Πλάτωνος Πολιτεία
. On the name, characters, and date of action of the dialogue, see
Introd. §§ 1, 2, 3.
ἀποτέμοις
—see cr. n.—can hardly, I think, dispense with the particle
ἄν. It should be noted that the illustrations are of two kinds—the first to illustrate
ἢ μόνῳ ἐκείνῳ, the second to illustrate
ἄριστα; after each division the conclusion is stated, in the second case more diffidently (
ἆρ’ οὖν οὐ—θήσομεν), perhaps because it is less obvious.
μόνον τι
. Cornarius unhappily suggested
τις for
τι and Stephanus
μόνῳ τις for
μόνον τι (cf. 352 E).
μόνον τι is of course the subject to
ἀπεργάζηται .
οὐκοῦν ‐‐ προστέτακται
. Cf.
Men. 72 A
οὐκ ἀπορία εἰπεῖν ἀρετῆς πέρι ὅ τι ἔστιν. καθ’ ἑκάστην γὰρ τῶν πράξεων καὶ τῶν ἡλικιῶν πρὸς ἕκαστον ἔργον ἑκάστῳ ἡμῶν ἡ ἀρετή ἐστιν. ὡσαύτως δὲ—καὶ ἡ κακία: also infra X 608 E with Arist.
Eth. Nic. II 5. 1106^{a} 15 ff.
ἦν
: ‘is, as we saw,’ viz. at 352 E: cf. infra IV 441 D, VI 490 A, VII 522 A.
ἀπεργάσαιντο
. Heindorf (on
Crat. 424 E
) would read
ἀπεργάσαιτο, and Baiter adopts his suggestion; but (as Stallbaum observes) the use of
ὀφθαλμοί just above may affect the construction. In the same way, perhaps, the occurrence of
γυναῖκες καὶ τἄλλα θηρία immediately before causes Plato to write
δεήσοιντο (the reading of A) rather than
δεήσοιτο in
Tim. 76 E
. Of the other alleged cases of a plural verb after a neuter plural in Plato, some (e.g.
Laws 634 E, 683 B) are not supported by the best MSS; one—
ἐξ ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰ ῥήματα συντίθενται (so AT)
Crat. 424 E
—is distributive; some refer to living objects, e.g.
Laws 658 C (with which contrast
κρίνοι just before) and
Lach. 180 E
; at least one (
Phil. 24 E
) is perhaps corrupt. See also on
Rep. II 365 B.
τυφλότητα κτλ.
τυφλότης is also said to be the disease or vice of the eyes in
Alc. I 126 B, a passage probably imitated from this. In the stricter discussion of X 608 E it is not
τυφλότης but
ὀφθαλμία which is the vice to which the eyes are subject.
οὐ γάρ πω ‐‐ ἐρωτῶ
is ‘I do not, at this stage, enquire’; but the words do not, I think, contain an express promise that the subject will be afterwards resumed. Although the peculiar vice of the eyes is specified in Book X (l.c.), their virtue is not; and
τοῦτο refers to
ἥτις αὐτῶν ἡ ἀρετή. Cf. 347 E note
ψυχῆς ἔστιν τι ἔργον
: cf. III 407 A and Arist.
Eth. Nic. I 6. 1097^{b} 22—1098^{a} 17, where this discussion is closely imitated. That it is the
ἔργον of soul (and in particular of
νοῦς) to rule (
ἄρχειν, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, and the like), is continually asserted in Plato: see for example
Phaedr. 246 B
πᾶσα ἡ ψυχὴ παντὸς ἐπιμελεῖται τοῦ ἀψύχου,
Crat. 400 A
,
Phil. 30C,
Laws 896 A. The same doctrine is made the ground of the subjection of body to soul which is inculcated in the
Phaedo (80 A, 94 B), and in
Alc. I 130 A. Cf. also Isocrates
περὶ ἀντιδόσεως 180
ὁμολογεῖται μὲν γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν ἔκ τε τοῦ σώματος συγκεῖσθαι καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς· αὐτοῖν δὲ τούτοιν οὐδεὶς ἔστιν ὅστις οὐκ ἂν φήσειεν ἡγεμονικωτέραν πεφυκέναι τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ πλείονος ἀξίαν· τῆς μὲν γὰρ ἔργον εἶναι βουλεύσασθαι καὶ περὶ τῶν ἰδίων καὶ περὶ τῶν κοινῶν, τοῦ δὲ σώματος ὑπηρετῆσαι τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς γνωσθεἶσιν.
ἐκείνου
. The reading
ἐκείνης—see cr. n.—can only be defended by supposing that Plato was guilty of a strange confusion, unless we make a pause at
ἄλλῳ, and take
ἤ as ‘or,’ not ‘than’; but
ἤ after
ἄλλῳ would certainly here be understood as ‘than,’ and an alternative question should be less ambiguously expressed. After
ψυχῇ the corruption to
ἐκείνης was natural enough. Madvig would eject the word.
τὸζῆν
is
κατ’ ἐξοχήν the
ἔργον of
ψυχή in Plato: cf.
Crat. 399 D
, E
τοῦτο ἄρα (sc.
ψυχή),
ὅταν παρῇ τῷ σώματι, αἴτιόν ἐστι τοῦ ζῆν αὐτῷ, τὴν τοῦ ἀναπνεῖν δύναμιν παρέχον καὶ ἀναψῦχον, ἅμα δὲ ἐκλείποντος τοῦ ἀναψύχοντος τὸ σῶμα ἀπόλλυταί τε καὶ τελευτᾷ· ὅθεν δή μοι δοκοῦσιν αὐτὸ ψυχὴν καλέσαι, and
Phaed. 105 D
. The influence of this idea makes itself felt in all the proofs of immortality in Plato, and not least in X 608 E ff. See notes ad loc.
συνεχωρήσαμεν κτλ.
The reference is to 350 C, D: cf. also 348 C. In these passages Justice has been identified with Virtue, but not expressly with virtue
of soul. For this reason Hartman would eject
ψυχῆς. But as Plato has just been using
ἀρετή ‘excellence’ in connexion with things other than soul (ears and eyes), it is important that he should now make it clear that in identifying
δικαιοσύνη and
ἀρετή, he meant soul's
ἀρετή. Otherwise a soul may possess its
ἀρετή without being just; in which case the conclusion which he is aiming at will not follow.