Plato Republic 5.464

ἔφαμεν κτλ. 462 B, C. οὐκοῦν—ἕξουσιν sums up. ὃ δὴ—ὀνομάσουσιν is parenthetical, ‘to which, as we have seen, they will apply the name “mine.”’

ἀπεικάζοντες κτλ. See on 462 C and App. V.

ἐπικούροις . Why not φύλαξι? The word φύλακες regularly includes both the ἄρχοντες and the ἐπίκουροι, but it is strange to find ἐπίκουροι including the τέλεοι φύλακες or rulers (see on II 374 D), as it appears to do here and in 466 A. The following explanations may be suggested. (1) Plato intends the community of wives and children to extend only to the Auxiliaries, and not also to the Guardians. This view is taken by Blaschke ( Familienu. Gütergem. d. Pl. St. p. 10), who asserts that the Rulers proper have already past the limits of age prescribed for matrimony. In point of fact, however, a man may become a τέλεος φύλαξ at 50 (VII 540 A, B), whereas he can marry till he is 55 (460 E). (2) As by far the largest number of husbands would be only Auxiliaries, Plato speaks somewhat loosely, as if matrimonial community were confined to them. This explanation is possible enough in itself, but fails to explain the usage in 466 A. (3) ἐπίκουροι is used with the new and deeper meaning given to it in 463 B (where see note), ‘helpers of the people,’ rather than in its original and technical sense of the rulers' auxiliaries. This suits all the passages, and is in my judgment what Plato intended. ἐπίκουρος is not the only term whose connotation deepens as the Republic proceeds: cf. II 376 B, III 392 C notes

ὡμολογοῦμεν . I formerly read <*>μολογοῦμεν with Ξ q^{2}, Stallbaum, and others; but Schneider, as I now think, is right in retaining the imperfect and referring it to the original mention of domestic communism in Book IV. The whole of this discussion may in fact be regarded as a defence in the form of an explanation of the sentence IV 423 E— 424 A. See also App. I.

τροφὴν λαμβάνοντας κτλ. summarises III 416 D, E.

ἑτέρους = μὴ τοὺς αὐτούς depends on ὀνομάζοντας understood. D. and V. make ἕλκοντα govern γυναῖκα— ἑτέρους, as Stallbaum formerly did, but Plato could not have said anything so ludicrous.

ὁμοπαθεῖς : ‘simultaneously affected by’ D. and V. ὁμοιοπαθής (Ast) would mean ‘of like passions with.’

ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν with οἰχήσεται=‘almost have disappeared,’ “so gut wie verschwunden sein” (Schneider): see on I 341 B. The English translators either omit or misinterpret the phrase. Aristophanes furnishes several pretty close parallels to Plato's reasoning here: cf. Eccl. 560—610 and especially 657 ( ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ δίκαι πρῶτον ἔσονται)—672. See Chiappelli Riv. di Filol. XI pp. 212 ff. and on the whole subject App. I.

οὐδὲ ‐‐ αὐτοῖς . The first οὐδέ is of course ne—quidem. Hoefer should not have conjectured οὔτε—οὔτε ( de part. Pl. p. 41).

δικαίως is ejected by Cobet and Herwerden, but δίκαιον just below supports it. There cannot justly be any lawsuits for outrages on the person, if we declare it just and honourable for a man to take the law into his own hands. This explanation is perhaps better than to translate ‘we may fairly suppose that there will not be’ etc.

ἥλιξι κτλ. Cf. (with J. and C.) Laws 879 E ἧλιξ δὲ ἥλικα—ἀμυνέσθω κατὰ φύσιν ἄνευ βέλους ψιλαῖς ταῖς χερσίν. It should be remembered that in cases of αἰκεία the guilty party was the one ὃς ἂν ἄρξῃ χει<*>ῶν ἀδίκων πρότερος (Meier u. Schömann Att. Process p. 648).

ἀνάγκην ‐‐ τιθέντες =‘curae corporum necessitatem imponentes,’ ‘compelling them to keep themselves in condition.’ Cf. Xen. Rep. Lac. 4. 6 ἀνάγκη δ’ αὐτοῖς εὐ εξίας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι· καὶ γὰρ πυκτεύουσι διὰ τὴν ἔριν, ὅπου ἂν ξυμβάλωσι. It is probably of Sparta that Plato is thinking. I have now reverted to the best supported reading, although the use of τιθέντες as virtually equivalent to ἐπιτιθέντες is not free from difficulty. There is considerable MS authority (including II) for ἀνάγκῃ, and as ἐπιμέλειαν was read by A^{1} (see cr. n.) and several other MSS, I once conjectured <ἐν> ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν τιθέντες, taking ἐν ἀνάγκῃ as meaning ἀναγκαίαν; but this idiom is very rare except with ἐστί, ἦν and the like. Stobaeus ( Flor. 43. 102) and Stallbaum read ἀνάγκην σωμάτων ἐπιμελείας. In q and two other MSS the text runs ἀνάγκῃ (or ἀνάγκη) σωμάτων ἐπιμελείας τιθέντες. Does this mean ‘requiring them to guard against violence to the person’ ( ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων)? If Plato meant to convey this meaning, it would be preferable to read ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν τιθέντες (for which there is also better MS authority), or possibly ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων <*>πιμέλειαν <ἀντι> τιθέντες, but ἀνάγκῃ σωμάτων would be a fantastic expression, though perhaps intelligible after βιαίων and αἰκείας. On the whole, I think the reading printed above has most in its favour.