Plato Republic 2.378

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).) — 2.378 focus

Commentary

Commentary on Plato, Republic (Plato. The Republic, Vol 1-2. Adam, James, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902-1903.) focus

ῥᾳδίως οὕτω : 377 B note

θυσαμένους ‐‐ ἀκοῦσαι . ἀπορρήτων suggests the mysteries, whence the allusion to the ‘mystic pig’ ( Ar. Ach. 764 ). For ἄπορον, ‘unprocurable’ (Jowett), ἄπνρον has been suggested, absurdly enough. ἄπορον is further explained by ὅπως— ἀκοῦσαι. It should be noted that ὅπως with a past tense of the indicative in clauses of this kind is rare in Plato: it occurs again only in Laws 830 B, 959 C (where ἄν should be expunged). Cf. Weber in Schanz's Beiträge zur hist. Synt. d. Gr. Sprache II 2, p. 64.

οὐδ’ αὖ has been needlessly doubted by Richter ( Fl. Jahrb. 1867 p. 142), who suggests οὐδέν. The words ἀδικῶν—ποιοῖ correspond to the conduct of Uranus and Cronus towards their children: οὐδ’ αὖ—τρόπῳ to Cronus' treatment of Uranus, and Zeus' of Cronus. Cf Euthyph. 5 E —6 A. The Euthyphro presents so many parallels to § 378 that some have—erroneously, no doubt—supposed it to be a spurious elaboration of that section: see my edition of the dialogue p. xxix.

πολλοῦ δεῖ ‐‐ ποικιλτέον . πολλοῦ δεῖ is not adverbial (like ἥκιστα), as J. and C assert: otherwise δεῖ would be δεῖν (so Herwerden would read Mnem. N. S. XI p. 339). The asyndeton is justified by emphasis and the ampliative character of the sentence. The verbals are best explained (with Stallbaum) by supposing an ellipse of εἶναι: cf. Schanz Nov. Comm. Pl. p. 33.

ποικιλτέον . ποικίλλειν is used of depicting in a variety of colours (VIII 557 C), not necessarily by embroidery. Cf. 373 A note There is probably a special reference here to the πέπλος. At the greater, if not also at the lesser, Panathenaic festival, a robe woven by Athenian maidens and representing the triumph of Athena and the Olympians over the giants, together with other celestial fights, was carried in procession to the Acropolis, and presented to the statue of the goddess in the Erechtheum: cf. Euthyph. 6 B , C and Mommsen Feste d. Stadt Athen pp. 107 ff. The subject was depicted on the Parthenon frieze: see Baumeister Denkm. d. kl. Alterth. II p. 1185. The allusion to the ceremony is the more appropriate in this connexion, if, as appears to be probable, the action of the dialogue takes place just before the great Panathenaea of 410 B.C. See Introd. § 3.

ὡς οὐδεὶς κτλ. Plato desires to obtain a religious sanction for his institutions, as in the myth III 414 B ff. The best δημηγόρος, according to Socrates, is ὁ στάσεις τε παύων καὶ ὁμόνοιαν ἐμποιῶν ( Xen. Mem. IV 6. 14 ): and the Platonic State may from this point of view be regarded as “an attempt to determine the ways and means of securing political ὁμόνοια” (Krohn Pl. St. p. 369).

λεκτέα —see cr. n.—cannot be dispensed with. Madvig's suggestion, that μᾶλλον is corrupt for φατέον or ᾀστέον or the like, and Liebhold's μελητέον for μᾶλλον, are much less probable than the accidental omission of λεκτέα in A. See Introd. § 5. Vermehren ( Pl. Stud. p. 92), rejecting λεκτέα, would carry on μυθολογητέον or the like; but this solution is much too difficult.

καὶ πρεσβυτέροις γιγνομένοις . The dative goes with λογοποιεῖν (‘to make tales for them as they grow older’), and καί before τοὺς ποιητάς means etiam. This explanation was proposed by Richter ( Fl. Jahrb. 1867 p. 138) and Vermehren (l. c. p. 91), and is probably right. Cf. Ar. Frogs 1054 f. Others connect the words with καὶ γέρουσι καὶ γραυσί: old men, old women, and the boys themselves as they grow older, must tell such stories πρὸς τὰ παιδία εὐθύς. But it is difficult to understand τοῖς παιδίοις with γιγνομένοις unless πρεσβυτέροις γιγνομένοις is construed with λογοποιεῖν.

ὑέος . Hephaestus. Διός is a false reading derived from a mistaken reference to Il. XV 18 ff. The story (according to Clement ap. Suid. s. vv. Ἥρας δὲ δεσμοὺς ὑπὸ υἱέος) was in Pindar: παρὰ Πινδάρῳ γὰρ ὑπὸ Ἡφαίστου δεσμεύεται ἐν τῷ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ κατασκευασθέντι θρόνῳ—καί φασι δεθῆναι αὐτὴν ἐπιβουλεύσασαν Ἡρακλεῖ. Cf. Paus. I 20. 3.

Ἡφαίστου ῥίψεις . Il. I 586—594.

θεομαχίας ‐‐ οὐ παραδεκτέον . Homer Il. XX 1—74, XXI 385—513. Cf. Xenophanes Fr. 1. 19—22 (Bergk) and Pind. Ol. IX 43, 44 μή νυν λαλάγει τὰ τοιαῦτ’ · ἔα πόλεμον μάχαν τε πᾶσαν χωρὶς ἀθανάτων.

ἐν ὑπονοίαις : adverbial, like ἐν φαρμάκου εἴδει III 389 B (J. and C.). The allegorical interpretation of Homer probably originated in the desire to save his character for piety and morality: πάντη γὰρ ἠσέβησεν (says Heraclides Alleg. Hom. ad init.), εἰ μηδὲν ἠλληγόρησεν. Before the time of Plato it was practised by Theagenes of Rhegium, Anaxagoras, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, Stesimbrotos of Thasos and others: see Wolf Proleg. ad Homerum pp. 161—166 and Jebb's Homer p. 89. In Plato's day the Cynics were the chief exponents of this school of criticism, especially Antisthenes: examples may be found in Winckelmann's Antisth. Frag. pp. 16, 23—28: cf. also Dümmler Antisthenica pp. 16 ff. Dümmler, many of whose combinations are highly speculative, regards the present passage as directed against Antisthenes, whose rivalry with Plato is well known: but there is nothing to suggest any personal reference. The historical Socrates occasionally played with the same weapons, as appears from Xen. Symp. 3. 6, and Mem. I 3. 7: so also does Plato, but seldom, if ever, without irony, e.g. Rep. 1 332 B ἠνίξατο— ὁ Σιμωνίδης ποιητικῶς: cf. also Theaet. 194 C , Alc. II 147 B—D al. Plato's attacks upon Homer lent a great impetus to this method of exegesis—the only method, as it was thought, by which his animadversions could be met: cf. Schow's Heraclides pp. 223—234.

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 .