Plato Republic 9.589

τοῦ ἀνθρώπου . “The genitive,” say the Oxford editors, “may be governed by ἐγκρατέστατος or may be taken partitively with ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος.” The former is the correct view. Stephanus suggested ἐγκρατέστερος: but “quum tria sint quae de imperio contendant, superlativus recte habet” (Schneider). ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος has been compared with Paul's ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος in Rom. 7. 22: cf. also Eph. 3. 16.

ἐπιμελήσεται . The subject is of course still ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος, and therefore no comma should be placed after ἐγκρατέστατος. Jowett's translation “He should watch over” etc. is very misleading.

ὥσπερ γεωργός clearly belongs to the following clause, not, as supposed by Stallbaum and the other editors except Schneider, to that which goes before. Cf. IV 419 A note For the illustration cf. Euthyph. 2 D .

ξύμμαχον κτλ. The θυμοειδές is the natural ally of the λογιστικόν: see IV 440 E ff.

οὐδὲν ὑγιές . We ought not to supply λέγει: for οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ψέγει is itself idiomatic for οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ψέγων λέγει (Schneider).

οὐ γὰρ ἑκὼν ἁμαρτάνει : according to the usual Socratic view: see II 382 A note

μᾶλλον δὲ ‐‐ θείῳ . “Both Plato and Aristotle thought that there was in human nature a certain imperfect presence of God, and that it was this divine presence, however small, which made it specifically human nature” (Nettleship Lect. and Remains II p 334). Cf. VI 501 B note with Tim. 90 A ff. (man is a φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον, ἀλλ’ οὐράνιον) and Arist. Eth. Nic. X 7. 1177^{b} 30 ff. The doctrine of a θεῖόν τι ἐν ἡμῖν was by no means new to Greek philosophical and religious thought (see Rohde Psyche^{2} II pp. 121, 184 ff., 207 ff.), but Plato gave it a far deeper meaning than it ever had before.

δουλούμενα is bracketed by Herwerden, who suggests as an alternative the omission of ὑπό before τῷ ἀγρίῳ. Neither change should be adopted: cf. ὑπὸ τῷ ἀθεωτάτῳ—δουλοῦται 589 E.

ἐάν μοι ‐‐ πείθηται . ‘If he takes my advice, he will.’ ἐμοί, which I once read (with Stobaeus Flor. 9. 65, W. H. Thompson, Baiter)—‘if he takes my advice’—is certainly more pointed; but there is no real ground for deserting the MSS, and the unemphatic pronoun is quieter and, as it seems to me, more in keeping with the general spirit of this ‘gentle exhortation’ ( πείθωμεν τοίνυν αὐτὸν πράως 589 C).

λαμβάνων τὸ χρυσίον κτλ. On the construction see I 351 B note For the structure of the sentence beginning εἰ μὲν λαβὼν κτλ. cf. I 336 E note

εἰς ἀγρίων ‐‐ ἀνδρῶν : sc. δουλείαν or the like (supplied from ἐδουλοῦτο) rather than οἰκίαν, which J. and C. supply. Cf. IV 425 A note and for the genitive VIII 569 C.

Ἐριφύλη . Hom. Od. XI 326 f. Μαῖράν τε Κλυμένην τε ἴδον στυγερήν τ’ Ἐριφύλην, | ἣ χρυσὸν φίλου ἀνδρὸς ἐδέξατο τιμήεντα.

ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου . See 588 B note Glauco will speak for the champions of Injustice in their surrender as well as in their attack.

τὸ δεινόν, τὸ μέγα κτλ. “Socrates quasi monstrum conspicatus, quod τὸ δεινὸν θρέμμα appellaturus erat, denuo descriptionem eius incipit et per asyndeton horridulam orationem facit” (Schneider). The asyndeton has a highly rhetorical effect: see the remarks of Longinus on rhetorical asyndeton combined with ἀναφορά and διατύπωσις (‘vivid description’) in his περὶ ὕψους 20. Jowett and Campbell understand τὸ δεινόν substantively (‘the dangerous thing, viz. that great beast’)—a most improbable view, as it appears to me. On the other hand, Stallbaum, writing τὸ δεινὸν τὸ μέγα κτλ. without any comma, compares Crat. 398 B ἔν γε τῇ ἀρχαίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ φωνῇ and other passages, none of which is parallel except (in some respects) Soph. O. R. 806 κἀγὼ τὸν ἐκτρέποντα, τὸν τροχηλάτην | παίω δἰ ὀργῆς, and there a comma is required. We certainly should not (with Stephanus and Ast) read τὸ δεινὸν καὶ τὸ μέγα κτλ.

