Plato Republic 9.577

τῆς ‐‐ σχηματίζονται : ‘circumstance and pomp of majesty, which they put on to the world outside.’ Cf. προστήσασθαι X 599 A note and (with Schneider) II 365 C πρόθυρα μὲν καὶ σχῆμα — περιγραπτέον. τῶν τυραννικῶν seems to be usually taken as masculine, in which case it might have been omitted without any loss to the meaning. I think it is the genitive of τὰ τυραννικά: cf. B below ἐν οἷς μάλιστα γυμνὸς ἂν ὀφθείη τῆς τραγικῆς σκευῆς.

εἰ οὖν οἰοίμην κτλ. ‘If then I should think it right for all of us to listen to the man who is both capable of judging’ etc. The dialogue form is strained almost to breaking in this remarkable sentence. We are all to be silent and listen to Plato himself. Plato might fairly claim from his psychological studies and experience as a teacher, to be δυνατὸς τῇ διανοίᾳ εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἦθος <*>νδὺς διιδεῖν and so δυνατὸς κρῖναι, and he had lived under the same roof with Dionysius I of Syracuse. The poet Gray was one of the first to observe that Plato is here meant.

ἐν οἷς =‘among whom’ is surely better and more natural than ἐν αἷς, which Richards has conjectured. The tyrant lays aside the mask in his own family.

τραγικῆς σκευῆς =“theatrical garb” (D. and V.) again betrays “a feeling of the kinship between the shows of tyranny and those of tragedy” (Bosanquet: cf. VIII 568 A note). Dionysius I was himself a writer of tragedies, and notoriously jealous—so we are told—of his poetical reputation (Grote X pp. 302 ff.): but it would be frigid to suppose that this was in Plato's mind when he wrote the word τραγικῆς .

αὖ τοῖς was first conjecturally restored by Heindorf (on Soph. 262 A ), following Ficinus, instead of the vulgate αὐτοῖς. It has since been found to be the reading of most of the other MSS as well as A.

κελεύοιμεν . The singular κελεύοιμι ( q Flor. U) is still read by Stallbaum. There is surely no reason why Socrates should not associate Glauco with himself in this hypothetical invitation.

ὀρθότατ) ἂν ‐‐ προκαλοῖο forms the apodosis to what Socrates has said (cf. 582 E), but refers “ad initium potius quam ad exitum orationis Socraticae” (Schneider. Cf. V 465 E note). Glauco admits most fully the claim that Plato has earned a right to speak with authority on this subject.

προσποιησώμεθα κτλ. Plato cannot appear in propria persona, so that it is necessary for Socrates and Glauco to pretend that they also belong to the number of those ‘who would be able to judge’ and have met with τύραννοι and τυραννικοί. The fiction is rendered necessary by the laws of dialogue as ἵνα— ἐρωτῶμεν frankly states. We must beware of supposing that it is Plato who ‘pretends’: Plato does not pretend, but is δυνατὸς μὲν κρῖναι, ξυνῳκηκὼς δὲ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κτλ. (577 A). Richards objects to ἄν with δυνατῶν, and it is certainly unusual to find ἄν with an adjective in this way. But as δυνατῶν can itself take an infinitive, it hardly differs from the participle δυναμένων, and the suggestions δυνατῶν ὄντων, or δυνατῶν ἂν <ὄντων>, are unattractive. I should add in conclusion that nearly all critics are now agreed in holding that Plato throughout the whole of this passage is referring to his own experience of Dionysius I: see for example Susemihl Gen. Entw. II pp. 240, 294 ff., Teichmüller Lit. Fehd. I p. 110, Hirmer Entst. u. Komp. d. Pl. Pol. pp. 667 ff., with Zeller^{4} II p. 413 note 1. The date of Plato's first visit to the elder Dionysius was in or near 388 B.C. Compare Epp. VII 324 A—327 D. Whether this epistle be genuine or not, the visit is abundantly attested, as Zeller proves (l.c. pp. 413—415 notes), and it is strange that J. and C. should still have doubts upon the subject. See also on V 473 D, VI 496 B, 499 B and infra 579 B note

καθ) ἕκαστον κτλ. καθ) ἕκαστον=‘point by point,’ ‘in detail,’ not ‘singly’ (D. and V.), which would be καθ’ ἑκάτερον here, since only two objects of comparison are involved. ἀθρῶν: sc. ἑκάτερον, viz. the city and the man (J. and C.). On ὡς πόλιν εἰπεῖν and ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν (‘I might almost say’) see I 341 B note

ἁνήρ . See cr. n. I have followed the advice of a reviewer of my Text of the Republic in Hermath. XXIV p. 256 and accepted Campbell's ἁνήρ. It is difficult to dispense with the article here: cf. τῆς τε πόλεως καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρός above.

ἀνελευθερίας κτλ. In ἀνελευθερίας there is here a strong suggestion of the etymological meaning (“Unfreiheit” Schneider). μικρόν, as J. and C. observe, is introduced to make the parallel between State and individual as complete as possible. From another point of view it might be held that the μοχθηρότατον in the tyrannical soul is not σμικρόν but πολύ (573 D—576 B).

καὶ ἡ τυραννουμένη κτλ. There is no βούλησις, in the true sense of that term, except τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ: cf. I 336 A with the Gorgias quoted ad loc. and Men. 77 C ff. Or in other words Virtue alone is free: cf. ἀρετὴ δὲ ἀδέσποτον X 617 E with note ad loc. See also Nettleship Lect. and Rem. II p. 317.

ὡς ‐‐ ψυχῆς . The restriction (for which cf. 579 E) is necessary, for the μοχθηρότατον part of the τυραννουμένη ψυχή will have its way.

ἑλκομένη κτλ. Badham's ἐλαυνομένη would be less suitable with βίᾳ than ἑλκομένη (cf. VII 515 E), and is otherwise a gratuitous alteration. On ταραχῆς see VIII 547 A, 557A, 561 C notes In the tyrannical soul the fatal principle of ἀνομοιότης attains its highest development. With μεταυελείας cf. ὁ δ’ ἀκρατὴς μεταμελητικός (Arist. Eth. Nic. VII 9. 1150^{b} 30).