfully reflects the position of Dionysius I in Sicily and indeed, except for the support which Sparta lent him, in the whole Hellenic world. See Grote X p. 306 ff.
ἐν τοιούτῳ κτλ.
The picture which follows is no doubt also drawn from Dionysius I: see Grote X pp. 244, 328 notes
λίχνῳ
“is the same with regard to the eye, that liquorishness is to the taste” (Thomas Gray).
οὔτε ἀποδημῆσαι κτλ.
The parallel with Xen.
Hiero 1. 11 is singularly close. Plato speaks
con amore, thinking doubtless of his own sojournings in foreign lands. See Zeller^{4} II pp. 404—414. Neuman
de locis Aegypt. in oper. Plat. (1874) discovers many allusions to Plato's ‘Wanderjahre’ throughout his works.
ὅσων δὴ κτλ.
Such as the Olympian games etc.: cf. Xen. l.c.
τὰς κοινὰς πανηγύρεις ἔνθα τὰ ἀξιοθεατότατα δοκεῖ εἶναι ἀνθρώποις συναγείρεσθαι. Dionysius was represented at Olympia by deputy, as Hermann reminds us (
Gesch. u. System p. 116). Cf. Grote X p. 303. The phrase
τι ἀγαθὸν ὁρᾷ, with which the sentence concludes, has a curiously modern sound.
οὐκοῦν κτλ.
: ‘greater then, by evils such as these, is the profit which is reaped by the individual who’ etc. (“Um so grosse Übel reicher also ist der Mann” Schleiermacher).
τοῖς τοιούτοις κακοῖς is dative of amount of difference: cf. II 373 E
μείζονος—οὔτι σμικρῷ, ἀλλ’ ὅλῳ στρατοπέδῳ, VI 507 E
οὐ σμικρᾷ—ἰδέᾳ— τιμιωτέρῳ and
Laws 848 B (Schneider
Addit. p. 72). The passage has been strangely misunderstood, Stephanus suggesting variously <
ἐπὶ> or
<πρὸς> τοῖς τοιούτοις or
τῶν τοιούτων, and Ast
<ἐν> τοῖς τοιούτοις. Stallbaum comes nearer to the truth in his “per huius modi mala,” but the dative is exactly as in
τοσούτῳ πλείω. The view that the dative is merely one of ‘circumstance’—an alternative suggestion in J. and C.—cannot be upheld. See also on 578 C. The reference in
νῦν δή is to 578 B.
ὡς μὴ κτλ.
I have returned to the text of A,
Π, and nearly all the MSS.
Θ^{1} with Stobaeus (
Flor. 50. 50) has
μὴ ὡς, and so Stallbaum and Baiter read.
μὴ ὡς suits better with
ἀλλὰ ἀναγκασθῇ, but the irregularity is slight, and, as Schneider observes, the sentence opens as if it were meant to be positive and not negative, so that
ὡς μή is suited to what precedes. We may add that
ὡς μὴ ἰδιώτης καταβιῷ is a clearer echo of
μὴ ἰδιώτην βίον καταβιῷ 578 C, which Plato wishes to recall.
κἂν εἰ μή τῳ δοκεῖ κτλ.
Cf. V 473 A and (for
κἄν) III 408 B note The reading
δοκῇ (see cr. n.) is retained by Schneider, but
ε and
η are easily confused, and, even if we allow sporadic instances of
εἰ with the subjunctive in Attic, the analogy of V 473 A, as well as the sense, is in favour of
δοκεῖ. There need not be a specific allusion in
τῳ: for praises of tyranny and the tyrant's lot were common enough in Greece: cf. I 344 B, VIII 568 A notes The phrase
τῷ ὄντι invites us to understand
τύραννος and
δοῦλος in the fullest sense: cf. V 474 A note
δοῦλος κτλ.
I once too rashly placed
καὶ κόλαξ after
δοῦλος, in order to obtain a chiasmus, understanding
δουλείας τῶν πονηροτάτων like
δούλων δουλείαν in VIII 569 C. Two inferior MSS have
δουλείας καὶ θωπείας: but the inversion is not difficult, because the two notions are so closely allied: cf. (with Schneider)
Euthyd. 302 B
ἄπορόν τινα στροφὴν ἔφευγόν τε καὶ ἐστρεφόμην (where Schanz's brackets ‘nemini nocent’).
καὶ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας κτλ.
Xenophon's
Hiero is in effect a diluted commentary on this sentence: cf. also
Gorg. 524 E
ff., and especially Shakespeare's
Macbeth IV 3. 50—99, V 3. 22— 29.
σφαδᾳσμῶν
=‘convulsive movements’ is a rare word. The spelling
σφαδᾳσμός appears in no MS except A^{1}; but the iota is attested from other sources: see Stephanus-Hase
Thes. s. v. The verb
σφαδᾴζειν (
μετὰ σπασμοῦ πηδᾶν Hesych.) denotes any nervous, twitching, convulsive motion, outside one's own control, the result of excitement, fear, pain, disease etc. (Stephanus-Hase l.c.). For the sense of this passage cf. 577 E note
τὸ πρότερον κτλ.
The reference is to VIII 567 and supra 576 A, B.
ἢ πρότερον might of course have been spared, and Herwerden
more suo cuts it out; but the sentence gains in weight by the addition.
νῦν ἤδη
(‘nunc demum’) is fully illustrated by Jecht
de usu part.