ὀφεῶδες . The serpentine element has not hitherto been mentioned, but (as Schleiermacher points out, Platons Staat p. 609) may well be included in τὰ περὶ τὸν λέοντα 588 E. It symbolizes some meaner forms of the θυμοειδές which cannot well be attributed to the king of beasts, e.g. δυσκολία (III 411 C), perfidiousness etc. Cf. Theogn. 601 f. ἔρρε, θεοῖσίν τ’ ἐχθρὲ καὶ ἀνθρώποισιν ἄπιστε | ψυχρὸν ὃς ἐν κόλπῳ ποικίλον εἶχες ὄφιν. Clement ( Strom. IV 3. 1225 B Migne) is thinking of the Old Testament when he says ὄφις ὁ ἀπατεών, but the idea is also Greek. It should also be remarked that expansions and amplifications like the addition of ὀφεῶδες in this passage are characteristic of the style of Plato: cf. for example Theaet. 147 A , B and 161 C. The emendation ὀχλῶδες, which Nettleship appears to favour ( Lect. and Remains II p. 335), is excessively weak, and would moreover refer not to the θυμοειδές, but to the ἐπιθυμητικόν (cf. τῷ ὀχλώδει θηρίῳ below). It seems to me clear both from λεοντῶδες and from αὐτοῦ τούτου below that at present Plato is thinking only of the θυμοειδές and its degenerate kinds. We must therefore beware of referring ὀφεῶδες to τοὺς φιληδόνους, τοὺς γαστρὶ καὶ αἰδοίοις δουλεύοντας (Clement's interpretation of Matt. 3. 7: see Strom. IV 16. 1308 A).

τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία κτλ. Cf. III 411 A, B. On πίθηκον see X 620 C note

βαναυσία . See on VI 495 D.

δύνηται has been suspected by Stephanus, Ast, and Herwerden. The word could well be spared, but, as it is in all the MSS, was read by Stobaeus ( Flor. 9. 67) and is not in itself an error, we are hardly justified in resorting to excision. The subjunctive depends of course on ὅταν, and καί connects δύνηται with ἔχῃ. By reading τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ (not αὑτῷ) θρεμμάτων, and making τὸ τοῦ βελτίστου εἶδος the subject to δύνασθαι and θεραπεύειν, Schneider makes it rather easier to refer δύνηται to ὅταν τις: but on the whole it is more natural to retain αὑτῷ and make the subject of δύνασθαι the same as that of δύνηται, viz. the individual himself. Even at the cost of a little awkwardness, Plato prefers to make the sentiment expressed by καὶ τὰ θωπεύματα —μανθάνειν co-ordinate with, rather than a consequence of, ὅταν τις ἀσθενὲς κτλ. For the imagery of the sentence cf. (with J. and C.) VI 493 A ff.

ἵνα καὶ κτλ. is Plato's justification for assigning the farmers and artisans to a dependent position in his city. For the syntax of ὑπὸ ὁμοίου—οἵουπερ see III 402 A note

ὥσπερ Θρασύμαχος ᾤετο . See I 343 A ff.

μάλιστα μὲν κτλ. A profounder and truly Platonic form of Hesiod's famous saying οὗτος μὲν πανάριστος ὃς αὐτὸς πάντα νοήσῃ, | ἐσθλὸς δ’ αὖ κἀκεῖνος ὃς εὖ εἰπόντι πίθηται ( OD. 293 f., as quoted by Arist. Eth. Nic. I 2. 1095^{b} 10). Instead of οἰκεῖον ἔχοντος ἐν αὑτῷ Madvig proposes to read οἰκείου ἐνόντος ἐν αὐτῷ. The emendation is neat and gets rid of the difficulty both in ἔχοντος and in ἐφεστῶτος: but ἔχοντος ἐν αὑτῷ appropriately recalls ἔχοντος ἐν αὑτῷ above, and the genitive absolute may be compared with ἀποκριναμένου VII 538 D, ἑπομένων 586 D and δοκιμασθέντων Laws 755 D. (Badham's δοκιμασθέντας is of course only a conjecture.) Cf. Riddell Digest § 274.

ἐφεστῶτος is another independent genitive absolute. The double peculiarity is certainly unusual. Stephanus obliterates first one, and then both by suggesting (1) ἐφεστῶτα, and (2) ἔχοντι— ἐφεστώς (intended, I suppose, as neuter, but the neuter should be ἐφεστός: see Schanz Vol. II p. XII). I believe the text is sound: there is hardly any limit— except that required by intelligibility—to Plato's rapid changes of construction, and they are especially common with participles. See VI 488 D note with Engelhardt Anac. Pl. Spec. III p. 45.

βούλεται κτλ. See cr. n. The reading βούλεται is found also in v, Flor. R, Flor. T, Stobaeus ( Flor. 9. 67) and Iamblichus ( Protrept. 88 p. 33 Pistelli). βουλεύεται, which Schneider and Hermann, following the best MSS, still retain, is much less suitable, and the corruption is easy and tolerably frequent: cf. (with Schneider) Phil. 35 D and 50 E, “ubi βουλεύεσθαι et βουλεύομαι pro βούλεσθαι et βούλομαι in quibusdam scriptum est.” Plato means that the purpose, intention or meaning of Law is that the better should rule the worse, and we may fairly appeal to the witness of Law on such a subject, for Law does not, as Thrasymachus argued (I 343 C), hold a brief for ὁ κρείττων, but is the ally of every class and individual in the city without exception, πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ πόλει ξύμμαχος. Law is “the ally of everybody in the community without distinction, because the ally of that which is best in him” (Nettleship Lect. and Rem. II p. 336).