Plato Republic 8.568

οἱ νέοι πολῖται : ‘the new citizens,’ viz. these quondam slaves etc., not (as D. and V.) ‘the young citizens.’ It is, in view, for example, of νέους ἑταίρους ‘new friends’ IX 575 D, quite unnecessary to read οἱ νεοπολῖται (apparently with Pollux III 56: cf. also id. IX 26), although according to Diodorus XIV 7 Dionysius called his body-guard of emancipated slaves νεοπολῖται. See Freeman's Sicily l.c.

οὐκ ἐτὸς κτλ. A highly ironical and sarcastic sentence. It is not without reason that tragedy ‘in general’ ( ὅλως is not ‘on the whole’ as D. and V. render) is thought σοφόν, and Euripides a mastertragedian (Euripides was notoriously ‘ σοφός’—see Blaydes on Ar. Clouds 1378 ): for he gave utterance inter alia to this sapient remark (for ἐφθέγξατο of an oracular, would-be-profound observation, see on VI 505 C): σοφοὶ τύραννοι τῶν σοφῶν συνουσίᾳ, in which by ‘ τῶν σοφῶν’ he meant of course οἷς ξύνεστιν ( ὁ τύραννος), the associates of the tyrant, i.e., as we have seen, a rabble of emancipated slaves and foreign mercenaries. In τραγῳδία— σοφὸν δοκεῖ εἶναι Plato is also perhaps scoffing at the constant use of σοφός in tragedy, especially by Euripides: σοφός is, no doubt, that σοφόν says! None but a σοφός could have written σοφοὶ τύραννοι τῶν σοφῶν συνουσίᾳ. The poet of course really meant that tyrants gain wisdom from the wise men who throng the ‘rich man's courts’ (VI 489 B note); but Plato maliciously twists the words into a compliment to tyrants and their rabble rout, and makes them a reason for tabooing tragic poets as τυραννίδος ὑμνητάς (B). Cobet would omit τούς before σοφούς: but the article is necessary because τοὺς σοφούς represents τῶν σοφῶν of the quotation. As regards the verse itself, it was Sophocles (in his Αἴας ὁ Αοκρός), and not Euripides, who was the author: see the references in Schneider, with Blaydes on Ar. Thesm. 21 , Frag. 311 and Dindorf on Soph. Frag. 12 = Nauck Frag. 13. Plato's error is repeated in Theag. 125 B , and the Scholiast on Ar. Thesm. l.c. remarks that Aristophanes and Antisthenes made the same mistake, suggesting that either Aristophanes misled the others (so also Hirmer Entst. u. Komp. d. pl. Pol. p. 658 note 2), or that the two tragedians wrote the same line independently (so Schneider also thinks). The latter supposition is unlikely. Perhaps the reduplication of the cant Euripidean σοφός is responsible for a kind of error which was easier in antiquity than it would be now. There is little to be said in favour of Dümmler's conjecture ( Akadem. p. 16), that Antisthenes had quoted the line as from Euripides in an attack on Plato for associating with tyrants (Dionysius I and II), and that Plato, in his hurry to reply, forgets to rectify his assailant's error. Still less should we suppose that Plato's perverse exegesis is meant to caricature Antisthenes' way of expounding poetry.

ἰσόθεόν γε κτλ. Eur. Troad. 1169 τῆς ἰσοθέου τυραννίδος. Isocrates ad Nic. 5 appears to allude to the same verse (Dümmler Chronol. Beiträge p. 32).

ἕτερα πολλά : e.g. Phoen. 524 f., Fragg. 252, 336 Dindorf. In point of fact, however, Euripides blames tyranny at least as often as he praises it: see e.g. Ion 621 ff., Suppl. 429 ff., Fragg. 277, 288, 608 and other passages in Stob. Flor. 49. The elder Dionysius himself had the effrontery or candour to write the line ἡ γὰρ τυραννὶς ἀδικίας μήτηρ ἔφυ (Stob. Flor. 49. 9, quoted in Freeman's Sicily IV p. 7 note I).

παραδεξόμεθα : not παραδεχόμεθα (as Stephanus suggested), in spite of the present συγγιγνώσκουσιν, for “civitas ipsa nondum exstitit, sed veniam iam nunc sibi dari sperat Socrates” (Schneider).

καλὰς φωνὰς κτλ. τὰς τῶν ὑποκριτῶν (Schol.). With this whole sentence should be compared Laws 817 C, where Plato addresses tragic poets in these words: μὴ δὴ δόξητε ἡμᾶς ῥᾳδίως γε οὕτως ὑμᾶς ποτε παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐάσειν σκηνάς τε πήξαντας κατ’ ἀγορὰν καὶ καλλιφώνους ὑποκριτὰς εἰσαγαγομένους, μεῖζον φθεγγομένους ἡμῶν, ἐπιτρέψειν ὑμῖν δημηγορεῖν πρὸς παῖδάς τε καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ τὸν πολὺν ὄχλον κτλ.

