Plato Republic 3.398

αὐτός ‐‐ ἐπιδείξασθαι : ‘anxious to shew himself off together with his poems.’ ἐπιδείξασθαι is intransitive—i. q. ἐπίδειξιν ποιήσασθαι, cf. Lach. 179 E —with αὐτός, but transitive with ποιήματα. This explanation, which is due to Schneider, gives a much better sense than if we regard αὐτός τε καὶ τὰ ποιήματα as subject to ἀφίκοιτο, or translate ‘himself, and wanting to shew his poems’ (J. and C.). A reference to αὐτός τε καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν παρακάλει in IV 427 D is therefore hardly to the point.

προσκυνοῖμεν . The insertion of μέν, recommended by Shilleto (Dem. F. L. § 91) and Richards, is unnecessary: cf. I 340 D note For προσκυνεῖν ‘to kiss the hand’ (adorare), as to the image or shrine of a god, see Cope's Rhetoric of Aristotle Vol. I p. 86.

οὔτ) ἔστιν ‐‐ οὔτε θέμις . It is perhaps better to correct οὐκ into οὔτ)—see cr. n.—than the second οὔτε into οὐδέ (with Bekker and the other editors).

μύρον ‐‐ στέψαντες . The idea suggested by προσκυνοῖμεν and ἱερόν, that the poet is a sort of θεός or θεῖος ἀνήρ, is now elaborated with ironical politeness. The images of the gods were anointed, and crowned with garlands, not only on great occasions (cf. Cic. Verr. IV 77), but also at other times, according to Proclus, who remarks on this passage μύρον αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς ποιητικῆς ) καταχέας, ὡς τῶν ἐν τοῖς ἁγιωτάτοις ἱεροῖς ἀγαλμάτων θέμις, καὶ ὡς ἱερὰν στέψας αὐτήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐκεινα στέφειν ἦν νόμος ( in remp. p. 42 ed. Kroll). Schneider aptly compares Paus. X 24. 6 τούτου (a sacred stone) καὶ ἔλαιον ὁσημέραι καταχέουσι καὶ κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἑκάστην ἔρια ἐπιτιθέασι τὰ ἀργά. For other illustrations see Frazer on Paus. l.c., and Munro on Lucr. v 1199. Apropos of the present passage, Dio Chrysostom and other ancient writers cited by Ast refer to the anointing of swallows by Greek women: καὶ κελεύει μάλα εἰρωνικῶς (so Ast: MSS εἰρηνικῶς) στέψαντας αὐτὸν ἐρίῳ καὶ μύρῳ καταχέαντας ἀφιέναι παρ’ ἄλλους· τοῦτο δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐπὶ τῶν χελιδόν ων ποιοῦσι (Dio Chr. Or. 53 p. 276 ed. Reiske). To this custom Ast supposes that Plato is alluding, the poets being as it were faithless and garrulous swallows (cf. χελιδόνων μουσεῖα), as well as to the Pythagorean precept ‘not to admit swallows into the house’ (Plut. Symp. VIII 727 B ff.), on which see Frazer in Cl. Rev. V pp. 1—3. This explanation lends an additional point to ἀποπέμποιμεν: and προσκυνοῖμεν might fairly be interpreted of the joyful salutations with which the Greeks hailed the advent of the swallow in the spring (see e.g. Baumeister Denk. d. Kl. Alterth. p. 1985). G. B. Hussey ( Proceedings of the American Philol. Association Vol. XXII pp. xliii ff.) thinks that Plato has in his mind the wellknown χελιδονισμός of which we read in Athenaeus (VIII 360 B ff.), remarking that in the swallow song ‘the custom seems to have been to carry some sort of symbolic swallow from house to house.’ It is perhaps more probable (as Mr J. G. Frazer suggests to me) that “the ceremony of anointing the swallows and crowning them with wool was performed on the children who went from door to door in spring, singing the swallow song and apparently personating the swallow.” But the tone of the whole passage, with its air of studiously exaggerated politeness and compliment, as well as the particular expressions προσκυνοῖμεν, ἱερόν, and θαυμαστόν, are strongly in favour of Proclus' interpretation, although Plato's thoughts may have dwelt for a moment on the practices connected with the χελιδονισμός when he wrote the words ἀποπέμποιμεν— στέψαντες.

