Plato Republic 3.399

δωριστὶ καὶ φρυγιστί . The absence of the Aeolian mode is remarkable, for it must certainly have been known to Plato (see Pratinas quoted in App. II). Westphal agrees with Bellermann in supposing (l.c. p. 195) that αἰολιστί is included under δωριστί. Aristotle also ignores αἰολιστί, unless indeed (as Westphal holds ib. p. 196) it was identical with ὑποδωριστί. In Lach. 188 D φρυγιστί is excluded (perhaps because the speaker is Laches, whose ideal of courage is military rather than pacific), and Dorian, ‘the only national Greek mode,’ alone recognized.

ἐκείνην τὴν ἁρμονίαν : viz. Dorian, not Phrygian, as Ast seems to have thought.

μιμήσαιτο . Cf. Laws 798 D τὰ περὶ τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς καὶ πᾶσαν μουσικήν ἐστι τρόπων μιμήματα βελτιόνων καὶ χειρόνων ἀνθρώπων and 397 B above.

καὶ ἀποτυχόντος . καί connects ὄντος and ἀμυνομένου. ἀποτυχόντος (which is itself logically subordinate to ἀμυνομένου) has three subordinate alternatives ( ἢ—πεσόντος), all of which are summarised in ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις .

ἄλλην : viz. Phrygian. Aristotle blames Plato for retaining the Phrygian mode, while rejecting the αὐλός, with which it was usually associated: ἄμφω γὰρ ὀργιαστικὰ καὶ παθητικά ( Pol. Θ 7. 1342^{b} 3). Plato, however, rejects the flute, not because it is orgiastic, but because it is πολυαρμόνιον (399 D). In Plato's opinion the Phrygian mode expressed sobriety and resignation: Aristotle thought it ecstatic and purgative (l.c. 1341^{a} 23). The difference of view is interesting and important as shewing that the ethical effect of different modes was a disputed point even among the ancients.

ἢ εὐχῇ ‐‐ ἄνθρωπον is subordinate to πείθοντός τε καὶ δεομένου.

ὑπέχοντα . ἐπέχοντα—see cr. n.— cannot, I think, be right. ἐπέχειν τὴν διάνοιαν ( Laws 926 B) certainly does not justify ἐπέχειν ἑαυτόν, and even if it did, ‘submitting to’ and not merely ‘attending to’ is the sense required. With ὑπέχοντα cf. Gorg. 497 B ὑπόσχες Σωκράτει ἐξελέγξαι ὅπως ἄν βούληται, where the reflexive pronoun is omitted, as often with παρέχειν. Here it is better to take ἑαυτόν with ὑπέχοντα than with μεταπείθοντι. By changing the construction and writing accusatives instead of genitives, Plato makes the man himself rather than his φθόγγοι appear the object of imitation (cf. 397 D note). This is natural enough, because the situations described in ἢ τοὐναντίον—ἀγαπῶντα give less scope for φθόγγοι. Stephanus wished to read the genitive throughout ( ὑπέχοντος, πράξαντος etc.: so also v and two Florentine MSS), but there is also inscriptional evidence for a genitive or dative participle followed by an accusative in the course of a long sentence: see Meisterhans^{3} p. 205.

κατὰ νοῦν : ‘to his liking’: cf. εὐτυχούντων below.

ταύτας ‐‐ λεῖπε . The style is intentionally weighty and formal, as befits a solemn pronouncement: cf. X 617 D, E. After ταύτας there is a slight pause: ‘Just these, two modes and none other.’ The insertion of τάς would impair the effect. besides suggesting that Socrates had in view two of the current modes, which, not being himself μουσικός, he professedly had not. It is Glauco's business to fit the cap (398 E, 399 A); Socrates only makes it. The indefinite αἵτινες (before φθόγγους) is therefore strictly appropriate in the mouth of Socrates, although it would not be in Glauco's. ἁρμονίας is rejected by Herwerden in both places (see cr. n.), but it is almost as indispensable here as it is wrong after ἀνδρείων, although Stallbaum rejects the word here and retains it there. The genitives δυστυχούντων etc. must depend on φθόγγους. For βίαιον, ἑκούσιον (‘one involuntary, one voluntary’), Ast suggests βιαίου, ἑκουσίου, Hartman βιαίων ἑκουσίων. A human being cannot however be called βίαιος because he is engaged ἐν βιαίῳ πράξει, although the mode which imitates his accents may be so described with propriety and even elegance: cf. (with Schneider) such expressions as φόνος ξυγγενής for the slaughter of kindred. The words δυστυχούντων—κάλλιστα simply define the meaning of βίαιον and ἑκούσιον (‘whatever musical modes they be that shall best imitate the accents of’ etc.): the relative is postponed in order to keep the essential marks of the ἁρμονίαι together, but the careful reader will note that Plato begins a chiasmus with δυστυχούντων, as if to separate the genitives from what precedes and prepare us to find their construction in the sequel. Had he written εὐτυχούντων, δυστυχούντων, ἀνδρείων, σωφρόνων the double chiasmus would have compelled us to connect the genitives with δύο ἁρμονίας.

