Plato, Republic, ed. John Burnet, 1.349

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[349] εἰ γὰρ λυσιτελεῖν μὲν τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐτίθεσο, κακίαν μέντοι ἢ αἰσχρὸν αὐτὸ ὡμολόγεις εἶναι ὥσπερ ἄλλοι τινές, εἴχομεν ἄν τι λέγειν κατὰ τὰ νομιζόμενα λέγοντες· νῦν δὲ δῆλος εἶ ὅτι φήσεις αὐτὸ καὶ καλὸν καὶ ἰσχυρὸν εἶναι καὶ τἆλλα αὐτῷ πάντα προσθήσεις 349a ἃ ἡμεῖς τῷ δικαίῳ προσετίθεμεν, ἐπειδή γε καὶ ἐν ἀρετῇ αὐτὸ καὶ σοφίᾳ ἐτόλμησας θεῖναι.
ἀληθέστατα, ἔφη, μαντεύῃ.
ἀλλʼ οὐ μέντοι, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ἀποκνητέον γε τῷ λόγῳ ἐπεξελθεῖν σκοπούμενον, ἕως ἄν σε ὑπολαμβάνω λέγειν ἅπερ διανοῇ. ἐμοὶ γὰρ δοκεῖς σύ, ὦ Θρασύμαχε, ἀτεχνῶς νῦν οὐ σκώπτειν, ἀλλὰ τὰ δοκοῦντα περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας λέγειν.
τί δέ σοι, ἔφη, τοῦτο διαφέρει, εἴτε μοι δοκεῖ εἴτε μή, ἀλλʼ οὐ τὸν λόγον ἐλέγχεις; 349b
οὐδέν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ. ἀλλὰ τόδε μοι πειρῶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἀποκρίνασθαι· ὁ δίκαιος τοῦ δικαίου δοκεῖ τί σοι ἂν ἐθέλειν πλέον ἔχειν;
οὐδαμῶς, ἔφη· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἦν ἀστεῖος, ὥσπερ νῦν, καὶ εὐήθης.
τί δέ; τῆς δικαίας πράξεως;
οὐδὲ τῆς δικαίας, ἔφη.
τοῦ δὲ ἀδίκου πότερον ἀξιοῖ ἂν πλεονεκτεῖν καὶ ἡγοῖτο δίκαιον εἶναι, ἢ οὐκ ἂν ἡγοῖτο;
ἡγοῖτʼ ἄν, ἦ δʼ ὅς, καὶ ἀξιοῖ, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἂν δύναιτο.
ἀλλʼ οὐ τοῦτο, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ἐρωτῶ, ἀλλʼ εἰ τοῦ μὲν 349c δικαίου μὴ ἀξιοῖ πλέον ἔχειν μηδὲ βούλεται ὁ δίκαιος, τοῦ δὲ ἀδίκου;
ἀλλʼ οὕτως, ἔφη, ἔχει.
τί δὲ δὴ ὁ ἄδικος; ἆρα ἀξιοῖ τοῦ δικαίου πλεονεκτεῖν καὶ τῆς δικαίας πράξεως;
πῶς γὰρ οὔκ; ἔφη, ὅς γε πάντων πλέον ἔχειν ἀξιοῖ;
οὐκοῦν καὶ ἀδίκου γε ἀνθρώπου τε καὶ πράξεως ὁ ἄδικος πλεονεκτήσει καὶ ἁμιλλήσεται ὡς ἁπάντων πλεῖστον αὐτὸς λάβῃ;
ἔστι ταῦτα.
ὧδε δὴ λέγωμεν, ἔφην· ὁ δίκαιος τοῦ μὲν ὁμοίου οὐ πλεονεκτεῖ, τοῦ δὲ ἀνομοίου, ὁ δὲ ἄδικος τοῦ τε ὁμοίου καὶ 349d τοῦ ἀνομοίου;
ἄριστα, ἔφη, εἴρηκας.
ἔστιν δέ γε, ἔφην, φρόνιμός τε καὶ ἀγαθὸς ὁ ἄδικος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος οὐδέτερα;
καὶ τοῦτʼ, ἔφη, εὖ.
οὐκοῦν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, καὶ ἔοικε τῷ φρονίμῳ καὶ τῷ ἀγαθῷ ὁ ἄδικος, ὁ δὲ δίκαιος οὐκ ἔοικεν;
πῶς γὰρ οὐ μέλλει, ἔφη, ὁ τοιοῦτος ὢν καὶ ἐοικέναι τοῖς τοιούτοις, ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐοικέναι;
καλῶς. τοιοῦτος ἄρα ἐστὶν ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν οἷσπερ ἔοικεν;
ἀλλὰ τί μέλλει; ἔφη.
εἶεν, ὦ Θρασύμαχε· μουσικὸν δέ τινα λέγεις, ἕτερον δὲ 349e ἄμουσον;
ἔγωγε.
πότερον φρόνιμον καὶ πότερον ἄφρονα;
τὸν μὲν μουσικὸν δήπου φρόνιμον, τὸν δὲ ἄμουσον ἄφρονα.
οὐκοῦν καὶ ἅπερ φρόνιμον, ἀγαθόν, ἃ δὲ ἄφρονα, κακόν;
ναί.
τί δὲ ἰατρικόν; οὐχ οὕτως;
οὕτως.
δοκεῖ ἂν οὖν τίς σοι, ὦ ἄριστε, μουσικὸς ἀνὴρ ἁρμοττόμενος λύραν ἐθέλειν μουσικοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐν τῇ ἐπιτάσει καὶ ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν πλεονεκτεῖν ἢ ἀξιοῦν πλέον ἔχειν;
οὐκ ἔμοιγε.
τί δέ; ἀμούσου;
ἀνάγκη, ἔφη.

