Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία
. On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see
Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.
Περιάνδρου κτλ.
Periander, Xerxes and Perdiccas are taken as types of tyrants, and no tyrant is
σοφός (
Rep. IX 587 D). It is noticeable that Periander does not appear in the list of the seven wise men in
Prot. 343 A
. The expedition of Xerxes against Greece is cited by Callicles in
Gorg. 483 D
in connexion with the doctrine that might is right. In
Περδίκκου the allusion is to Perdiccas II, father of Archelaus (
Gorg. 471 B
): he died late in 414 or early in 413, three years before the probable date of action of the
Republic (
Introd. § 3), after proving himself a fickle friend and foe to the Athenians during the Peloponnesian war. Ismenias is mentioned again in
Men. 90 A
as having become rich
δόντος τινός—<*> νῦν νεωστὶ εἰληφὼς τὰ Πολυκράτους χρήματα. There can be no doubt that he is to be identified with the Ismenias who (see
Xen.
Hell. III 5. 1
) in 395 took money from Timocrates the Rhodian, envoy of the Persian King, in order to stir up war against Sparta, and who in 382, when the Spartans had seized the Cadmea, was condemned on this charge among others (
Xen.
Hell. V 2. 35
; Plut.
Pelop. 5. 2). Plato implies that Ismenias kept enough Persian gold to enrich himself. he was no true Greek if he did not. But what is meant by saying that he had received the money of
Polycrates? This question has been much discussed. Possibly ‘the money of Polycrates’ (with allusion, of course, to the riches of the Samian tyrant) was a sarcastic expression current in Athens for ‘the money of Timocrates’: this is perhaps the more likely as we are informed that the Athenians got no share of it themselves (
Hell. III 5. 2). Plato would naturally avail himself of such a political gibe to express his dislike of a man who took gold from the natural enemy of Greece (
Rep. V 470 C) to stir up not war, but sedition (ib. 470 B), and withdraw Agesilaus from fighting with the barbarian: for his political ideal in foreign policy was that of Cimon. See also on V 471 B. It is not however likely, I think, that the present passage was written after Ismenias' death, for Plato is not given to reviling his contemporaries after their death. That the other three persons cited by Plato were already dead would only make his reproof of the living more marked and scathing. The present passage—so far as it goes—is on the whole in favour of Teichmüller's view (
Lit. Fehd. I p. 25) that the first book of the
Republic was written soon after 395, when the disgraceful affair was still fresh in men's minds. See
Introd. § 4.
οἰομένου
is to be pressed (as in III 395 D, 409 C: cf. IV 431 C): their power is fancied, not real: they cannot even do the thing they want: cf.
Gorg. 467 A
ff.
πῶς ἂν οὖν οἱ ῥήτορες μέγα δύναιντο ἢ οἱ τύραννοι ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, ἐὰν μὴ Σωκράτης
ἐξελεγχθῇ—ὅτι ποιοῦσιν ἃ βούλονται;— οὔ φημι ποιεῖν αὐτοὺς ἃ βούλονται. He alone (says Plato) is truly powerful who wills what is good and has the power to obtain it.
ὡς δὲ διεπαυσάμεθα
. Cobet's suggestion
ὡς δὲ δὴ ἐπαυσάμεθα misses the point. No doubt
διαπαύομαι is (as he says) “intermitto orationem post aliquam moram denuo dicturus” (cf.
Tim. 78 E
,
Symp. 191 C
), but this is precisely the sense required, for the question with which Socrates concludes (
τί ἂν ἄλλο κτλ.) shews that he desires to resume the discussion.
ταῦτ’ εἶπον
refers to
εἶεν—φαίη εἶναι.
συστρέψας ‐‐ διαρπασόμενος
: ‘gathering himself up he sprang at us like a wild beast as though he would seize and carry us off.’ Thrasymachus comes down like a wolf on the fold.
ἧκεν is not from
<*>κω, but from
ἵημι: this is also Ast's view (in his
Lex. Plat.). The expression
ἥκειν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς would be too weak after
συστρέψας ἑαυτὸν ὥσπερ θηρίον. The object to
ἧκεν is
ἑαυτόν, easily supplied from
συστρέψας ἑαυτόν: lit. ‘he let himself go at us.’ Cf.
Ar.
