ὅταν κτλ.
Plato (as suggested by Hermann
Gesch. Abhandl. pp. 155 ff.) may have in view some of the generation of Athenian oligarchs who succeeded to the political party of Cimon; for Cimon was
τιμοκρατικός rather than
ὀλιγαρχικός (cf. V 470 C note). The description of the progress of individual degeneration from the aristocrat down to the tyrant constantly reflects Plato's own experience of Athenian society and domestic life: cf. 549 C, D notes Abundant materials for the picture were doubtless ready at hand in the
παντοδαποὶ ἄνθρωποι (557 C) of the ‘bazaar of polities’ (557 D). For the construction of this sentence cf. 549 C—550 A note We ought not to understand
μεταβάλλει before
ὅταν, for the
μεταβολή does not take place until 553 C, and
ἆρ’ οὐκ—παραζωννύντα is the only apodosis which Plato thinks it necessary to provide.
πταίσαντα κτλ.
For the figure cf.
Aesch.
Ag. 1006
and
Eum. 554—565.
ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι κτλ.
In some other examples of this idiom (III 414 E, VII 520 E, supra 545 E, IX 573 E et al.) only the first preposition is expressed; but in
Euthyph. 2 C
,
Phaedr. 255 D
and
Phaed. 67 D
(according to Ven. T) we find as here both prepositions. Cobet is not justified in excising the second preposition either here or elsewhere (
V. L.^{2} pp. 54, 164 ff., 532); for while
ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι πρὸς τῇ πόλει (for example) is only a similitude, in
ὥσπερ πρὸς ἕρματι τῇ πόλει the connexion is much closer, amounting almost to identification: see my note on
Euthyph. l. c. and cf. Braun
de Hyperb. Plat. II p. 9.
ἢ στρατηγήσαντα κτλ.
The words
ἢ στρατηγήσαντα—ἀποβαλόντα interpret the figure in
ἐξαίφνης πταίσαντα—ἑαυτόν: ‘having either been a Strategus or held some other high office, and then, when brought to trial, been either put to death, or banished, or disfranchised and deprived of all his property, by the damaging evidence of lying informers.’
βλαπτόμενον ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν might be taken as subordinate to
ἐμπεσόντα, but
πρὸς πόλει πταίσαντα seems rather to imply that the prosecution is not wholly vexatious, although the evidence turns out to be so. Some misfortune, such as happened for example at the battle of Arginusae (Xen.
Hell. 16. 33 ff., 7. 4 ff., with Grote VII pp. 411 ff.), arouses a great wave of popular feeling, in consequence of which the general is put upon his trial, and
συκοφάνται manage to secure his condemnation (cf. Xen. l.c. I 7. 11). Badham and Cobet ignominiously expel
βλαπτόμενον, apparently for no better reason than that
ἐμπεσόντα can be followed by
ὑπό of the agent (Cobet
N. L. p. 752,
V. L.^{2} p. 54). If the passage is taken as I take it,
βλαπτόμενον cannot be cancelled without grave inconvenience; and even if
βλαπτόμενον ὑπὸ συκοφαντῶν be construed with
ἐμπεσόντα, its excision is unnecessary. On the mischief wrought by
συκοφάνται in Athens see Hermann-Thumser
Gr. Staatsalt. p. 686 notes 2—4.
ξυλλέγεται
. See cr. n. and 550 A, 553 A notes
ξυλλέγηται is impossible after
ὠθεῖ, and
ὠθῇ would be very awkward.
τιάρας κτλ.
: symbols of Oriental sovereignty—note
μέγαν βασιλέα—and distinction: see
Dict. Ant. s.vv. and Schück
de Scholiis p. 32.
χαμαὶ ‐‐ παρακαθίσας
. Plato makes them squat like servile Oriental courtiers. The picture expresses with admirable clearness the psychological basis of Plato's sequence of polities: see on 547 C and 550 C, and compare the lines of Milton
Paradise Lost IX 1127 ff. “Understanding ruled not, and the will Heard not her lore; both in subjection now To sensual appetite, who from beneath Usurping, over sovran reason claimed Superior sway.” The poet Gray's note, though not, I think, correct, is worthy of quotation: “An allusion to those statues or bas-reliefs where some king, or conqueror, is represented with captive nations in chains sitting at his feet; as in that erected to the honour of Justinian, in the Hippodrome at Constantinople.”
καὶ καταδουλωσάμενος
is excised by J. J. Hartmann: but see V 451 B note
μηδέν
is written rather than
οὐδέν owing to the infinitives
θαυμάζειν καὶ τιμᾶν.
ἄλλη
: i.e. other than you have just described. Jowett's translation “Of all changes, he said, there is none so speedy or so sure as the conversion of the ambitious youth into the avaricious one” is quite wrong.
εἴη
. Stallbaum and some others place a mark of interrogation after
εἴη: “quod ego non penitus ineptum, sed inter proxime praecedentem et proxime sequentem interrogationem minus aptum existimo” (Schneider). Cf. 550 C.