Republic. Plato. ed. John Burnet. Oxford. 1905.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Πολιτεία (Greek) (Platonis Opera Tomus IV: Tetralogia VIII. Burnet, John, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.)

Translations (1)

Republic Perseus (Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 5-6. Shorey, Paul, translator. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1935-37 (printing).) — 1.349 focus

[349] For if your position were that injustice is profitable yet you conceded it to be vicious and disgraceful as some other¹ disputants do, there would be a chance for an argument on conventional principles. But, as it is, you obviously are going to affirm that it is honorable and strong and you will attach to it all the other qualities 349a that we were assigning to the just, since you don’t shrink from putting it in the category of virtue and wisdom. You are a most veritable prophet, he replied. Well, said I, I mustn’t flinch from following out the logic of the inquiry, so long as I conceive you to be saying what you think.² For now, Thrasymachus, I absolutely believe that you are not mocking us but telling us your real opinions about the truth.³ What difference does it make to you, he said, whether I believe it or not? Why don’t you test the argument? 349b No difference, said I, but here is something I want you to tell me in addition to what you have said. Do you think the just man would want to overreach⁴ or exceed another just man? By no means, he said; otherwise he would not be the delightful simpleton that he is. And would he exceed or overreach or go beyond the just action? Not that either, he replied. But how would he treat the unjust man—would he deem it proper and just to outdo, overreach, or go beyond him or would he not? He would, he said, but he wouldn’t be able to. That is not my question, I said, 349c but whether it is not the fact that the just man does not claim and wish to outdo the just man but only the unjust? That is the case, he replied. How about the unjust then? Does he claim to overreach and outdo the just man and the just action? Of course, he said, since he claims to overreach and get the better of everything. Then the unjust man will overreach and outdo also both the unjust man and the unjust action, and all his endeavor will be to get the most in everything for himself. That is so.
Let us put it in this way, I said; the just man does not seek to take advantage of his like but of his unlike, but the unjust man 349d of both. Admirably put, he said. But the unjust man is intelligent and good and the just man neither. That, too, is right, he said. Is it not also true, I said, that the unjust man is like the intelligent and good and the just man is not? Of course, he said, being such he will be like to such and the other not. Excellent. Then each is such⁵ as that to which he is like. What else do you suppose? he said. Very well, Thrasymachus, 349e but do you recognize that one man is a musician⁶ and another unmusical? I do. Which is the intelligent and which the unintelligent? The musician, I presume, is the intelligent and the unmusical the unintelligent. And is he not good in the things in which he is intelligent⁷ and bad in the things in which he is unintelligent? Yes. And the same of the physician? The same. Do you think then, my friend, that any musician in the tuning of a lyre would want to overreach⁸ another musician in the tightening and relaxing of the strings or would claim and think fit to exceed or outdo him? I do not. But would the the unmusical man? Of necessity, he said.