Frogs 133
. It should be noted also that compounds of
ἵημι occasionally drop
ἑαυτόν altogether and become intransitive (e.g. VIII 563 A,
Prot. 336 A
). Hartman's
ᾖττεν for
ἧκεν is not likely to find favour. For
διαρπασόμενος Cobet would read
διασπασόμενος. Plato however does not use
διασπᾶν of harrying by wild beasts, but in the sense of
disiungere, seiungere (VI 503 B,
Laws 669 D): and even Cobet does not propose to change
Pol. 274 B
διηρπάζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτῶν (i.e.
θηρίων). J. and C.'s citation of
Il. XVI 355
αἶψα διαρπάζουσιν (i.e.
οἱ λύκοι τὰς ἄρνας) seems to me (in spite of Hartman's wonder) strictly relevant, if only we take
διαρπάζειν as ‘harry,’ and not (with J. and C.) as ‘tear in pieces.’
τίεὐηθίζεσθε κτλ.
εὐηθίζεσθε refers to the readiness of the interlocutors to assent to one another's questions: cf.
Charm. 175 C
οὕτως ἡμῶν εὐηθικῶν τυχοῦσα ἡ σκέψις καὶ οὐ σκληρῶν.
ὑποκατακλινόμενοι
: a metaphor, not from the wrestling schools, but from taking a lower or inferior seat at table or the like: cf.
Symp. 222 E
ἐὰν οὖν ὑπὸ σοὶ κατακλινῇ Ἀγαθών and Plut.
quomodo adul. ab amico internoscatur 58 D
τὰς τοιαύτας ὑποκατακλίσεις (alluding to men who take the front seats at theatres etc., in order to flatter the rich by giving up their seats to them). Thrasymachus' brutal frankness is not intended by Plato to be altogether wide of the mark: see App. II and 335 A note
μὴ ‐‐ φιλοτιμοῦ ἐλέγχων
. A common reproach against Socrates: cf.
Theae<*>. 150 C.
ὅπως μοι κτλ.
This idiom is colloquial and abrupt, almost rude: cf. 337 B and the examples cited in Goodwin
MT. p. 94. Thrasymachus will not tolerate the stale and barren platitudes— note
ὕθλους below—of ordinary disputation: cf. [
Clitoph.] 409 C
οὗτος μὲν—τὸ συμφέρον ἀπεκρίνατο, ἄλλος δὲ τὸ δέον, ἕτερος δὲ τὸ ὠφέλιμον, ὁ δὲ τὸ λυσιτελοῦν and Stewart's
Nicomachean Ethics Vol. I p. 16, with the references there quoted.
εἰ μὴ πρότερος ‐‐ γενέσθαι
. The
θηρίον of 336 B has become a wolf. This is the earliest allusion in Greek literature to the belief that if a wolf sees you first you become dumb. Like Virgil
Ecl. IX 53 the present passage favours Schaefer's emendation
Αύκος εἶδέ ς); for
Αύκον εἶδες in Theocr. XIV 22.
μὴ χαλεπὸς ἡμῖν ἴσθι
:
ἀεὶ θρασύμαχος εἶ, said Herodicus on one occasion to the sophist (Arist.
Rhet. II 23. 1400^{b} 20).
ἐξαμαρτάνομεν ‐‐ ἁμαρτάνομεν
: the preposition is often dropped in repeating a compound verb: cf. V 452 A, VII 533 A, X 608 A and my note on
Prot. 311 A
. I can see no sufficient reason for inserting
τι before
ἐξαμαρτάνομεν (with
Π and some other MSS), although Stallbaum and others approve of the addition.
μὴ γὰρ δὴ οἴου κτλ.
Cf.
Laws 931 C, where there is a similar
a fortiori sentence couched in the imperatival form.
ἑκόντας εἶναι
. This phrase is used sixteen times by Plato, always in negative clauses, and generally in the nominative or accusative (Grünenwald in Schanz's
Beiträge zur hist. Synt. d. gr. Spr. II 3. 1 ff.).
οἴου γε σύ, ὦ φίλε
: i.e.
ἡμᾶς σπουδάζειν ὅ τι μάλιστα φανῆναι αὐτό. For the justification of this view see App. IV.
εἰκός ἐστιν
. There is no reason for omitting
ἐστίν (with Hartman and apparently also Usener
Unser Platotext p. 40).