κατ’ ἀρχάς . II 379 A ff.

τὸ περὶ ᾠδῆς κτλ. The discussion has hitherto confined itself chiefly to tragedy and comedy. It remains to discuss lyrical poetry also on its formal side. Now the chief formal characteristic of lyric poetry is its invariable association with music. It is therefore necessary to lay down canons for musical composition. This is the justification for the sections on ‘harmony’ and rhythm, which are wrongly pronounced to be irrelevant by Krohn ( Pl. St. p. 15).

τρόπου . Hartman suggests τρόπον, in view of τὸ περὶ ῥυθμούς 399 E; but cf. 392 C. τρόπος is not here used in its technical sense, for which see Monro l. c. p. 63.

συμφωνήσειν . The metaphor may be suggested by the subject under discussion: cf. Phaed. 92 C .

λόγου ‐‐ ῥυθμοῦ . In the best period of Greek music, lyric poetry was written only for music, and music only for poetry, the separation of the two being condemned as illegitimate: see Monro l.c. pp. 119, 120. The elements of music are ῥυθμός and ἀρμονία. The former ‘reconciles’ ταχύ and βραδύ by arranging a proper sequence of short and long notes and syllables, the latter ὀξύ and βαρύ by a proper arrangement of notes of higher and lower pitch ( Symp. 187 A —C). In the wider sense, therefore, any ὁμολογία of ὀξύ and βαρὐ is a ἁρμονία, but in practice the word was used specifically of certain scales or modes, and it is in this sense (according to Westphal) that Plato uses it here and in 398 E, where see note.

ὡσαύτως : i.e. ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ λέξει as defined in 396 E, 397 D.

καὶ μὴν κτλ. The poet should be his own musician, and write the music to suit the words, not vice versá. This was another characteristic feature of classical Greek music, although a change set in during the fourth century B.C. See Westphal Gr. Rhythmik p. 1 and Laws 669 D, E, 812 D.

ἁρμονίαι (according to the orthodox view) are ‘musical modes’ and not simply ‘keys.’ They differed from each other both in the arrangement of the intervals (like our major and minor modes) and also in pitch. It must have been the former difference which chiefly —though not perhaps exclusively—accounted for the different effects of different modes upon the character and emotions, just as we are ourselves affected in different ways by music written in major and in minor keys. See H. S. Jones in Cl. Rev. VIII p. 449.

μιξολυδιστὶ κτλ. The omission of the article has been questioned, but in merely naming the scales it can be dispensed with: cf. (with Stallbaum) Arist. Pol. Θ 5. 1340^{b} 1 ( τὴν μιξολυδιστὶ καλουμένην). On the ἁρμονίαι recognized by Plato see App. II.

Ἰαστὶ ‐‐ καλοῦνται : ‘there are also varieties of Lydian and Ionian which are called ‘slack’.’ Jowett and Campbell, reading αἵτινες (see cr. n.), remark that the “indefinite relative suits with Plato's affected ignorance”; but the speaker is Glauco, not Socrates, and Glauco is μουσικός. See note on 399 C. Richards condemns αἵτινες χαλαραὶ καλοῦνται as spurious because αἵτινες “cannot be used in this way in good Attic prose of Plato's date.” With the older and better attested reading αὖ τινες, which I have ventured to restore, everything is plain. The words αὖ τινες establish once for all what Westphal (l.c. p. 198) and von Jan (l.c. p. 816) detected even when αἵτινες was read, viz. that Plato is referring not to Ionian and Lydian, but to slack Ionian and slack Lydian, a point which escaped Monro (l.c. p. 7) but not his reviewer ( Cl. Rev. VIII p. 449). See also my article in Cl. Rev. X pp. 378 f. We learn from Aristotle that certain musical critics censured Plato for rejecting τὰς ἀνειμένας ἁρμονίας and for characterising them as μεθυστικαί, βακχευτικὸν γὰρ ἥ γε μέθη ποιεῖ μᾶλλον ( Pol. Θ 7. 1342^{b} 23—27). It was partly perhaps in deference to these criticisms that Plato altered his view of μέθη in Laws 666 Aff.: see also Grote Plato III p. 328 note