Plato Republic 2.364

καλὸν μὲν ‐‐ ἐπίπονον . See cr. n. For the omission of τε καὶ δικαιοσύνη see Introd. § 5. The sentiment may be illustrated by Hesiod OD. 289—292 and Simon. ap. Pl. Prot. 339 B ff. ἄνδρ’ ἀγαθὸν μὲν ἀλαθέως γενέσθαι χαλεπόν κτλ.; cf. also Simonides' imitation of Hesiod ( Fr. 58 ed. Bergk).

ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλῆθος : i.q. ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. So also Phaedr. 275 B . The sentiment recurs in Isocr. de Pace § 31.

πονηρούς is the substantive, and ἄλλας δυνάμεις ἔχοντας balances πλουσίους. πλούτους, parallel to ἄλλας δυνάμεις, and also dependent on ἔχοντας, might appear neater. But there is no reason for deserting the MSS, although Plato is fond of the plural of πλοῦτος (cf. e.g. VI 495 A, X 618 B, 619 A). The sentiment is best illustrated from Polus's description of the happiness of Archelaus in Gorg. 471 A ff.

ὡς ἄρα ‐‐ μοῖραν . ἄρα hints dissent: cf. 358 C note The gnomic poets often express themselves in this vein: e.g. Solon 15. 1 πολλοὶ γὰρ πλουτεῦσι κακοί, ἀγαθοὶ δὲ πένονται, Theogn. 373— 380. A kindred sentiment occurs in Sophocles Phil. 447—452. For the most part however it is held that Justice asserts herself in the end: see for example Solon 4. 15 f., 13. 7—32. Euripides expresses the general teaching of Greek tragedy on this subject when he writes ( Ion 1621 f.) ἐς τέλος γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἐσθλοὶ τυγχάνουσιν ἀξίων, | οἱ κακοὶ δ’ , ὥσπερ πεφύκασ’ , οὔποτ’ εὖ πράξειαν ἄν. There is no occasion to write (with Richards) πολλάκις τοῖς for πολλοῖς.

ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες . This semi-proverbial expression (cf. VI 489 B, C) stigmatises the avarice of seers and mendicant priests ( ἀγύρται from ἀγείρω, cf. infra 381 D). Plato's contempt for μαντική in general is expressed in the Euthyphro and sporadically in various dialogues (see e.g. Tim. 71 E , with Archer-Hind's note); but his attack is here particularly directed (cf. infra 364 E) against such Ὀρφεοτελεσταί or Orphic friars as Theophrastus speaks of in his description of the δεισι‐ δαίμων ( Charact. 16) καὶ τελεσθησόμενος πρὸς τοὺς Ὀρφεοτελεστὰς κατὰ μῆνα πορεύεσθαι μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, ἐὰν δὲ μὴ σχολάζῃ ἡ γυνή, μετὰ τῆς τίτθης καὶ τῶν παιδίων. The kind of ceremonies which they practised may be seen from Dem. de Cor. §§ 258 ff. Plato agreed with the more enlightened section of his countrymen in condemning such degrading cults and superstitions on the ground of their immoral tendency: see especially Foucart des Assoc. religieuses chez les Grecs pp. 153 —157, where the opinions of ancient writers on this subject are collected. On ἀγύρται in general reference may be made to J. H. Wright in Harvard Studies in Cl. Philol. VI p. 66 note

ἐάν τε ‐‐ βλάψειν is in oratio obliqua: ‘et si quis inimicum laedere velit, nocituros se parvo sumptu iusto pariter et iniusto’ (Schneider Addit. p. 11). This explanation (which Tucker also proposes without knowing that Schneider had forestalled him) is by far the best and simplest. For other views see App. III.

