ἐγὼ κτλ.
λόγου is abstract =
τοῦ λέγειν, not ‘the discussion’ (Jowett), which would be
τοῦ λόγου. For
τὸ δέ see on I 340 D.
ἦν ἄρα
: ‘was after all,’ as in IV 443 C
τὸ δέ γε ἦν ἄρα—εἴδωλόν τι τῆς δικαιοσύνης and
Soph.
Tr. 1172
τὸ δ’ ἦν ἄρ’ οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν θανεῖν ἐμέ. With
προοίμιον cf. infra VII 531 D,
Aesch.
P. V. 740
f.
ο<*>ς γὰρ νῦν ἀκήκοας λόγους |
εἶναι δοκεῖ σοι μηδέπω )ν προοιμίοις, and Shakespeare
Macbeth I 3 “As happy prologues to the swelling act Of the imperial theme.” For the sense see the last note on Book I. There is no good ground for supposing (with von Sybel
De Platonis Proemiis Academicis) that either Book I of the
Republic or the rest of Plato's dialogues were intended merely as
προοίμια or ‘Programs’ to attract pupils to his lectures.
βούλει κτλ.
The antithesis is between
δοκεῖν πεπεικέναι and
πεῖσαι, and
βούλει is used in its natural sense, not (as Ast thinks) with the force of
μᾶλλον βούλει.
λέγε γάρ μοι
. Other classifications of ‘goods’ in Plato will be found in
Laws 631 B ff. and 697 B ff. (with which compare Arist.
Eth. Nic. I 8. 1098^{b} 12 ff.). See also
Euthyd. 279 A
ff.,
Gorg. 467 E
,
Phil. 66 A
ff. The nearest parallels to the present classification are furnished by Stoicism, in which goods were classified as a
τελικά, b
ποιητικά, c both
τελικά and
ποιητικά, and the
προηγμένα as a
δἰ αὑτά, b
δἰ ἕτερα, c
καὶ δἰ αὑτὰ καὶ δἰ ἕτερα see D. L. VII 96, 107.
χαίρειν ‐‐ ἀβλαβεῖς
. These ‘innocent pleasures’ are defined in
Laws 667 E as those which bring no consequences in their train, good, bad, or otherwise (cf.
καὶ μηδὲν εἰς τὸν ἔπειτα χρόνον διὰ ταύτας γίγνεται ἄλλο ἢ χαίρειν ἔχοντα). They are not quite identical with the ‘pure pleasures’ of
Phil. 51 B
, which are not necessarily devoid of all results, but only of pain. The same conception recurs in Aristotle, who regards the
ἀβλαβεῖς ἡδοναί both as conducive to the ethical end and as useful for purposes of recreation (
Pol.
Θ 5. 1339^{b} 25).
καὶ μηδὲν κτλ.
The relative passes into a demonstrative (
ταύτας) in the second half of the sentence, as in III 412 D, VI 505 D, E, VII 521 B, and elsewhere. The idiom is regular in Greek, but the second pronoun is more usually some case of
αὐτός than of
οὗτος, e.g. III 395 D, VI 511 C,
Gorg. 452 D
,
Theaet. 192 A
. Cobet however (
Mnem. XI p. 167) goes too far in maintaining that
αὐτός is alone permissible in this idiom. Cf. Engelhardt
Anac. Plat. Spec. III pp. 41—43.
μηδέν is used in preference to
οὐδέν: for “cogitatione circumscriptum genus significatur” (Schneider). With the sentiment Muretus compared Arist.
Eth. Nic. X 2. 1172^{b} 22
οὐδένα γὰρ ἐπερωτᾶν τίνος ἕνεκα ἥδεται, ὡς καθ’ αὑτὴν οὖσαν αἱρετὴν τὴν ἡδονήν.
ἔχοντα
: sc.
αὐτάς (so also Schneider), not the idiomatic ‘to continue rejoicing’ (as Campbell suggests). The essential mark of these pleasures, viz. that they give pleasure only while they last, is brought out by
ἔχοντα, which recalls
δεξαίμεθ’ ἂν ἔχειν just above, and is used without an expressed object as in 366 E.
τὸ φρονεῖν ‐‐ ὑγιαίνειν
. ἀκούειν is added in 367 C. Cf. Arist.
Eth. Nic. I 4. 1096^{b} 16
καθ) αὑτὰ δὲ ποῖα θείη τις ἄν; ἢ ὅσα καὶ μονούμενα διώκεται, οἷον τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ἡδοναί τινες καὶ τιμαί; ταῦτα γὰρ εἰ καὶ δἰ ἄλλο τι διώκομεν, ὅμως τῶν καθ) αὑτὰ ἀγαθῶν θείη τις ἄν: also
Met. A 1. 980^{a} 2 ff. Aristotle himself does not suggest that a special class should be made of things desirable both in themselves and for their results; but
integri sensus and
bona valetudo are included in the Stoic category of
προηγμένα καὶ δἰ αὑτὰ καὶ δἰ ἕτερα (Cic.
De Fin. III 56: cf. D. L. VII 107).
γυμνάζεσθαι κτλ.
Cf.
Prot. 354 A
and
Gorg. 467 C
, D (where
χρηματισμός is again said to belong to this class).
ἰάτρευσις as an example of
χρηματισμός (in spite of the
ἀκριβὴς λόγος of I 342 B ff.) is suggested by
ἰατρεύεσθαι. ὁ ἄλλος is ‘the rest of,’ and should not be taken (with Stallbaum) as
praeterea: cf.
Gorg. l.c.
οἱ πλέοντές τε καὶ τὸν ἄλλον χρηματισμὸν χρηματιζόμενοι and
Crito 53 E.
πλούτου
δὲ οὐδέν and Liebhold (
Fl. Jahrb. 1888, p. 107)
κόσμου
δὲ ἄλλο μὲν <ἔχοντ)> οὐδέν for
τοῦτον δὲ ἄλλο μὲν οὐδέν. Neither of these proposals has any plausibility, and it is best to regard this as one of the places where we owe the right reading to
Π .