Plato Republic 5.477

ed. John Burnet

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).) — 5.477 focus

Commentary

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

κἂν εἰ ‐‐ σκοποῖμεν . Further investigation from other points of view cannot weaken the conviction which Socrates and Glauco have already formed. The phrase is another indication that we are not here proving the Ideal Theory: see last note. Hartman should not have revived Ast's conjecture ἔχομεν <ἢ> καὶ πλεοναχῆ σκοπῶμεν.

εἰ ἐπὶ κτλ. See cr. n. Hermann's conjecture, that ἐπεί has been lost before ἐπί, has met with most favour. But ἐπεὶ ἐπί has an unpleasing sound, and εἰ might just as easily have disappeared as ἐπεί. Schneider and Stallbaum (with Ξ and the older editors) read οὐκοῦν ἐπὶ μὲν—ἐπὶ τῷ μεταξὺ δὲ κτλ., but the reading of q is intrinsically better, and the error an easier one. The reference in ἦν (‘is, as we saw’) is to 476 e—477 A.

κατ) αὐτὴν ‐‐ αὑτῆς : ‘each of them in accordance just with its own peculiar power,’ i.e. in accordance with this, and nothing else. αὐτήν is ipsam in the sense of solam. Cf. 477 D, where it is shewn that δυνάμεις should be classified on this same principle: also 478 A ἐφ’ ἑτέρῳ ἄρα ἕτερόν τι δυναμένη ἑκατέρα αὐτῶν πέφυκεν. The reading κατὰ τὴν αὐτήν—see cr. n.—gives precisely the wrong sense. Schneider and others— perhaps rightly—omit αὐτήν (with Vind. F), while Baiter adopts Hermann's ἄλλην —a very improbable correction. It is best, I think, to follow Schmidt, supposing that αὐτήν was accidentally omitted, and afterwards wrongly replaced.

μᾶλλον δὲ κτλ. Socrates had somewhat awkwardly called δόξα a δύναμις, and at the same time spoken of it as possessing a δύναμις. The present sentence introduces a sort of πάρεργον in which the notion δύναμις is more accurately defined. We may infer that δυνάμεις in the sense of (the intellectual) ‘powers’ was unfamiliar at the time when this section was written. It was perhaps— like ποιότης for example—one of Plato's experiments in language. ‘Faculties’ is, I think, too concrete to be a right translation.

αὐτήν is difficult. It is not quite easy to understand the word as ipsam, especially as it is so far from ἐπιστήμην. Had Plato written αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιστήμην, or ἐπιστήμην—καὶ αὐτήν there would have been little or no difficulty. As it is, if the text is right, we should probably (with Schneider and others) regard αὐτήν as tautological: cf. IV 428 A note Should we perhaps read Δεῦρο δὴ πάλιν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ ἄριστε, <ἐπὶ> ἐπιστήμην. πότερον κτλ.? The conjecture is not convincing, although it was at ἐπιστήμη that the digression began in 477 B. “If I were to make any change” says Jackson “I would put αὐτήν before or after τίθης.”

οἴσομεν . Θ with two Vienna MSS reads θήσομεν, which is also a correction in Cesenas M. θήσομεν was likewise conjectured by Cobet. A precise parallel is hard to find; but φέρειν is used elsewhere of the operations of the mind (cf. 478 B), and θήσομεν would not be likely to suffer corruption, especially as εἰς τί γένος τίθης occurs just before.

δόξα . Instead of δόξα O. Schneider ( Versuch ein. genet. Entw. d. Pl. ἀγαθόν p. 13) would read δύναμις, but δυνάμεθα should of course be taken in its full etymological sense.

πῶς γὰρ ἂν ‐‐ τιθείη . The infallibility of knowledge is a cardinal principle with Plato: cf. Gorg. 454 D and Theaet. 152 C , 186 C ff. See Zeller^{4} II 1, p. 591.