ἐπαγωγαῖς ‐‐ καταδέσμοις . ἐπαγωγαί are ἀγωγαὶ δαίμονος φαύλου ἐπί τινα γενόμεναι (Timaeus Lex. s.v.). The datives are usually construed with πείθοντες, and καταδέσμοις understood as the binding formulae “by which the seer compels the invisible powers to work his will” (Rohde Psyche^{2} II p. 88 note). But in the κατάδεσμοι which have been discovered it is the victim and not the god who is bound down; see e.g. CIG 538 (an Athenian inscription of about 380 B.C.)— καταδῶ Κτησίαν—καὶ Κλεοφράδην καταδῶ—καὶ τοὺς μετὰ Κτησίου ἅπαντας καταδῶ. This and other instances from leaden tablets found in graves are given by Wachsmuth Rhein. Mus. XVIII (1863) pp. 560 ff.: cf. also Marquardt Röm. Staatsverwaltung III p. 109 note 6. On this account I think it better to connect ἐπαγωγαῖς τισὶν καὶ καταδέσμοις with βλάψειν, exactly as in Laws 933 D ἐὰν δὲ καταδέσεσιν ἢ ἐπαγωγαῖς ἤ τισιν ἐπῳδαῖς ἢ τῶν τοιούτων φαρυακειῶν ὡντινωνοῦν δόξῃ ὅμοιος εἶναι βλάπτοντι—τεθνάτω. Plato is still alluding to the debasing forms of oriental superstition which had gained a footing in Greece in his day: see Foucart l. c. p. 172.

θεοὺς ‐‐ σφισιν ὑπηρετεῖν : whereas true religion consists in man's ὑπηρεσία τοῖς θεοῖς Euthyph. 13 D ff.

οἱ μὲν κτλ. : ‘some declaiming about the easiness of vice, how that’ etc. οἱ μὲν—ᾄδοντες recalls 364 A, while οἱ δέ refers to the ἀγύρται καὶ μάντεις of 364 B. The reference in the first case is as precise as possible: πάντες γὰρ ἐξ ἑνὸς στόματος ὑμνοῦσιν ὡς καλὸν μὲν ἡ σωφροσύνη τε καὶ δικαιοσύνη, χαλεπὸν μέντοι καὶ ἐπίπονον· ἀκολασία δὲ καὶ ἀδικία ἡδὺ μὲν καὶ εὐπετὲς κτήσασθαι, δόξῃ δὲ μόνον καὶ νόμῳ αἰσχρόν (364 A). Those who ὑμνοῦσιν ὡς—ἀκολασία—καὶ ἀδικία—εὐπετὲς κτήσασθαι can be accurately described as κακίας περὶ εὐπετείας ᾄδοντες, but scarcely by οἱ κακίας πέρι εὐπετείας διδόντες, because ‘to offer facilities for vice’ is not the same thing as to say that vice is easy. Stallbaum attempts to evade this difficulty by taking διδόντες as equivalent to διδόσθαι λέγοντες, but neither is ‘saying that facilities are offered for vice’ quite the same as ‘saying that vice is easy.’ It is also difficult to find another instance of the plural of εὐπέτεια. The verbal echoes seem to me very strongly in favour of περὶ—ᾄδοντες. For ᾄδοντες=‘harping on’ (like the ὑμνοῦσιν to which it refers) cf. Lys. 205 C ἃ δὲ ἡ πόλις ὅλη ᾄδει and 205 D ἅπερ αἱ γραῖαι ᾄδουσι (with reference to the proverbial γραῶν ὕθλος): the use of ᾄδειν in Laws 854 C is different, but akin. For the corruption of ᾄδοντες to διδόντες see Introd. § 5. The conjectures of Liebhold ( Fl. Jahrb. 1888 p. 107) and Zeller ( Arch. f. Gesch. d. Phil. II p. 694) κακίας πέρι εὐπετείας διελθόντες and κακίας πέρι εὐπέτειαν διδόντας have little in their favour.

ὡς τὴν ‐‐ ἔθηκαν . Hesiod OD. 287—289. ὡς is due to Plato: Hesiod has τὴν μέν τοι κτλ. For λείη the MSS of Hesiod read ὀλίγη: λείη (also in Laws 718 E, Xen. Mem. II 1. 20 and elsewhere) proves the existence of a different recension. Cf. G. E. Howes Harvard Studies in Cl. Philol. VI p. 165. The verses are partially quoted or referred to again in Laws 718 E, Prot. 340 D ; their influence is also seen in Phaedr. 272 C .

καί τινα ὁδὸν κτλ. : Hesiod OD. 290 μακρὸς δὲ καὶ ὄρθιος οἶμος ἐς αὐτὴν | καὶ τρηχὺς κτλ. The last two words account for the marginal addition καὶ τραχεῖαν in A.

