James Adam, Commentary on Plato, Republic, ed. James Adam, 1.332C

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[332C] ἀλλὰ τί ὄει ; is a rhetorical question, which needs and receives no answer, like τί μήν; and τί μὴν δοκεῖς; ( Theaet. 162 B ). It is equivalent to ‘of course.’ For the use of τί Stallbaum compares Gorg. 480 B τί γὰρ δὴ φῶμεν; to which there is also no reply. This explanation is preferable to that of Madvig, who gives ἀλλὰ τί οἴει to Socrates, and takes ἔφη as equivalent to συνέφη— a harsh usage in a narrated dialogue, and not likely to have been intended by Plato, because sure to be misunderstood. Liebhold's ἄλλο τι οἴει; <οὐκ> ἔφη has everything against it.

ὦ πρὸς Διὸς κτλ. ‘In the name of heaven, said I, if any one then had asked him’ etc. ‘what reply do you think he would have made to us?’ ὦ before πρὸς Διός is (as Schanz holds) an interjection, and does not require a vocative to follow it: cf. Euthyd. 287 A , 290 E. It is tempting (with Tucker) to take ὦ πρὸς Διός as part of the address to Simonides (cf. Euthyd. 294 B ὦ πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ Διονυσόδωρε—αὐτὼ τῷ ὄντι πάντα ἐπίστασθον). But on this view the presence of εἰ οὖν—ἤρετο forms a difficulty, and ὦ πρὸς Διός may very well go with τί ἂν οἴει— ἀποκρίνασθαι.

ὀφειλόμενον καὶ προσῆκον . It is characteristic of Plato to combine the thing explained and the explanation itself in this way: see my note on Prot. 314 A . Here ὀφειλόμενον is necessary to enable Simonides to recognise his own saying.

ἰατρικὴ ‐‐ μαγειρική . In Gorg. 463 A ff. Plato refuses the name of ‘art’ to ὀψοποιική: it is but an ἐμπειρία or τριβή, a sort of bastard adjunct to ἰατρική, as κομμωτική is to γυμναστική. Here, where less precision is required, both are regarded as τέχναι.

Commentary on Plato, Republic. James Adam. ed. James Adam. Cambridge. 1926-1929.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

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

Editions (1)

Πολιτεία Perseus (Platonis Opera Tomus IV: Tetralogia VIII. Burnet, John, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905.) — 1.332 focus

[332]
ἀλλὰ μέντοι, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, Σιμωνίδῃ γε οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἀπιστεῖν—σοφὸς γὰρ καὶ θεῖος ἀνήρ—τοῦτο μέντοι ὅτι ποτὲ λέγει, σὺ μέν, ὦ Πολέμαρχε, ἴσως γιγνώσκεις, ἐγὼ δὲ ἀγνοῶ· δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι οὐ τοῦτο λέγει, ὅπερ ἄρτι ἐλέγομεν, τό τινος παρακαταθεμένου τι ὁτῳοῦν μὴ σωφρόνως ἀπαιτοῦντι 332a ἀποδιδόναι. καίτοι γε ὀφειλόμενόν πού ἐστιν τοῦτο ὃ παρακατέθετο· ἦ γάρ;
ναί.
ἀποδοτέον δέ γε οὐδʼ ὁπωστιοῦν τότε ὁπότε τις μὴ σωφρόνως ἀπαιτοῖ;
ἀληθῆ, ἦ δʼ ὅς.
ἄλλο δή τι ἢ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ὡς ἔοικεν, λέγει Σιμωνίδης τὸ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα δίκαιον εἶναι ἀποδιδόναι.
ἄλλο μέντοι νὴ Δίʼ, ἔφη· τοῖς γὰρ φίλοις οἴεται ὀφείλειν τοὺς φίλους ἀγαθὸν μέν τι δρᾶν, κακὸν δὲ μηδέν.
μανθάνω, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ—ὅτι οὐ τὰ ὀφειλόμενα ἀποδίδωσιν ὃς ἄν τῳ χρυσίον ἀποδῷ παρακαταθεμένῳ, ἐάνπερ ἡ ἀπόδοσις 332b καὶ ἡ λῆψις βλαβερὰ γίγνηται, φίλοι δὲ ὦσιν ὅ τε ἀπολαμβάνων καὶ ὁ ἀποδιδούς—οὐχ οὕτω λέγειν φῂς τὸν Σιμωνίδην;
πάνυ μὲν οὖν.
τί δέ; τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀποδοτέον ὅτι ἂν τύχῃ ὀφειλόμενον;
παντάπασι μὲν οὖν, ἔφη, ὅ γε ὀφείλεται αὐτοῖς, ὀφείλεται δέ γε οἶμαι παρά γε τοῦ ἐχθροῦ τῷ ἐχθρῷ ὅπερ καὶ προσήκει, κακόν τι.
ἠινίξατο ἄρα, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὁ Σιμωνίδης ποιητικῶς 332c τὸ δίκαιον ὃ εἴη. διενοεῖτο μὲν γάρ, ὡς φαίνεται, ὅτι τοῦτʼ εἴη δίκαιον, τὸ προσῆκον ἑκάστῳ ἀποδιδόναι, τοῦτο δὲ ὠνόμασεν ὀφειλόμενον.
ἀλλὰ τί οἴει; ἔφη.
ὦ πρὸς Διός, ἦν δʼ ἐγώ, εἰ οὖν τις αὐτὸν ἤρετο· ὦ Σιμωνίδη, ἡ τίσιν οὖν τί ἀποδιδοῦσα ὀφειλόμενον καὶ προσῆκον τέχνη ἰατρικὴ καλεῖται; τί ἂν οἴει ἡμῖν αὐτὸν ἀποκρίνασθαι;
δῆλον ὅτι, ἔφη, ἡ σώμασιν φάρμακά τε καὶ σιτία καὶ ποτά.
ἡ δὲ τίσιν τί ἀποδιδοῦσα ὀφειλόμενον καὶ προσῆκον τέχνη μαγειρικὴ καλεῖται; 332d
ἡ τοῖς ὄψοις τὰ ἡδύσματα.
εἶεν· ἡ οὖν δὴ τίσιν τί ἀποδιδοῦσα τέχνη δικαιοσύνη ἂν καλοῖτο;
εἰ μέν τι, ἔφη, δεῖ ἀκολουθεῖν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένοις, ἡ τοῖς φίλοις τε καὶ ἐχθροῖς ὠφελίας τε καὶ βλάβας ἀποδιδοῦσα.
τὸ τοὺς φίλους ἄρα εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς κακῶς δικαιοσύνην λέγει;
δοκεῖ μοι.
τίς οὖν δυνατώτατος κάμνοντας φίλους εὖ ποιεῖν καὶ ἐχθροὺς κακῶς πρὸς νόσον καὶ ὑγίειαν;
ἰατρός. 332e
τίς δὲ πλέοντας πρὸς τὸν τῆς θαλάττης κίνδυνον;
κυβερνήτης.
τί δὲ ὁ δίκαιος; ἐν τίνι πράξει καὶ πρὸς τί ἔργον δυνατώτατος φίλους ὠφελεῖν καὶ ἐχθροὺς βλάπτειν;
ἐν τῷ προσπολεμεῖν καὶ ἐν τῷ συμμαχεῖν, ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ.
εἶεν· μὴ κάμνουσί γε μήν, ὦ φίλε Πολέμαρχε, ἰατρὸς ἄχρηστος.
ἀληθῆ.
καὶ μὴ πλέουσι δὴ κυβερνήτης.
ναί.
ἆρα καὶ τοῖς μὴ πολεμοῦσιν ὁ δίκαιος ἄχρηστος;
οὐ πάνυ μοι δοκεῖ τοῦτο.
χρήσιμον ἄρα καὶ ἐν εἰρήνῃ δικαιοσύνη;

