Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία
. On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see
Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.
ὡς ἔοικε
belongs to
ὧν ἕνεκα
, and
δεῖν is in indirect narration after
ἔλεγον above. There would be no object in qualifying the force of
δεῖν; it is not disputed that rulers
must have their reward. Hence Stallbaum is wrong in regarding
δεῖν as under the influence of
ἔοικε, an illogical idiom which is common in Herodotus (Stein on 1 65), and found occasionally in Tragedy (Jebb on
Trach. 1238) and in Plato (
Phil. 20 D
,
Soph. 263 D
,
Euthyd. 280 D
). That
ὡς ἔοικε has no influence on
δεῖν in this passage may also be seen from the fact that
δεῖν (not
δεῖ) would still be used if
ὡς ἔοικε were removed.
δεῖν is not for
δέον; the late participial form
δεῖν is not found in Plato: see my note on
Euthyph. 4 D
.
ἄρχῃ
. The transition from plural to singular and conversely is common: see for examples III 408 B, 411 C, 413 D, E, IV 426 A, C, V 463 D, VI 496 C, 500 C, VIII 554 A, C, 558 A, IX 591 A, X 601 D, E, 604 D, and cf. Heindorf on
Gorg. 478 C
,
Prot. 319 D
.
ὡς ἐν μισθοῦ μέρει
. ὡς is not (with Wohlrab) to be taken with
<*>ν μισθοῦ μέρει, but stands for the indirect interrogative
ὅπως.
αὐτοί
= ‘by themselves,’ ‘ultro,’ should be construed with
λαμβάνοντες. The conjecture
αὐτόν for
αὐτοί is very tame.
ὅθεν κινδυνεύει ‐‐ νενομίσθαι
. These words are intended to indicate parenthetically that Socrates' thesis finds support in the common judgment of men. Good men, he says, require to be compelled to rule. This may be why (
ὅθεν) it is accounted a disgrace to enter on office willingly: that is to say, if you do so, you may be inferred to be, not
ἀγαθός, but
φιλότιμος or
φιλάργυρος, which
ὄνειδος λέγεταί τε καὶ ἔστιν 347 B. There is no good reason for rejecting the clause, as some have proposed to do.
πόλις ἀνδρῶν ἀγαθῶν
is the first express allusion to an Ideal City in the
Republic. The principle here laid down—the reluctance of the best men to undertake the task of government—is fully recognised in Plato's commonwealth, where the
ἄρχοντες are represented as unwilling to desert the life of contemplation for the cares of office. ‘Nolo episcopari’ is in fact one of the leading guarantees which Plato gives against the abuse of political power (Nohle
Die Staatslehre Plato's in ihr. gesch. Entwick. p. 119). See VI 520 E, 521 A, where this topic is resumed. Cf. also
Sesame and Lilies § 43 “The true kings—rule quietly, if at all, and hate ruling; too many of them make ‘il gran rifiuto.’”
τῷ ὄντι κτλ
. τῷ ὄντι belongs to
οὐ πέφυκε, not to
ἀληθινός (as Ast supposes). Richter suggests
ἁληθινός for
ἀληθινός, but what is said of a single ruler applies to all: cf. (with Schneider)
Laws 733 E
λέγωμεν δὴ σώφρονα βίον ἕνα εἶναι καὶ φρόνιμον ἕνα καὶ ἕνα τὸν ἀνδρεῖον.
πᾶς ἂν κτλ.
The articular infinitive with
αἱρεῖσθαι is hard to parallel, and on this ground Richards would cancel
τό. I once thought that
τὸ ὠφελεῖσθαι might be taken as the object after
γιγνώσκων (‘he who knows what being benefited is,’ i.e. virtually ‘who knows his own interests’); but this is harsh, and I now acquiesce in the usual interpretation. With
γιγνώσκων (
intellegens) used absolutely cf. (with Schneider)
Laws 733 E
σώφρονα μὲν οὖν βίον ὁ γιγνώσκων θήσει πρᾶον ἐπὶ πάντα. For the sentiment cf.
Soph.
O. T. 584
—598,
Eur.
Ion 621
—632,
Hipp. 1016—1020.
εἰσαῦθις σκεψόμεθα
. The reference has been much discussed. Pfleiderer's idea (
Zur Lösung d. Pl. Fr. p. 72) that the words were introduced by Plato “bei der Gesammtredaktion des Werkes” to prepare us for the second half of Book X is most unlikely, because (among other reasons) Book X does not expressly revert to this topic at all. Siebeck (
Zur Chron. d. Pl. Dialoge pp. 121 ff.) holds that phrases of this sort always refer either to some future dialogue contemplated by Plato, or to a later part of the same dialogue. It is difficult to establish either alternative in the present case; nor has Siebeck, I think, succeeded in proving his point even elsewhere. It is simplest to suppose that such formulae (like
εἰσαῦθις ἐπισκεπτέον in Arist.
Eth. Nic. I 5. 1097^{b} 14) are in general only a convenient way of dropping the subject, although there may occasionally be a specific reference. Here there is none. So also Hirmer
Entst. u. Komp. d. Pl. Polit. in
Fl. Jahrb. Supplementband XXIII p. 607 note 2.
τὸν τοῦ ἀδίκου βίον ‐‐ δικαίου
. In these words Socrates sums up the remarks of Thrasymachus from 343 B (
καὶ οὕτω πόρρω κτλ.) to 344 C (
λυσιτελοῦν τε καὶ ξυμφέρον).
ποτέρως ‐‐ λέγεσθαι
. Ast's suggestion
πότερον, ἦν δ) ἐγώ, ὦ Γλαύκων, αἱρεῖ; καὶ ποτέρως ἀληθεστέρως δοκεῖ σοι λέγεσθαι; is now generally adopted, but (apart from its considerable divergence from the MS reading) the juxtaposition of
ποτέρως and
ἀληθεστέρως is unpleasing. The
ποτέρως αἱρεῖ of A is quite unobjectionable: cf. VII 528 A
οὕτως—αἱροῦμαι; and it is (I think) an objection to
πότερον αἱρεῖ that it would represent Socrates as asking Glauco not which
view he elected to take, but which
life—the just or the unjust—he chose for himself. Schneider (after Bekker) retains the reading of the best MSS in
πότερον ὡς ἀληθεστέρως, and explains the last two words as equivalent to
ὥσπερ ὃ ἀληθεστέρως λέγεται: but
ὡς ἀληθεστέρως could not (if written by Plato) be anything but the comparative of
ὡς ἀληθῶς, and that is quite different in sense from
ἀληθεστέρως. I have omitted
ὡς (with Bremius and a few MSS of inferior authority), “ut ortum ex varia lectione
πότερον et
ποτέρως in
ποτερόνως conflata” (Schneider). I am glad to find that Tucker adopts the same solution.