λιστοὶ ‐‐ ἁμάρτῃ . See cr. n. The words are spoken by Phoenix to Achilles in Il. IX 497—501. Plato edits the lines to suit his own purposes. For λιστοί our text of Homer has στρεπτοί. The word λιστοί (though implied in ἄλλιστος, τρίλλιστος) does not occur elsewhere, a fact which is strongly in favour of its genuineness here. We must suppose that the recension which Plato used had λιστοί. The theology contained in these lines meets us continually in ancient literature: cf. also the words of the king in Hamlet III 3 “And what's in prayer but this twofold force To be forestalled ere we come to fall Or pardoned being down?” Plato expresses his dissent in Laws 716 E ff., 905 D: in Alc. II 149 E we read οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι τοιοῦτόν ἐστι, τὸ τῶν θεῶν ὥστε ὑπὸ δώρων παράγεσθαι οἶον κακὸν τοκιστήν.

βίβλων ‐‐ ἐγγόνων . The allusion is to Orphic liturgies. Musaeus was the son of Selene, according to Philochorus quoted by the Scholiast on Ar. Frogs 1033 : cf. φαεσφόρου ἔκγονε Μήνης | Μουσαῖε in Abel Orphic. Fr. 4. Orpheus' mother was the Muse Calliope (Suidas s.v. Ὀρφεύς). There is no solid basis for the old view that ἔκγονος means ‘son,’ and ἔγγονος ‘grandson.’ The etymological form is ἔκγονος, but ἐκ‐ was often assimilated to ἐγ‐ before γ during the 4th century B.C., particularly in this word: cf. also ἐγγειτόνων etc. on Inscriptions. See Meisterhans^{3} p. 107. Elsewhere in the Republic ἔκγονος is the regular spelling.

καθ’ ἃς θυηπολοῦσιν : sacrificial liturgies. A θυηπολικόν is mentioned by Suidas (s.v. Ὀρφεύς) as one of the ‘works’ of Orpheus: see also Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 371 and Rohde Psyche^{2} II pp. 112, 113 notes

πόλεις : as for instance when Epimenides the Cretan purified Athens (see Grote III 85—89). Plato may be thinking of this event, which in defiance of chronology he placed ten years before the Persian wars ( Laws 642 D, E). Cf. also infra 366 A and Laws 909 B.

λύσεις ‐‐ καθαρμοί . λύσεις means ‘modes of absolution’ (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 810): cf. 366 A οἱ λύσιοι θεοί and Arist. Pol. B 4 1262^{a} 32 τὰς νομιζομένας λύσεις. The Scholium on Ar. Frogs 1033 contains the remark: οὗτος (i.e. Musaeus) δὲ παραλύσεις καὶ τελετὰς καὶ καθαρμοὺς συντέθεικεν. For παραλύσεις Blaydes proposes λύσεις, while Rutherford reads περὶ λύσεις (apparently with the Ravenna Codex), inserting also on his own conjecture ποιήματα after συντέθεικεν. I have no doubt that the Scholiast wrote παρὰ λύσεις: ‘besides Absolutions, he has composed also τελεταί and καθαρμοί.’ καθαρμοί formed a distinct class of religious literature, and were written by Epimenides, Empedocles, and others: see Grote I p. 27 note 3.

παιδιᾶς ἡδονῶν : ‘pleasures of play.’ παιδιᾶς depends on ἡδονῶν, and is here used abstractly: cf. Thuc. III 38. 7 ἀκοῆς ἡδονῇ and (with Schneider) Paus. I 21. 7 θέας ἡδονήν. Madvig would eject ἡδονῶν, but without ἡδονῶν Plato would probably have written παιδιῶν (cf. Laws 829 B): other suggestions, such as καὶ παιδιᾶς καὶ ἡδονῶν, or καὶ παιδιᾶς διὰ ἡδονῶν, or καὶ παιδιῶν καὶ ἡδονῶν are open to graver objection. For παίζειν and the like in connexion with religious celebrations Stallbaum cites Hdt. IX 11 Ὑακίνθιά τε ἄγετε καὶ παίζετε and VIII 99 ἐν θυσίῃσί τε καὶ εὐπαθείῃσι: add Phaedr. 276 B , Laws 666 B. Plato's point is that atonement if it is made a pleasure and not a penance sets a premium on sin.

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 .