The Republic of Plato, Volume 2 (Cambridge Library Collection - Classics)

TO?S vTrb TWV K&TII> aireiKaadetai.,

and for eB yap Kal nXdrui/ T)irbpet. TOVTO Kal the meaning of fu/j.i]9e1criv X 599 A rb re e£r]T€l, irbrepov airb TGIV apx&v 17 tirl Ixilx-qdTiabiAEvov Kal T& etdoiXov a n d Laws T&S apxas ianv T) 656S, acrirep in Tiji 668 B. I have restored the reading of
Plat. remp. 1 p. 291 Kroll) also agrees. though it is perhaps better (with Zeller4 TixT]Beiaiv, which appears to be adopted II 1, p. 587 n. 1) to suppose that he is by all other editors, occurs in all the alluding to Plato's oral instruction. available MSS except A. But TOIS rbre II TO 8' av ^TCpov KT\. T6'irtpovis Tji.i)Su
5 ioc]

TTOAITEIAC S"

67

tovcra zeal dvev dovirep eiceZvo elicovcov avrot? elheai hi avrcbv /jbidoSov Troiov/ievT]. TawT1, er], a Xeyeis, ov^ ltcava><; 'ifiaBov. C ' A \ V avOis, J)v 8' iryci)- paov ' yap TOVTCOV 7rpoeipt]fieva)v fj,a6rjaei. ted. X<57
deros and iiirepovaios—dwiroderos because higher than all virodtazis and itself proved by an exhaustive scrutiny of all voriTa, virtpovcrios because higher than, and the cause of, all existence. See also on 511 B and the Appendix to Book VII On Plato's Dialectic, together with Jackson J. of Ph. X pp. 145 f., where the distinctive peculiarities of the two methods are very clearly explained. 12 (avircp CKCIVO CIKOVWV : i.q. &vtv TQ>V cdtnrep €K€?vo (iyjre'i) eluovuiv. I formerly read TWV irepl eKtivo eltcovuv

(with g), but now think (with Schneider and others) that A is right. The attraction of a relative in the dative case is rare, but not unexampled. Van Cleef (de attract, in enunt. rel. usu Plat. p. 45) cites Gorg. 509 A, Prot. 361 E, Theaet. 144 A, Rep. VII 531 E (all examples of evrvyxa."^, whose proper construction in the sense of ' fall in with' is the dative, not the genitive), and Ep. VII 327 A (with irpoa^ruxov) ', for examples in other authors see Kuhner Gr. Gr. 11 p. 914. If cfceu and (Keivo are pronounced with emphasis, the meaning, I think, is easily caught. Stallbaum reads dv irepi KT\. with one Vienna MS, understanding, I suppose, xpVTal' aurois—8t' auT«v. avTois (ipsis — solis) is further accentuated by Si' avrwy ('through themselves alone'): cf. 511 c. The eiSri of the dialectician do not employ the adventitious aid of el/coves : see on 511 B. The use of ddeai here must not be held to imply that even the dialectician's conceptions of the Ideas are correct before he has reached the Idea of the Good. Till then, they are only vivodetreis, though the false UTodttrets are weeded out (VII 533 C «.), and the hypothetical character of the survivors is gradually eliminated in the course of the ascent. See on apxw avvirodeTov above, and contrast 511 c. 14 dXV av6is KTX. 'Then have it over again, said I.' The ellipse has a colloquial effect. Ast's eidis for avBis is unlikely : nor does Cobet's < ipCi > after iyw sound right. If Plato had written epu, he would, I think, have placed it after adOis. ixavBave, or the like, supplied from Ipadov, suits the con-

[510c

nAATQNOZ

68 15 olfiai

yap

ere elBevat, '6TL 01 irepl TO,? ye(o/j,eTpua<; re /cat, Xoyicr/j,ov
Kal ra roiavra

Trpay/j.aTevofievoi,, inrodefievoi

apTiov Kal TO, a^yfiara

Kal ycovi&v Tpcrra

dBeX<pa Kad' eicdo~Tr)v jieOoBov, ravra

ro r e -rrepiTTOv icai TO elBij Kal aX\a TOVTOOV

/j,ev w? etSore?,

V7ro#ecret9 avrd, ovBiva Xoyov ovre ai/Tol<; ovre aXXois 20 irepl avr&v BiBovat to? TTCLVTI avep£>v, etc Tovrav Xonra av

i]Br) 8ie%i6vTe<; reXevrwaiv

eirl o~Kei]riv opfirjaacn.

Yldvv

o/AoXoyov/Mevcos eirl fji,ev ovv,

ecf>7],

en

d

B' dp%6fievoi • TO. D TOVTO, OV

TOVTO

ye

olSa.

