Plato, Republic, ed. John Burnet, 9.580

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[580] 580a
οὐκοῦν καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι ἀποδώσομεν τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ ἃ τὸ πρότερον εἴπομεν, ὅτι ἀνάγκη καὶ εἶναι καὶ ἔτι μᾶλλον γίγνεσθαι αὐτῷ ἢ πρότερον διὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν φθονερῷ, ἀπίστῳ, ἀδίκῳ, ἀφίλῳ, ἀνοσίῳ καὶ πάσης κακίας πανδοκεῖ τε καὶ τροφεῖ, καὶ ἐξ ἁπάντων τούτων μάλιστα μὲν αὐτῷ δυστυχεῖ εἶναι, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοὺς πλησίον αὑτῷ τοιούτους ἀπεργάζεσθαι.
οὐδείς σοι, ἔφη, τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων ἀντερεῖ.
ἴθι δή μοι, ἔφην ἐγώ, νῦν ἤδη ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων 580b κριτὴς ἀποφαίνεται, καὶ σὺ οὕτω, τίς πρῶτος κατὰ τὴν σὴν δόξαν εὐδαιμονίᾳ καὶ τίς δεύτερος, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἑξῆς πέντε ὄντας κρῖνε, βασιλικόν, τιμοκρατικόν, ὀλιγαρχικόν, δημοκρατικόν, τυραννικόν.
ἀλλὰ ῥᾳδία, ἔφη, ἡ κρίσις. καθάπερ γὰρ εἰσῆλθον ἔγωγε ὥσπερ χοροὺς κρίνω ἀρετῇ καὶ κακίᾳ καὶ εὐδαιμονίᾳ καὶ τῷ ἐναντίῳ.
μισθωσώμεθα οὖν κήρυκα, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ἢ αὐτὸς ἀνείπω ὅτι ὁ Ἀρίστωνος ὑὸς τὸν ἄριστόν τε καὶ δικαιότατον εὐδαιμονέστατον 580c ἔκρινε, τοῦτον δʼ εἶναι τὸν βασιλικώτατον καὶ βασιλεύοντα αὑτοῦ, τὸν δὲ κάκιστόν τε καὶ ἀδικώτατον ἀθλιώτατον, τοῦτον δὲ αὖ τυγχάνειν ὄντα ὃς ἂν τυραννικώτατος ὢν ἑαυτοῦ τε ὅτι μάλιστα τυραννῇ καὶ τῆς πόλεως;
ἀνειρήσθω σοι, ἔφη.
ἦ οὖν προσαναγορεύω, εἶπον, ἐάντε λανθάνωσιν τοιοῦτοι ὄντες ἐάντε μὴ πάντας ἀνθρώπους τε καὶ θεούς;
προσαναγόρευε, ἔφη.
εἶεν δή, εἶπον· αὕτη μὲν ἡμῖν ἡ ἀπόδειξις μία ἂν εἴη, 580d δευτέραν δὲ ἰδὲ τήνδε, ἐάν τι δόξῃ εἶναι.
τίς αὕτη;
ἐπειδή, ὥσπερ πόλις, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, διῄρηται κατὰ τρία εἴδη, οὕτω καὶ ψυχὴ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου τριχῇ, λογιστικὸν δέξεται, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, καὶ ἑτέραν ἀπόδειξιν.
τίνα ταύτην;
τήνδε. τριῶν ὄντων τριτταὶ καὶ ἡδοναί μοι φαίνονται, ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μία ἰδία· ἐπιθυμίαι τε ὡσαύτως καὶ ἀρχαί.
πῶς λέγεις; ἔφη.
τὸ μέν, φαμέν, ἦν ᾧ μανθάνει ἄνθρωπος, τὸ δὲ ᾧ θυμοῦται, τὸ δὲ τρίτον διὰ πολυειδίαν ἑνὶ οὐκ ἔσχομεν ὀνόματι προσειπεῖν 580e ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ ὃ μέγιστον καὶ ἰσχυρότατον εἶχεν ἐν αὑτῷ, τούτῳ ἐπωνομάσαμεν·