οὐκ ἄλλας ‐‐ ἔλεγον . The Dorian to express ἀνδρεία, the Phrygian σωφροσύνη. These are the two contrasting virtues which Plato's μουσική endeavours to combine (410 E).

παναρμονίου . In Plato the noun παναρμόνιον occurs only here and in 404 D ᾠδῇ τῇ ἐν τῷ παναρμονίῳ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι ῥυθμοῖς πεποιημένη. In the latter passage it certainly does not denote a musical instrument of any kind. Here the word is sometimes understood of a particular and definite musical instrument, but a careful study of the context shews that it does not bear this meaning even here. Plato has decided to admit only two modes, the Dorian and the Phrygian. ‘Consequently,’ he continues, ‘we shall have no need in our songs and melodies of πολυχορδία or παναρμόνιον, and therefore ( ἄρα) we shall dispense with τρίγωνοι, πηκτίδες etc., with all instruments, in short, which are πολύχορδα and πολυαρμόνια.’ The prohibition of certain musical instruments is an inference from the general principle that πολυχορδία and παναρμόνιον are unnecessary, so that παναρμόνιον cannot itself be a particular musical instrument. Probably, as Mr Archer-Hind has suggested to me, the παναρμόνιον was “not a mode or modes, but a style of composition, in which the ‘Tondichter’ passed freely from δωριστί to φρυγιστί and λυδιστί and as many others as he chose. The name may even have been given to well-known compositions in this style—cf. νόμος πολυκέφαλος—the fantasia with many subjects. The effect, I should think, may have been analogous to a series of bold and sudden modulations in modern music.” See also on αὐτὰ τὰ παναρμονία in 399 D.

τριγώνων ‐‐ πηκτίδων . These were foreign instruments of high pitch, and many strings. The τρίγωνον in particular was associated with loose and voluptuous melodies. For an exhaustive account of both see Susemihl and Hicks' Politics of Arist. vol. 1 pp. 632—636 or von Jan's de fidibus Graecorum pp. 29 ff., 33 ff.

αὐλητἀς . The αὐλός resembled the clarinet. It had a “mouthpiece ( ζεῦγος) in which a vibrating reed ( γλῶττα) was fitted,” and was sometimes played in pairs. See Dict. Ant. s.v. tibia. Plato banishes the ‘flute’ and retains the Dorian mode, although Dorian melodies were often played on it, as Milton well knew: see the noble description of the “Dorian mood of flutes and soft recorders” in Par. Lost 1 550 ff. In Boeotia, where the αὐλός was highly esteemed, it was supposed rather to calm than to excite the feelings. See Rhys Roberts The Ancient Boeotians pp. 33— 35.

ἢ οὐ τοῦτο πολυχορδότατον; τοῦτο is that with which αὐλοποιοί and αὐληταί are concerned, viz. the ‘flute’: cf. II 377 C note οὗτος instead of τοῦτο would have been a trifle harsh. πολυχορδότατον has been repeatedly called in question, and there is the usual crop of emendations, intended to obliterate the metaphor. Schneider has however shewn that the MS reading is sound, by citing Pollux IV 67 Πλάτων δὲ καὶ πολύχορδον εἴρηκε τὸν αὐλόν, and Simon. Fr. 46 ὁ καλλιβόας πολύχορδος αὐλός, and comparing expressions like αὐλὸν κρέκειν, ἁρμόζειν, κρούειν. Many other illustrations are given by Smyth, Greek Melic Poets p. 326. Here the metaphor is intended to arrest attention by its boldness and prepare us for the theory of the origin of παναρμόνια in the next clause; but πολυχορδότατον in itself, like πάμφωνος in Pindar ( Pyth. 12. 19 al.), refers only to the number of different notes which the flute, thanks to various contrivances, such as plugs, wax, etc., was capable of producing. See Abdy Williams in Proceedings of the Musical Association 1897—8 p. 135. Plato objects to the multiplicity of strings and notes as admitting and even inviting change and fusion of modes. We are told by Paus. IX 12. 5 (cited by Monro l.c. p. 38: cf. Ath. XIV 631 E) that it was one Pronomus of Thebes who πρῶτος ἐπενόησεν αὐλοὺς ἐς ἅπαν ἁρμονίας εἶδος ἔχοντας ἐπιτηδείως. Down to his day there were three forms of ‘flutes,’ intended for the Dorian, Phrygian and Lydian modes respectively. On the means by which this change was effected see Dict. Ant. s.v. tibia.