τυραννίδας τε καὶ δημοκρατίας . Democracy is next door to tyranny: in fact, ἡ δημοκρατία ἡ τελευταία τυραννίς ἐστιν (Arist. Pol. E 10. 1312^{b} 5). Attic tragedy, of course, praises Democracy more often than Tyranny. On the political influence of poetry see Laws 817 C ff., Gorg. 501 E ff. and other passages in Reber Platon u. die Poesie pp. 55—59.

μισθοὺς κτλ. We may recall Pindar's ἀργυρωθεῖσαι πρόσωπα μαλθακόφωνοι ἀοιδαί ( Isthm. 2. 8).

τιμῶνται κτλ. “For good and evil,” says Bosanquet, “Plato's assertion is true on the whole.” But as far as concerns Greece, at any rate, we may doubt whether tragic poets were not more honoured in the democracy of Athens than in imperial courts.

ὑπὸ τυράννων : e.g. Hiero, Archelaus, and such like patrons of poetry and the drama.

ὅσῳ δ’ ἂν κτλ. The honour paid to Poetry varies inversely with the merit of the constitution. This is perhaps the severest thing which Plato has yet said against Poetry. The striking metaphor in ὥσπερ ὑπὸ ἄσθματος κτλ. is curiously like Dante, as Bosanquet points out.

θρέψεται . Is the verb middle or passive? It is passive in E below, but that does not decide the question: see on 546 D. If we confine our attention to the single sentence λέγωμεν—θρέψεται, the verb is most readily understood as passive; but ἀναλώσει in the next sentence favours the view that it is middle. On the whole, I prefer the passive. It is easy to supply the subject of ἀναλώσει from τοῦ τυράννου.

ἐάν τε ἱερὰ κτλ. The elder Dionysius in particular greatly shocked the conscience of Hellas by plundering temples: see Grote X pp. 300, 302 note 3.

<καὶ> τὰ τῶν ἀπολομένων : ‘and the property of his victims’: cf. ἀπολλύῃ 567 A, ἀπολέσας 568 A, as well as the καθαρμός of 567 B, C. ἀπολομένων is itself so used in Laws 628 B. In the indictment of Dionysius I by the Syracusan knight Theodorus (Diodor. XIV 65) occur the words οὗτος δὲ τὰ μὲν ἱερὰ συλήσας, τοὺς δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν πλούτους ἅμα ταῖς τῶν κεκτημένων ψυχαῖς ἀφελόμενος τοὺς οἰκέτας μισθοδοτεῖ κατὰ τῆς τῶν δεσποτῶν δουλείας. The sentence exactly illustrates what Plato here says. On the text and other views of this passage see App. VI.

δὴ . Badham suggests ἤ η, needlessly: cf. IX 573 E and 574 C (Baiter).

ἐπιλίπῃ κτλ. ἐπιλείπῃ (see cr. n.) is retained by Hermann, but the aorist, which nearly all the MSS read, is no less necessary here than in I 340 E, IX 573 E and X 601 B. Cf. Heller Curae Criticae pp. 3 ff. On τῶν πατρῴων see IX 574 A note

μανθάνω ‐‐ ὅτι . A comparison with 584 A line 8 and with 496 A line 8 (see cr. nn. ad loc.) shows that ἔφην ἐγώ, and not ἧν δ’ ἐγώ is in all probability the right reading in this place. ὅτι = (you say so) ‘because,’ not ‘that’: see on I 332 A.

πῶς δὲ λέγεις κτλ. ‘And how say you,’ quoth I, ‘if the Demos be somewhat wroth’ etc. I formerly read πῶς λέγεις with Ξ and some other inferior MSS, but now revert to the best supported reading, except that, with q, I print ἐάν τι for ἐάν τε (see cr. n.). If we read πῶς λέγεις, we must take the words as referring to πολλὴ αὐτῷ—ἀνάγκη: if πῶς δὲ λέγεις, the reference will be to the words which follow εἷπον, and πῶς δὲ λέγεις will then invite the reply which Adimantus gives below, viz. γνώσεταί γε— ἐξελαύνει. It seems to me better in every way to make the question refer to the new point which is about to be raised by Socrates; for the statement that the Demos will have to support the tyrant is already complete, and needs neither further elucidation nor any expression of surprise. A majority of editors read ἐὰν δέ for ἐάν τε. I think that τε must be wrong in any case, unless (with Schneider) we postulate an awkward anacoluthon, as though Socrates meant to add ἐάν τε μή. The reading of τι for τε enables us to retain πῶς δὲ λέγεις, and refer the question to what follows: for which reasons I now follow q.