Plato, Republic, ed. John Burnet, 5.472

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[472] 472a
ἐξαίφνης γε σύ, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ὥσπερ καταδρομὴν ἐποιήσω ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον μου, καὶ οὐ συγγιγνώσκεις στραγγευομένῳ. ἴσως γὰρ οὐκ οἶσθα ὅτι μόγις μοι τὼ δύο κύματε ἐκφυγόντι νῦν τὸ μέγιστον καὶ χαλεπώτατον τῆς τρικυμίας ἐπάγεις, ὃ ἐπειδὰν ἴδῃς τε καὶ ἀκούσῃς, πάνυ συγγνώμην ἕξεις, ὅτι εἰκότως ἄρα ὤκνουν τε καὶ ἐδεδοίκη οὕτω παράδοξον λόγον λέγειν τε καὶ ἐπιχειρεῖν διασκοπεῖν.
ὅσῳ ἄν, ἔφη, τοιαῦτα πλείω λέγῃς, ἧττον ἀφεθήσῃ 472b ὑφʼ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἰπεῖν πῇ δυνατὴ γίγνεσθαι αὕτη ἡ πολιτεία. ἀλλὰ λέγε καὶ μὴ διάτριβε.
οὐκοῦν, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, πρῶτον μὲν τόδε χρὴ ἀναμνησθῆναι, ὅτι ἡμεῖς ζητοῦντες δικαιοσύνην οἷόν ἐστι καὶ ἀδικίαν δεῦρο ἥκομεν.
χρή· ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτο; ἔφη.
οὐδέν· ἀλλʼ ἐὰν εὕρωμεν οἷόν ἐστι δικαιοσύνη, ἆρα καὶ ἄνδρα τὸν δίκαιον ἀξιώσομεν μηδὲν δεῖν αὐτῆς ἐκείνης διαφέρειν, ἀλλὰ πανταχῇ τοιοῦτον εἶναι οἷον δικαιοσύνη 472c ἐστίν; ἢ ἀγαπήσομεν ἐὰν ὅτι ἐγγύτατα αὐτῆς ᾖ καὶ πλεῖστα τῶν ἄλλων ἐκείνης μετέχῃ;
οὕτως, ἔφη· ἀγαπήσομεν.
παραδείγματος ἄρα ἕνεκα, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ἐζητοῦμεν αὐτό τε δικαιοσύνην οἷόν ἐστι, καὶ ἄνδρα τὸν τελέως δίκαιον εἰ γένοιτο, καὶ οἷος ἂν εἴη γενόμενος, καὶ ἀδικίαν αὖ καὶ τὸν ἀδικώτατον, ἵνα εἰς ἐκείνους ἀποβλέποντες, οἷοι ἂν ἡμῖν φαίνωνται εὐδαιμονίας τε πέρι καὶ τοῦ ἐναντίου, ἀναγκαζώμεθα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ὁμολογεῖν, ὃς ἂν ἐκείνοις ὅτι 472d ὁμοιότατος ᾖ, τὴν ἐκείνης μοῖραν ὁμοιοτάτην ἕξειν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τούτου ἕνεκα, ἵνʼ ἀποδείξωμεν ὡς δυνατὰ ταῦτα γίγνεσθαι.
τοῦτο μέν, ἔφη, ἀληθὲς λέγεις.
οἴει ἂν οὖν ἧττόν τι ἀγαθὸν ζωγράφον εἶναι ὃς ἂν γράψας παράδειγμα οἷον ἂν εἴη ὁ κάλλιστος ἄνθρωπος καὶ πάντα εἰς τὸ γράμμα ἱκανῶς ἀποδοὺς μὴ ἔχῃ ἀποδεῖξαι ὡς καὶ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα;
μὰ Δίʼ οὐκ ἔγωγʼ, ἔφη.
τί οὖν; οὐ καὶ ἡμεῖς, φαμέν, παράδειγμα ἐποιοῦμεν 472e λόγῳ ἀγαθῆς πόλεως;
πάνυ γε.
ἧττόν τι οὖν οἴει ἡμᾶς εὖ λέγειν τούτου ἕνεκα, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν ἀποδεῖξαι ὡς δυνατὸν οὕτω πόλιν οἰκῆσαι ὡς ἐλέγετο;
οὐ δῆτα, ἔφη.
τὸ μὲν τοίνυν ἀληθές, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, οὕτω· εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ τοῦτο προθυμηθῆναι δεῖ σὴν χάριν, ἀποδεῖξαι πῇ μάλιστα καὶ κατὰ τί δυνατώτατʼ ἂν εἴη, πάλιν μοι πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀπόδειξιν τὰ αὐτὰ διομολόγησαι.
τὰ ποῖα;

