Plato Republic 1.353

ed. John Burnet

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).) — 1.353 focus

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.

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.