αὐτὰ τὰ παναρμόνια : sc. ὄργανα, such as πηκτίδες and τρίγωνοι. Plato means those instruments on which panharmonic melodies could be played (cf. Proclus in remp. p. 63 ed. Kroll): but we must beware of translating (with D. and V.) ‘the panharmonium itself,’ for no single specific instrument is here intended, as some later lexicographers appear to have supposed. The gloss in Hesychius παναρμόνιον· εἶδος ὀργάνου, ἐξ ὅλου τεταγμένον is not quite clear, and may conceivably refer to a whole class of instruments, but Photius apparently thought that there was a special instrument called παναρμόνιον. His note (p. 388, 26 ed. Porson) is as follows: παναρμόνιον· ὄργανον μουσικόν· Ἄλεξις, ἐν ᾧ τὸ παναρμόνιον τὸ καινὸν ἔντεινον τεχνῶν ( Τέχνων Meineke). Photius may of course be right in his interpretation of Alexis' line: but παναρμόνιον in Plato never, I believe, refers to one particular instrument: and even Alexis may mean no more than ‘perform the new panharmonic melody,’ ἐντείνω being used as in τὸ κάλλιστον ἐντείνας μέλος, Dionys. Hal. de admir. vi dicendi in Dem. c. 48.

λύρα ‐‐ κιθάρα . The λύρα was the stringed instrument in common use; the κιθάρα was employed chiefly by professional musicians or κιθαρῳδοί. See Monro in Dict. Ant. s.v. Lyra, where illustrations of the two instruments are given, and von Jan de fid. Gr. pp. 5—26. By admitting the professional κιθάρα, Plato perhaps lends his sanction to musical festivals or contests in the approved modes.

καὶ κατὰ κτλ. After χρήσιμα supply ἐστίν. This is better than to eject καί (with Ast and—according to Bekker— Vat. Θ). Demetrius ( περὶ ἑρμ. § 185, cited by Schneider) finds in the words καὶ αὖ κατ’ ἀγροὺς τοῖς ποιμέσι (sic, not νομεῦσι) σύριγξ ἄν τις εἴη an imitation of the sound of the σύριγξ. “Ceterum Demetrii rationem me non perspicere fateor,” says Schneider. Demetrius' remark is, I believe, correct, and has reference to the sigmatismus in the words of Plato: cf. Laws 700 C τὸ δὲ κῦρος τούτων—οὐ σύριγξ (used for συριγμός) ἦν οὐδέ τινες ἄμουσοι βοαὶ πλήθους, καθάπερ τὰ νῦν. The σύριγξ was either μονοκάλαμος, resembling our flute, or πολυκάλαμος (like Pan's pipe): see Dict. Ant. s.v. The indefinite τις shews that Plato did not wish to specify which variety he intended.

οὐδέν γε ‐‐ ὀργάνων . Plato puts himself in the position of the Muses, who preferred Apollo's performance on the κιθάρα to that of Marsyas on the flute (Apollod. I 4. 2). This is the force of οὐδέν γε καινὸν ποιοῦμεν. The words τὰ τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ὄργανα must not be pressed; for although Apollo invented the cithara, the lyre was ascribed to Hermes (Paus. V 14. 8: cf. the Homeric Hymn to Hermes), and the syrinx to Pan. The discovery of the flute was also ascribed to Athena, especially by the Boeotians. A third account represents Marsyas as picking up the instrument after Athena had discovered and discarded it. This legend may be an attempt to reconcile the two conflicting stories, and probably dates from the decline of the flute as an instrument of education in Athens during the fourth century (Arist. Pol. Θ 6. 1341^{a} 32 ff. Cf. Preller Gr. Myth. p. 223). In making Marsyas its discoverer, Plato declares the flute a foreign instrument, and appropriately excludes it from his ‘Greek city’ (V 470 E).

νὴ τὸν κύνα . This peculiarly Socratic oath occurs only once again in the Republic (IX 592 A). In both passages it marks the highest degree of emphasis. On the oath itself see my note on Ap. 21 E and Blaydes on Ar. Wasps 83 .

ἄρτι : II 372 E note

βάσεις . The word βάσις in the technical writers on Rhythm generally means a dipody or combination of two feet under one main ictus: cf. Schol. in Heph. I 3. 1 p. 124 ed. Westphal βάσις δέ ἐστι τὸ ἐκ δύο ποδῶν συνεστηκός, τοῦ μὲν ἄρσει, τοῦ δὲ θέσει παραλαμβανομένου. Such a technical use of the word would be out of place here, especially in the mouth of Socrates; and the word is employed throughout as equivalent simply to ‘step’ or ‘foot.’ Even technical writers sometimes so use it: cf. the Scholiast already cited δέξεται δὲ (sc. the Iambic metre) ἐν μὲν τῇ πρώτῃ βάσει ἴαμβον καὶ σπονδεῖον II 5. p. 151 and Gleditsch l.c. p. 702.

κοσμίου τε καὶ ἀνδρείου recalls 399 C σωφρόνων ἀνδρείων, and would seem to point to the necessity of two kinds of rhythm, one to go with the Phrygian mode and express sobriety and self-control, the other to join the Dorian mode in expressing courage. On the ethical qualities of Greek rhythm in general, consult Westphal Gr. Rhythmik pp. 226—239 and Arist. Rhet. III 8, with Cope's notes.