Plato Republic 3.395

οὐδὲ τὰ δοκοῦντα ‐‐ ποιοῦντες . The reverse is affirmed by Socrates in Symp. 223 D τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀνδρὸς εἶναι κωμῳδίαν καὶ τραγῳδίαν ἐπίστασθαι ποιεῖν, καὶ τὸν τέχνῃ τραγῳδοποιὸν ὄντα καὶ κωμῳδοποιὸν εἶναι. The solution is that in the Symposium Socrates is applying to the drama the Socratic principle μία ἐπιστήμη s. δύναμις τῶν ἐναντίων: theoretically, therefore, and ideally, the tragedian is also capable of writing a comedy. In the Republic, on the other hand, he is describing Greek dramatic art as he found it: for which reason he writes δύνανται and not δύναιντ’ ἄν (a corruption in v, wrongly adopted by Stallbaum). Cf. Ion 534 C. Aristophanes did not write tragedy, nor the tragedians comedy. The passage in the Symposium is interesting as an unconscious prophecy of the Shakespearian drama. Cf. Reber Plato u. d. Poesie p. 11.

μιμήματα . See cr. n. Former editors variously read μιμήματα or μιμήματε. Either is admissible, so far as concerns the Greek, but the plural was perhaps— owing to the proximity of τούτω—somewhat more likely to be corrupted to the dual in this instance than vice versâ. Cf. X 614 C δύο—χάσματα ἐχομένω ἀλλήλοιν with note ad loc. The reading μιμήματά τε represents the correction μιμήματα. This is, I think, a somewhat simpler view than to suppose that an original μιμήματε became μιμήματέ τε by dittography, and τέ was afterwards changed to τά. Roeper, however, pronounces in favour of the dual ( de dual. usu Pl. p. 14), and it must be admitted that duals are peculiarly liable to corruption in the MSS of the Republic. See Introd. § 5.

ῥαψῳδοί ‐‐ ὑποκριταί . Even ῥαψῳδοί seem to have generally confined themselves to a particular poet: see Ion 531 C, 536 B.

ἀλλ) οὐδὲ ‐‐ οἱ αὐτοί . This was true without exception till comparatively late times: see Müller Gr. Bühnenalt. pp. 185—188. κωμῳδοῖς and τραγῳδοῖς (literally ‘at the tragedians’ etc.) are local—almost adverbial—datives, regularly used to denote the exhibitions of comedies and tragedies: see e.g. Arist. Eth. Nic. IV 6. 1123^{a}23, Aesch. in Ctes. 36, and cf. the Latin use of ‘gladiatoribus’ for ‘at a gladiatorial show.’

ἢ αὐτὰ ἐκεῖνα πράττειν . καλῶς should be repeated with πράττειν, and ἤ is simply ‘or,’ not ‘or else.’ The alternative rendering given by J. and C. ‘or else—if able to imitate—is not able to do the things themselves,’ does violence to both grammar and sense.

δημιουργοὺς ἐλευθερίας . An artificial and somewhat strained expression, selected in order at once to compare and contrast the guardians with other artists. They too are artists, and their ἔργον is Freedom. To ἐλευθερία Plato attaches his own meaning: true freedom lies in the subordination of the lower to the higher, both in private conduct and in political life: cf. Xen. Mem. I 2. 5 , 6 and infra IX 577 D, E, X 617 E notes It is in this sense that ἐλευθέρους is used below.

τούτοις : viz. τοῖς δημιουργοῖς ἐλευθερίας τῆς πόλεως.

ἵνα μὴ ‐‐ ἀπολαύσωσιν reveals the object of this attack upon the drama: cf. II 383 C and infra 401 B. An admirable illustration of the sentiment is quoted by Susemihl from Plut. Sol. 29. 6 μετὰ δὲ τὴν θέαν προσαγορεύσας (sc. ὁ Σόλων ) αὐτὸν (viz. τὸν Θέσπιν) ἠρώτησεν, εἰ τοσούτων ἐναντίον οὐκ αἰσχύνεται τηλικαῦτα ψευδόμενος. φήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Θέσπιδος μὴ δεινὸν εἷναι τὸ μετὰ παιδιᾶς λέγειν τοιαῦτα καὶ πράσσειν, σφόδρα τῇ βακτηρίᾳ τὴν γῆν ὁ Σόλων πατάξας Ταχὺ μέντοι τὴν παιδιάν, ἔφη, ταύτην ἐπαινοῦντες καὶ τιμῶντες εὑρήσομεν ἐν τοῖς συμβολαίοις. To omit μή (with A and a few other MSS), and govern ἵνα by μιμεῖσθαι above is grammatically difficult, and gives an unsatisfactory sense. The genitive τοῦ εἶναι has been called in question by Hartman (following Ast) on the ground that “qui τοῦ εἶναι (sc. αἰσχροὶ) ἀπολαύσωσιν iam sunt turpitudine infecti.” This would be true, if Plato had written the present ἀπολαύωσιν, but the aorist is ingressive, and τοῦ εἶναι ἀπολαύσωσιν is virtually equivalent to γένωνται τοῦθ) <*> μιμοῦνται. Few will acquiesce in Ast's conjecture τὸ εἶναι, or in Stallbaum's view that τοῦ εἶναι is a partitive genitive.

καὶ κατὰ σῶμα ‐‐ διάνοιαν . For σῶμα Stallbaum conjectured σχῆμα, but Plato would surely have said σχήματα, as in 397 B. Hartman boldly ejects κατὰ φωνάς and reads καὶ κατὰ <τὸ> σῶμα καὶ κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν, remarking that κατὰ τὸ σῶμα by itself includes “gestus, habitus, vocem, vultum, similia.” This is in a sense true, but there is no reason why one particular instance of physical resemblance should not be selected for special remark. Plato differentiates the external from the internal characteristics by combining σῶμα and φωνάς under a single preposition, and repeating κατά before τὴν διάνοιαν.

αὐτούς . For αὐτούς following ὧν see on II 357 B. The rule against the repetition of the relative in such cases is sometimes dispensed with for the sake of rhetorical emphasis, e.g. in II 374 B and perhaps Theaet. 192 B .

μιμεῖσθαι . In what sense can the guardians be said to ‘imitate’ in such a case, or in those specified in 396 A, B? Not as actors, but as spectators. Acting involves three elements—the character, the actor, and the spectator. In good acting the spectator identifies himself with the actor through sympathy; and as the actor ‘imitates,’ so does he. Such is Plato's theory, though merely glanced at here. Cf. X 605 C ff., Ion 533 D ff., and see the excellent remarks of Nettleship Lectures and Remains II pp. 100—104.

ἢ ἀνδρὶ κτλ. ἀνδρί is of course ‘husband,’ not simply ‘a man’ (D. and V.). Contemporary comedy doubtless furnished abundant illustrations. In πρὸς θεοὺς ἐρίζουσαν κτλ. Plato may be thinking of Aeschylus' Niobe (see on II 380 A). The emphasis on οἰομένην should be noted: cf. I 336 A note

κάμνουσαν ‐‐ ὠδίνουσαν glances at Euripides and his school: cf. Ar. Frogs 1043 , 1044 and 1080, with the Scholiast's remark on 1080 ἔγραψε γὰρ ( ὁ Εὐριπίδης) τὴν Αὔγην ὠδίνουσαν ἐν ἱερῷ. Plato's strictures throughout this passage tell much more heavily against Euripides than against the other two dramatists.