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).) — 5.472 focus

[472] This is a sudden assault,¹ indeed, said I, that you have made on my theory, without any regard for my natural hesitation. Perhaps you don’t realize that when I have hardly escaped the first two waves, you are now rolling up against me the great third wave² of paradox, the worst of all. When you have seen and heard that, you will be very ready to be lenient,³ recognizing that I had good reason after all for shrinking and fearing to enter upon the discussion of so paradoxical a notion. The more such excuses you offer, he said, the less 472b you will be released by us from telling in what way the realization of this polity is possible. Speak on, then, and do not put us off. The first thing to recall, then, I said, is that it was the inquiry into the nature of justice and injustice that brought us to this pass.⁴ Yes; but what of it? he said. Oh, nothing,⁵ I replied, only this: if we do discover what justice is, are we to demand that the just man shall differ from it in no respect, 472c but shall conform in every way to the ideal? Or will it suffice us if he approximate to it as nearly as possible and partake of it more than others? That will content us, he said. A pattern, then, said I, was what we wanted when we were inquiring into the nature of ideal justice and asking what would be the character of the perfectly just man, supposing him to exist, and, likewise, in regard to injustice and the completely unjust man. We wished to fix our eyes upon them as types and models, so that whatever we discerned in them of happiness or the reverse would necessarily apply to ourselves 472d in the sense that whosoever is likest them will have the allotment most like to theirs. Our purpose was not to demonstrate the possibility of the realization of these ideals. In that, he said, you speak truly. Do you think, then, that he would be any the less a good painter,⁶ who, after portraying a pattern of the ideally beautiful man and omitting no touch required for the perfection of the picture, should not be able to prove that it is actually possible for such a man to exist? Not I, by Zeus, he said. Then were not we, 472e as we say, trying to create in words the pattern of a good state? Certainly. Do you think, then, that our words are any the less well spoken if we find ourselves unable to prove that it is possible for a state to be governed in accordance with our words? Of course not, he said. That, then, said I, is the truth⁷ of the matter. But if, to please you, we must do our best to show how most probably and in what respect these things would be most nearly realized, again, with a view to such a demonstration, grant me the same point.⁸ What?

Commentary

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

στραγγευομένῳ . See cr. n. στρατευομένῳ could only be understood (with Stallbaum, who retains it, and Huber zu den Plat. Gleichnissen p. 10) as half-jocular for ‘de re militari disputanti.’ Such a usage is possible in itself (see on ἀποτίνουσι II 363 C); but ὤκνουν τε καὶ ἐδεδοίκη and μὴ διάτριβε (in B) are strongly in favour of στραγγευομένῳ. The same corruption—due to confusion of γ and τ, combined with lipography—occurs in the MSS of Ar. Ach. 126 , as well as in Hesychius ( στρατεύομαι· διατρίβω) and elsewhere: see Blaydes on Ar. l.c.

τὼ δύο κύματε . See 457 B, C. The first was ὡς δεῖ κοινῇ πάντα ἐπιτηδεύειν τούς τε φύλακας καὶ τὰς φυλακίδας; the second community of wives and children.

λέγειν λόγον τε . J. and C. read λόγον λέγειν τε with Ξ and Μ; but the other reading has far more authority, and is perhaps exquisitius. Cf. 452 A.

ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτο ; See cr. n. γε after τοῦτο is certainly wrong. It has no MS authority except that of A^{2}, and (as Stallbaum shews) ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτο is the regular form of this phrase in Plato: cf. Gorg. 497 E , Charm. 164 A . In both these cases the reply is Οὐδέν, followed by ἀλλά, as here.

παραδείγματος κτλ. παράδειγμα is not here an ‘illustration,’ but a ‘model’ or ‘standard’ (“Musterbild” Schneider) exactly as in IX 592 B and Theaet. 176 E .

αὐτό ‐‐ δικαιοσύνην : ‘justice by itself’: see II 363 A note Here however the expression means ‘abstract justice’ rather than merely ‘justice apart from its consequences.’ It is not yet a metaphysical ‘Idea’ in the sense of VI and VII: see on III 402 C, and cf. Pfleiderer zur Lösung etc. p. 19 with Susemihl Gen. Entw. II pp. 176 f.

καὶ ἄνδρα κτλ. : ‘and the man who is perfectly just if he should come into existence, and what his character would be if he did.’ εἰ γένοιτο must be understood as a kind of protasis to τὸν τελέως δίκαιον (i.q. τὸν τελέως ὄντα or ἂν ὄντα δίκαιον). Schneider's explanation is less simple: “virum perfecte iustum quaesituri ea conditione rem susceperant, si fieri et existere talis posset.” We must beware of translating ‘num existeret’ (Stallbaum): for it is just in order to shew the irrelevancy of the question, ‘Can such a man exist?’ that Plato wrote this sentence. Madvig omits καί before οἷος. In that case εἰ γένοιτο goes with the following clause (cf. IV 419 A note), and the meaning is: ‘if he should come into existence, what his character would be when he did.’ By this means we obtain an exact parallel between δικαιοσύνην οἷόν <*>στι and ἄνδρα—οἷος ἂν εἴη. It must be admitted, I think, that the emendation is an improvement: but the MS reading may stand. Campbell needlessly questions εἰ γένοιτο, thinking it a gloss on γενόμενος. The pleonasm is characteristic: cf. 471 C εἰ γένοιτο, πάντ’ ἂν εἴη ἀγαθὰ ᾗ γένοιτο.

καὶ ἀδικίαν αὖ κτλ. See IV 420 C note

ἵνα ‐‐ ἕξειν . Cf. VIII 544 A.

ἐκείνοις . See cr. n. ἐκείνης, which Schneider alone retains, can hardly be defended. For the error see Introd. § 5.

τοῦτο μέν . On μέν without δέ see 475 E note

οἴει ‐‐ ἄνδρα . For οἴει <*>ν Richards reads οἴει δή: but δή is unpleasing here. See also on 450 C. After ἂν—εἶναι we might expect δς ἂν—μὴ ἔχοι, ‘who would not be able,’ and so Ξ, q and several other MSS actually read. The irregularity is however no more than ‘cannot’ for ‘would not be able to’ in English. I have restored οἷος (which used to be read before Bekker) for οἷον (see cr. n.). The corruption is easy, and in such cases the relative regularly agrees with its subject: see Phil. 29 E with Stallbaum's note. It is also wrong in point of sense to refer the relative to παράδειγμα here. Art is credited with higher possibilities in this passage than in Book X, unless we suppose that the painter's κάλλιστος ἄνθρωπος is only an artificial combination of individual features imitated from human beings. But in that case the illustration is less apposite; for Plato's perfect city is more than imitation of the actual. See also on X 598 A, and cf. Xen. Mem. III 10. 2 and Arist. Pol. γ. 11. 1281^{b} 10—15.

παράδειγμα κτλ. Cf. Laws 713 B and 739 C—E.

δυνατώτατα κτλ. “Superlativus facultatem, quam relativam dicunt, indicat” Schneider. It is important to observe that Plato does not expect a perfect realisation even when philosophers become kings: cf. 473 E. Why he does not, is explained in 473 A. πάλιν refers to 472 C.

Plato Republic 5.472

ed. John Burnet

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Commentary

Stable identifiers