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).) — 9.580 focus

[580] And in addition, shall we not further attribute to him all that we spoke of before, and say that he must needs be, and, by reason of his rule, come to be still more than he was,¹ envious, faithless, unjust, friendless, impious, a vessel and nurse² of all iniquity, and so in consequence be himself most unhappy³ make all about him so? No man of sense will gainsay that, he said. Come then, said I, 580b now at last, even as the judge of last instance⁴ pronounces, so do you declare who in your opinion is first in happiness and who second, and similarly judge the others, all five in succession, the royal, the timocratic, the oligarchic, the democratic, and the tyrannical man. Nay, he said, the decision is easy. For as if they were choruses I judge them in the order of their entrance, and so rank them in respect of virtue and vice, happiness and its contrary. Shall we hire a herald,⁵ then, said I, or shall I myself make proclamation that the son of Ariston pronounced the best man⁶ and the most righteous to be the happiest,⁷ 580c and that he is the one who is the most kingly and a king over himself;⁸ and declared that the most evil and most unjust is the most unhappy, who again is the man who, having the most of the tyrannical temper in himself, become, most of a tyrant over himself and over the state? Let it have been so proclaimed by you, he said. Shall I add the clause alike whether their character is known to all men and gods or is not known⁹? Add that to the proclamation, he said.
Very good, said I; this, then, would be one of our proofs, 580d but examine this second one and see if there is anything in it. What is it? Since, said I, corresponding to the three types in the city, the soul also is tripartite,¹⁰ it will admit,¹¹ I think, of another demonstration also. What is that? The following: The three parts have also, it appears to me, three kinds of pleasure, one peculiar to each, and similarly three appetites and controls. What do you mean? he said. One part, we say, is that with which a man learns, one is that with which he feels anger. But the third part, owing to its manifold forms,¹² we could not easily designate by any one distinctive name,¹³ 580e but gave it the name of its chief and strongest element;

Commentary

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

τὸ πρότερον κτλ. The reference is to VIII 567 and supra 576 A, B. ἢ πρότερον might of course have been spared, and Herwerden more suo cuts it out; but the sentence gains in weight by the addition.

νῦν ἤδη (‘nunc demum’) is fully illustrated by Jecht de usu part. ἤδη in Pl. dialog. pp. 44 f.

ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων κτλ. The comparison is borrowed from the Athenian method of judging in musical or dramatic competitions. According to Petersen, who in his Dorpat program über die Preisrichter der Grossen Dionysien zu Athen (1878) has carefully investigated the whole subject, the mode of procedure was as follows. Some time before the festival a number of qualified persons were selected by the βουλευταί in cooperation with the χορηγοί, and their names deposited in 10 urns, one for each φυλή. On the day of the contest, one name was drawn from each urn, and the ten judges thereby constituted, after witnessing the performance, each wrote down in his γραμματεῖον the order in which he arranged the several competitors. Of these ten judges five were next selected by lot, and the final verdict was given in accordance with the votes already registered by these five. The most important piece of evidence in support of this theory is furnished by Lysias 4. 3 ἐβουλόμην δ) ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, <*>ν) ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν· νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ. In none of the ancient authorities, which are fully cited by Petersen, do we find the expression ὁ διὰ πάντων κριτής: but Petersen thinks the phrase may perhaps denote any one of the surviving five, who had lasted through all the stages, having been originally chosen by the Senate, and afterwards by lot on the two remaining opportunities. The singular number, according to Petersen, is generic, as in Laws 659 A, B and elsewhere. It is true of course that the matter could not always be brought to an immediate issue in this way; for, to take a single instance, in a case where there were, let us say, three competitors, the votes of the five judges might result in a tie between two competitors for each of the three prizes. Thus we might have:

πέντε ὄντας : viz. in all.