ἤδη
in Pl. dialog. pp. 44 f.
ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων κτλ.
The comparison is borrowed from the Athenian method of judging in musical or dramatic competitions. According to Petersen, who in his Dorpat program
über die Preisrichter der Grossen Dionysien zu Athen (1878) has carefully investigated the whole subject, the mode of procedure was as follows. Some time before the festival a number of qualified persons were selected by the
βουλευταί in cooperation with the
χορηγοί, and their names deposited in 10 urns, one for each
φυλή. On the day of the contest, one name was drawn from each urn, and the ten judges thereby constituted, after witnessing the performance, each wrote down in his
γραμματεῖον the order in which he arranged the several competitors. Of these ten judges five were next selected by lot, and the final verdict was given in accordance with the votes already registered by these five. The most important piece of evidence in support of this theory is furnished by Lysias 4. 3
ἐβουλόμην δ) ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, <*>ν) ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν· νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ. In none of the ancient authorities, which are fully cited by Petersen, do we find the expression
ὁ διὰ πάντων κριτής: but Petersen thinks the phrase may perhaps denote any one of the surviving five,
who had lasted through all the stages, having been originally chosen by the Senate, and afterwards by lot on the two remaining opportunities. The singular number, according to Petersen, is generic, as in
Laws 659 A, B and elsewhere. It is true of course that the matter could not always be brought to an immediate issue in this way; for, to take a single instance, in a case where there were, let us say, three competitors, the votes of the five judges might result in a tie between two competitors for each of the three prizes. Thus we might have:
πέντε ὄντας
: viz. in all.
εἰσῆλθον κτλ.
“in scenam ingressi sunt” (Stallbaum). In dramatic and musical contests the victor's name was publicly proclaimed by a herald (see Müller l. c. p. 372 note 2): hence
μισθωσώμεθα κτλ. pursues the comparison introduced by
ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων κτλ. Cf. also
Phil. 66 A
πάντῃ δὴ φήσεις—ὑπό τε ἀγγέλων πέμπων καὶ παροῦσι φράζων ὡς ἡδονὴ κτῆμα οὐκ ἔστι πρῶτον κτλ. (the result arrived at in the dialogue). For the verbal play in
Ἀρίστωνος—τὸν ἄριστον cf. II 368 A note
ἐάν τε λανθάνωσιν κτλ.
is said with reference to the challenge in II 367 E.
εἶεν δὴ κτλ.
After the political follows the psychological argument: see 577 C note
δὲ ἰδέ
. My correction of
δεῖ δέ (the reading of the best MSS: see cr. n.) has been generally accepted. The reading
δὲ δεῖ is intrinsically unsatisfactory, and can only be an attempt to ‘emend’
δεῖ δέ. See
Cl. Rev. XI p. 349.
δέξεται κτλ.
: ‘it will admit also of another demonstration.’ The subject is simply ‘our thesis,’ as stated just before in the conclusion of the first argument (580 C). Cf. (with Stallbaum) V 453 D
οὐ γὰρ εὐκόλῳ ἔοικεν and
Phaed. 69 E
τοῖς δὲ πολλοῖς ἀπιστίαν παρέχει (unjustly bracketed by Schanz), where the subject similarly ‘latet in antegressis.’ Idiomatic expressions like
δηλώσει (VI 497 C note),
δείξει etc. belong to a somewhat different category. It is impossible to extract any satisfactory sense out of the passage if (with Schneider alone of all the editors) we retain
τὸ λογιστικόν (see cr. n.) or
λογιστικόν, the latter of which occurs before
δέξεται in many MSS. The Oxford editors, with much probability, suggest that
λογιστικόν is the relic of some such gloss on
τριχῇ as we actually find in Par. K, viz.
λογιστικον. ἐπιθυμητικὸν θυμικον (
sic).
ἡδοναὶ κτλ.
Hitherto in the
Republic the words Pleasure and Desire have, with few exceptions (e.g. I 328 D, VI 485 D, VIII 554 E al.), had an evil, or at least unmoral, connotation. The view now put forward, viz. that each ‘part’ of soul has its own pleasures and desires differing in point of virtue and vice (cf. VI 505 C) like the ‘parts’ to which they belong, is related not only to the theory of the
Philebus but also to the Aristotelian analysis of pleasure in
Eth. Nic. X cc. 3—5.
ἰδία
. Paris A has
ἰδίᾳ—see cr. n.— “multo minus concinne” (Schneider). Cf.
ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ infra E.
ἀρχαὶ κτλ.
Any one of the three may hold rule in the soul. The reference in
ἦν is to IV 436 A ff.
ὃ μέγιστον κτλ.
: viz.
ἐπιθυμία. The words
τούτῳ ἐπωνομάσαμεν mean ‘we gave the name of
ἐπιθυμία to this part,’ when we called it
ἐπιθυμητικόν (
ἐπιθυμητικὸν γὰρ κτλ.). Cf. (with Stallbaum)
Theaet. 185 C
ᾧ τὸ ἔστιν ἐπονομάζεις,
Crat. 420 B
and elsewhere. J. and C. wrongly understand
τούτῳ as instrumental. The variant
τοῦτο has little authority and is much inferior: still worse is
τούτου which Madvig (
Adv. Cr. I p. 431) ‘suspicatur fuisse.’
ἐπιθυμητικὸν κτλ.
IV 439 D. The lowest part of soul was called
φιλοχρήματον in IV 436 E et al.: see next note.