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).) — 1.332 focus

[332] I must admit, said I, that it is not easy to disbelieve Simonides. For he is a wise and inspired man.¹ But just what he may mean by this you, Polemarchus, doubtless know, but I do not. Obviously he does not mean what we were just speaking of, this return of a deposit² to anyone whatsoever even if he asks it back when not in his right mind. And yet what the man deposited 332a is due to him in a sense, is it not? Yes. But rendered to him it ought not to be by any manner of means when he demands it not being his right mind. True, said he. It is then something other than this that Simonides must, as it seems, mean by the saying that it is just to render back what is due. Something else in very deed, he replied, for he believes that friends owe it to friends to do them some good and no evil. I see, said I; you mean that³ he does not render what is due or owing who returns a deposit of gold 332b if this return and the acceptance prove harmful and the returner and the recipient are friends. Isn’t that what you say Simonides means? Quite so. But how about this—should one not render to enemies what is their due? By all means, he said, what is due⁴ and owing to them, and there is due and owing from an enemy to an enemy what also is proper for him, some evil.
It was a riddling⁵ definition of justice, then, that Simonides gave after the manner of poets; for while his meaning, 332c it seems, was that justice is rendering to each what befits him, the name that he gave to this was the due. What else do you suppose? said he. In heaven’s name! said I, suppose⁶ someone had questioned him thus: Tell me, Simonides, the art that renders what that is due and befitting to what is called the art of medicine.⁷ What do you take it would have been his answer? Obviously, he said, the art that renders to bodies drugs, foods, and drinks. And the art that renders to what things what that is due and befitting is called the culinary art? 332d Seasoning to meats. Good. In the same way tell me the art that renders what to whom would be denominated justice. If we are to follow the previous examples,⁸ Socrates, it is that which renders benefits and harms to friends and enemies. To do good to friends and evil to enemies,⁹ then, is justice in his meaning? I think so. Who then is the most able when they are ill to benefit friends and harm enemies in respect to disease and health? The physician. 332e And who navigators in respect of the perils of the sea? The pilot. Well then, the just man, in what action and for what work is he the most competent to benefit friends and harm enemies? In making war and as an ally, I should say. Very well. But now if they are not sick, friend Polemarchus, the physician is useless to them. True. And so to those who are not at sea the pilot. Yes. Shall we also say this that for those who are not at war the just man is useless?

James Adam Commentary on Plato, Republic 1.332C

ed. James Adam

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Stable identifiers