Commentary

Commentary on Plato, Republic (Plato. The Republic, Vol 1-2. Adam, James, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902-1903.) focus

Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία . On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.

προσετίθεμεν : ‘used to attribute to,’ sc. before you announced your view—with ironical deference, like ἐλέγομεν in Prot. 353 C τί οὖν φατε τοῦτο εἶναι, ὃ ἡμεῖς <*>ττω ε<*>ναι τῶν ἡδονῶν ἐλέγομεν; Stallbaum takes the imperfect as referring to 345 C, but neither there nor in 348 C (cited by Schneider) is there anything to justify a particular reference.

ἐμοὶ γὰρ ‐‐ λέγειν . A similar remark is made after Callicles has expounded kindred views in Gorg. 492 D σαφῶς γὰρ σὺ νῦν λέγεις ἃ οἱ ἄλλοι διανοοῦνται μέν, λέγειν δὲ οὐκ ἐθέλουσι.

τὰ δοκοῦντα κτλ. can only mean ‘what you think about the truth,’ not ‘what you think to be the truth’ (D. and V.) or ‘your real mind’ (Schneider and Jowett). We should expect ἀδικίας for ἀληθείας, as H. Wolf proposed to read, for it is Injustice, not Truth, which is the subject of dispute. But as ἀδικίας has not a vestige of support from the MSS, I have not ventured to make the change. The truth in question must be understood as the truth about justice and injustice. Herwerden's ἐπὶ τῆς ἀληθείας (for which he compares Dem. de Cor. 17, 226, and 294) will hardly command assent.

τί δέ ‐‐ ἐλέγχεις ; Cf. Charm. 161 C πάντως γὰρ οὐ τοῦτο σκεπτέον ὅστις αὐτὸ εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ πότερον ἀληθὲς λέγεται ἢ οὔ.

πλέον ἔχειν . The literal and derived significations of this phrase are treated as identical throughout the curious reasoning which follows. Primarily, πλέον ἔχειν refers to quantitative superiority; in its derived sense, it is used (together with πλεονεκτεῖν) more generally of ‘overreaching.’

τῆς δικαίας πράξεως . ‘To have more than the just action’ means ‘to do more than is just’ (cf. πλείω—αἱρεῖσθαι— πράττειν 350 A), outdo, overreach what is just in action. The notion of virtue as a μεσότης is implied.

οὐδὲ τῆς κτλ. See cr. n. I do not think that οὐδὲ τῆς δικαίας can be right. The whole emphasis (as οὐδὲ shews) must be on πράξεως, and the emphatic word should be expressed. οὐδὲ τῆς πράξεως τῆς δικαίας (sc. any more than the ἀνδρὸς δικαίου) gives exactly the emphasis required. In the cases quoted by Schneider ( Laws 754 B, 916 B, infra VII 516 B) the omitted word is unemphatic and easily supplied. For the error cf. Crito 50 B where the first hand of the Bodleian MS reads τὰς δικασθείσας by mistake for τὰς <δίκας τὰς> δικασθείσας. See also Introd. § 5.