εἰσῆλθον κτλ. “in scenam ingressi sunt” (Stallbaum). In dramatic and musical contests the victor's name was publicly proclaimed by a herald (see Müller l. c. p. 372 note 2): hence μισθωσώμεθα κτλ. pursues the comparison introduced by ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων κτλ. Cf. also Phil. 66 A πάντῃ δὴ φήσεις—ὑπό τε ἀγγέλων πέμπων καὶ παροῦσι φράζων ὡς ἡδονὴ κτῆμα οὐκ ἔστι πρῶτον κτλ. (the result arrived at in the dialogue). For the verbal play in Ἀρίστωνος—τὸν ἄριστον cf. II 368 A note

ἐάν τε λανθάνωσιν κτλ. is said with reference to the challenge in II 367 E.

εἶεν δὴ κτλ. After the political follows the psychological argument: see 577 C note

δὲ ἰδέ . My correction of δεῖ δέ (the reading of the best MSS: see cr. n.) has been generally accepted. The reading δὲ δεῖ is intrinsically unsatisfactory, and can only be an attempt to ‘emend’ δεῖ δέ. See Cl. Rev. XI p. 349.

δέξεται κτλ. : ‘it will admit also of another demonstration.’ The subject is simply ‘our thesis,’ as stated just before in the conclusion of the first argument (580 C). Cf. (with Stallbaum) V 453 D οὐ γὰρ εὐκόλῳ ἔοικεν and Phaed. 69 E τοῖς δὲ πολλοῖς ἀπιστίαν παρέχει (unjustly bracketed by Schanz), where the subject similarly ‘latet in antegressis.’ Idiomatic expressions like δηλώσει (VI 497 C note), δείξει etc. belong to a somewhat different category. It is impossible to extract any satisfactory sense out of the passage if (with Schneider alone of all the editors) we retain τὸ λογιστικόν (see cr. n.) or λογιστικόν, the latter of which occurs before δέξεται in many MSS. The Oxford editors, with much probability, suggest that λογιστικόν is the relic of some such gloss on τριχῇ as we actually find in Par. K, viz. λογιστικον. ἐπιθυμητικὸν θυμικον ( sic).

ἡδοναὶ κτλ. Hitherto in the Republic the words Pleasure and Desire have, with few exceptions (e.g. I 328 D, VI 485 D, VIII 554 E al.), had an evil, or at least unmoral, connotation. The view now put forward, viz. that each ‘part’ of soul has its own pleasures and desires differing in point of virtue and vice (cf. VI 505 C) like the ‘parts’ to which they belong, is related not only to the theory of the Philebus but also to the Aristotelian analysis of pleasure in Eth. Nic. X cc. 3—5.

ἰδία . Paris A has ἰδίᾳ—see cr. n.— “multo minus concinne” (Schneider). Cf. ἰδίῳ αὐτοῦ infra E.

ἀρχαὶ κτλ. Any one of the three may hold rule in the soul. The reference in ἦν is to IV 436 A ff.

ὃ μέγιστον κτλ. : viz. ἐπιθυμία. The words τούτῳ ἐπωνομάσαμεν mean ‘we gave the name of ἐπιθυμία to this part,’ when we called it ἐπιθυμητικόν ( ἐπιθυμητικὸν γὰρ κτλ.). Cf. (with Stallbaum) Theaet. 185 C ᾧ τὸ ἔστιν ἐπονομάζεις, Crat. 420 B and elsewhere. J. and C. wrongly understand τούτῳ as instrumental. The variant τοῦτο has little authority and is much inferior: still worse is τούτου which Madvig ( Adv. Cr. I p. 431) ‘suspicatur fuisse.’

ἐπιθυμητικὸν κτλ. IV 439 D. The lowest part of soul was called φιλοχρήματον in IV 436 E et al.: see next note.

Plato Republic 9.580

ed. John Burnet

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Commentary

Stable identifiers