μισθῶν θ’ ἕνεκα κτλ.
Herwerden would read
μισθῶν τε μὲν ἕνεκα, but for
δέ without
μέν preceding see I 340 D note The words
διὰ δόξαν, which are condemned by the same critic, may no doubt be a gloss on
εὐδοκιμήσεων ἕνεκα. I incline however to think them genuine. Plato is not averse to duplicate expressions of this kind (see Schanz
Nov. Comm. Plat. pp. 12—15), and the emphatic addition of
διὰ δόξαν helps in the absence of
μέν to prepare us for the antithesis
αὐτὸ δὲ δἰ αὑτὸ κτλ. Cf. 363 A below.
ψέγεται
. See cr. n. The words
ἀδικία δ’ ἐπαινεῖται are probably genuine: for the mention of
ἀδικία seems to be necessary to justify the pronoun
ἑκατέρου just below: cf. also in D
βούλομαι καὶ σοῦ ἀκούειν ἀδικίαν μὲν ψέγοντος, δικαιοσύνην δὲ ἐπαινοῦντος. For the omission see
Introd. § 5.
ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὡς ἀγαθόν
. Cf. infra 360 C and VI 493 C
τὴν δὲ τοῦ ἀναγκαίου καὶ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ὅσον διαφέρει τῷ ὄντι κτλ.
ἀμείνων ἄρα
. ἄρα disclaims responsibility for the theory: cf. 362 A, 364 B, E al.
Θρασυμάχου ‐‐ ἄλλων
. See on I 337 A ff.
κατατείνας κτλ.
: ‘I will speak vehemently in praise of the unjust life.’ The explanation of Photius and Suidas (
κατατείνας ἐρῶ· ἀντὶ τοῦ μακρὸν λόγον διεξελεύσομαι) does not suit II 367 B
ὡς δύναμαι μάλιστα κατατείνας λέγω. For this intransitive use of
κατατείνω cf. I 348 A and Boeckh's emendation of
Eur.
Iph. Aul. 336
οὔτε κατατενῶ (
καταινῶ MSS)
λίαν ἐγώ.
εἴ σοι βουλομένῳ
. In
Crat. 384 A
ἐστί is again omitted in this phrase. A still bolder example is cited by Stallbaum from Antipho 6. 8
ἐὰν ὑμῖν ἡδομένοις. See Schanz
Novae Comm. Plat. pp. 31— 35.
οἷόν τέ τι
. The reading of A
τί ὄν τε καὶ ὅθεν γέγονε involves the separation of
ὅθεν from
γέγονε, and is otherwise much too harsh to be right. There is something to be said in favour of Schneider's
περὶ τούτου ἅκουε τί οἴονται, καὶ ὅθεν γέγονε δικαιοσύνη (see cr. n.), especially as the confusion between
οἷόν τε and
οἴονται occurs rather frequently in Platonic MSS (see Schneider on 1 329 E), but the specific reference in
ὃ ἔφην πρῶτον ἐρεῖν to 358 C
πρῶτον μὲν ἐρῶ δικαιοσύνην οἷον εἶναί φασι καὶ ὅθεν γεγονέναι points to the presence of
οἷον here. The reading
οἷόν τε, adopted by Stallbaum, as well as by Jowett and Campbell, on the authority of three MSS (Vind. F, Flor. RT), is unexceptionable in point of sense, but fails to account for the presence of
τί in the best MSS. I have ventured to read
οἷόν τέ τι (SC.
ἐστί), supposing that the confusion arose from the accidental omission of
τι, which was afterwards (as
τί) wrongly inserted before
οἶόν (where it remained in
Π),
οἷον itself being afterwards changed to
ὄν in order to provide a kind of construction (‘being what, and whence, it arises,’ J. and C.). This
ὄν was itself fortified by
τυγχάνει in Flor. B and the Aldine edition. Campbell's suggestion that “
τί ὄν τε may be a corruption of
τί ἐστί” is improbable: still less can Herwerden and Hartman induce us to reject the whole clause. Few will approve of Tucker's conjecture
τί τῷ ὄντι καὶ ὅθεν κτλ. Dr Jackson suggests
ἄκουέ τι, οἷόν τε καὶ κτλ., and a reviewer of my
Text of the Republic in
Lit. Centralblatt 1898 p. 296
οἷόν τ’ ἐστί κτλ.
πεφυκέναι γὰρ ‐‐ κακόν
. Cf.
Gorg. 483 A
φύσει μὲν γὰρ πᾶν αἴσχιόν ἐστιν ὅπερ καὶ κάκιον, τὸ ἀδικεῖσθαι, νόμῳ δὲ τὸ ἀδικεῖν. That the natural relation between man and man is one of war is a view expressed in
Laws 626 A
ἢν γὰρ καλοῦσιν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰρήνην, τοῦτ’ εἶναι μόνον ὄνομα, τῷ δ’ ἔργῳ πάσαις πρὸς πάσας τὰς πόλεις ἀεὶ πόλεμον ἀκήρυκτον κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι. A similar theory is contained in the myth of Protagoras (
Prot. 322 B
ff.).
τοῖς μὴ δυναμένοις κτλ.
: i.e. (according to the theory of Callicles)
τοῖς ἀσθενέσι ἀνθρώποις καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς (
Gorg. 483 B
). In place of
δοκεῖ in 359 A I have adopted Ast's conjecture
δοκεῖν. Throughout this paragraph Glauco consistently presents his view at second hand. For the collocation of infinitives cf.
ἀδικεῖν, ἀδικεῖν 360 D, and for the error itself
Introd. § 5.
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 .