οὐκοῦν καὶ ‐‐ λάβῃ . The ἄδικος πρᾶξις which the unjust man overreaches is to be regarded as ἄδικος because it has itself overreached (not fallen short of) the mean. ὡς with the subjunctive after verbs of striving does not seem to occur elsewhere in Plato: like its use in a pure final clause (of which there is only one example in Plato, viz. Tim. 92 A ) it is almost exclusively confined (among Attic writers) to Xenophon and the tragedians. See Weber's tables in Goodwin MT. p. 398, and cf. Gildersleeve in A. J. Ph. IV p. 419.

τοῦ μὲν ὁμοίου ‐‐ τοῦ δὲ ἀνομοίου . This generalisation of ‘like’ and ‘unlike’ into abstract notions, without regard to their relativity, is suggestive of (but does not of course presuppose) the Ideas of τὰ πρός τι which we meet with in Phaed. 74 A .

οὐκοῦν κτλ. A proviso which is made use of in 350 C ( ἀλλὰ μὴν —ἑκάτερον εἷναι ).

ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐοικέναι . ὁ δέ is simply ‘the other’ (as is marked in A by a pause after δέ), i.e. ὁ μὴ τοιοῦτος: cf. 339 E ( τοῖς δέ for τοῖς δὲ ἀρχομένοις), 343 D ὁ μὲν δίκαιος ἀπὸ τῶν ἴσων πλέον εἰσφέρει, ὁ δ’ ἔλαττον and IX 587 B. J. and C., with most of the editors, adopt the reading of Stephanus ( ὁ δὲ μὴ μὴ ἐοικέναι), which has the support of some inferior MSS; but the idiom is sufficiently well authenticated, and the collocation of the two negatives would be unpleasing. I am glad to see that Tucker takes the same view.

οἷσπερ ἔοικεν . Madvig's οἵοισπερ ἔοικεν is refuted by 350 C ὡμολογοῦμεν ᾧ γε (i.e. οἷος ᾧ γε) ὅμοιος ἑκάτερος εἴη, τοιοῦτον καὶ ἑκάτερον εἶναι. Cf. also Arist. Pol. H 13. 1332^{a} 22. The construction was supported by Schneider from Phaed. 92 B , but ὅ and not ᾧ is now read there on the authority of the best MS.

ἀλλὰ τί μέλλει (sc. εἶναι); A rare formula, occurring also in Hipp. Min. 377 D: cf. τί δ’ οὐ μέλλει; VIII 566 D, X 605 C. With the force of τί (‘what else’) cf. ἀλλὰ τί οἴει supra 332 C.

μουσικὸν δέ τινα κτλ. Here begin the usual Socratic illustrations from the arts, with the concomitant identification of virtue and knowledge ( ὁ δὲ σοφὸς ἀγαθός; Φημί 350 B).

δοκεῖ ἂν οὖν ‐‐ ἀξιοῦν πλέον ἔχειν . Socrates ignores the proverb καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀοιδῷ. Strictly speaking, however, it is not qua κεραμεύς, but qua moneymaker (or the like) that the κεραμεὺς κοτέει. J. and C. cite an admirable parallel from Shakespeare ( King John IV 2) “When workmen strive to do better than well, They do confound their skill in covetousness.” The words ἢ ἀξιοῦν πλέον ἔχειν have a suspicious look, and are rejected by Heller ( Fl. Jahrb. 1875 p. 171) and others, but such duplicate expressions are common in Plato, and as the illustration from the harp introduces a new and important stage in the argument, Plato may have wished to remind us that after all πλεονεκτεῖν is only the πλέον ἔχειν with which we started (349 B). It should be noted, too, that ἀξιοῦν is a little more than ἐθέλειν.

Plato Republic 1.349

ed. John Burnet

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Commentary

Stable identifiers