OVKOVV Kal oTi Tot? 6pa>jJ,evot,<} eiBecri Trpocr^pSiVTat, Kal TOII? X.070119 vepl 25 irepi,

aiiTcov Trocovvrai, ov irepl oh

TavTa

TOVTWV Biavoov/u,evot, aXX

eot/ce, TOV TeTpaydovov

text (paov ycip—fiadfoei) best. Similarly in D below, oTada is understood out of Glauco's reply. Cf. also dXX' u5e in

avTov

eKeivav

k'veKa Toil's Xoyovs

TOVTWV dXXa ra bvra VII 527 A.

avevpto~Kovo~iv, and

25 &UK£. Visible o-xrif-ara are imperfect copies of 'mathematical' trxflP-ara: cf. VII 526 A and App. I to Book VII. 51O c 15 oi irepl KTX. In CE, as TOV T€Tpa*y«vo\) avTOii KTX. : ' for that will afterwards appear, are included five sciences, which form the irpoolixwv (VII with a view to which they are discoursing 531 D) or TrpoiraiSela (ib. 536 D) to Dia- is the square itself and a diagonal itself, lectic, represented by EB. They are the not this which they draw' etc. airrov ('by Science of Number, Plane Geometry, Steitself,' i.e. apart from its embodiment in reometry, Astronomy, and Harmonics : perceivable squares) is ambiguous, and VII 522 c — 531 c. In each of these the might (so far as language is concerned) method, according to Plato, is the same. refer either to the Idea of Square (cf. V Certain {nrodtetis are taken for granted, 476 A ff.) or to the Mathematical Square and inferences drawn from them by purely (cf. VII 525 D, E nn.), which—see App. I deductive reasoning, aided by the use of to Book VII—Plato holds to be distinct sensible likenesses or illustrations. See from the Idea. But the ambiguity is also App. I to Book VII. resolved as soon as we are shewn (in 511 c ff.) how to interpret Siavooi/ievoi [8 |xe'vois el'Secri KTX. They II p. 103) that the language of this use the 'visible kinds,' i.e. visible squares, passage "in no way supports the intervisible diagonals, etc., but they are thinkpolation of intermediates (Aristotle's TA ing about mathematical squares and dia- liera^i) between particulars and Ideas": gonals etc. Cf. generally Euthyd. 290 B for 5tavoo6p.€voL involves dtdvoia, and since oi 5' aS yeuixirpai Kal oi darpovd/ioi Kal oi oiavma is intermediate between vovs and Xoyi.aTi.Kol' SyjpevTiKol yap eitri Kai odroi • 56fa (511 D), we may reasonably suppose 06 yap TrotoC
SI I A]

T70AITEIAC S"

69

Kal Buafierpov avrrj*;, aXfC ov TavTT)$, fjv ypdovaiv, Kal OI/TW?, ' axird fiev raina,

E raXXa

tov Kal tTKial Kal ev vBaaiv Xpw/jLevot

fyrovirres

511 Tt? I rj ry Buavoia,; XXI. d

^

T

TOVTO

j

v

r]v iovaav,

re

eKeiva

30

yjrvyrjv 'XprjcrOat, Trepl TT)V ^rjTfjaiv co? ov Bvvafiivrjv

6.

inrodeaecn B'

avrov,

TO)I> VTrodiaecov dvankpus

OVK e V eK^aiveiv,

Tot? inro TU>V Kara) direuKao-delcnv Kal 5 BeBo^ao-fiivoK

re Kal

2

Terifi7]fiJj>oi.s A mr : TeT/j.rin4voi5 A ' S ?•

between the higher vtrqTa and Softun-a. See App. I to Book v n . 27 irXdrrovo-iv: with reference to models of geometrical figures, orreries etc., all of which belong to CD, and may themselves have shadows and likenesses in AD. CIKOCTIV av

av

OVK av aXXa><; iBoi

fiev TO elBos ekeyov,

Trpof eKeiva to? evapyeai

us

IBelv, a

e<prj, Xeyea.

TOLVVV voqrbv

Be •xpcofievr/v avrots

iS

re Kal ypd(f>ovo~iv,

elKoves elaiv, TOUTOI? fiev &>? eiKoaiv

avra

'A\j]6fj,

a ifKaTTovalv

xpw|xevoi.

See

510 B «. The anacoluthon in aira fikv raijTa—Totirois ixiv xp^^1""- i s illustrated by Engelhardt Anac. PL Spec. Ill p. 8 : cf. also v n 520 D. 29 jjT)To{ivT€s T€. Instead of re, I formerly read 5e (on slight MS authority), with Ast and Stallbaum; but the corruption of 8e to re is exceedingly improbable here. The antithetical force of the clause fijToOeres—iSav is weakened by the occurrence of the words ws UK6<TIV aB in the ixtv clause. If the objects in question are used as images, the further statement that the real object of investigation is their originals (aura tKctva) loses its antithetical force, and becomes a sort of adjunct. Hence re following tftToOvTes is more appropriate than aura Se iiceiva. faTovvres ISeTv, which would be the natural way of expressing an antithesis. Cf. Laws g2f B 6£i) JJ.ZV d/cotiouci (iktirovai

re 0^(1 (where the order is the same as here), Phaedr. 266 c and other examples cited by Hoefer de part. PL pp. 17 f. 5 1 1 A 1 Tfj Siavcaa. See on rod Terpayujvov CLVTOO 510 D. 2 ^Xe^ov. 510 B. 3 OLva.yKaX,oiUvr\v. F o r the participle

we might expect dea-y/cdfe
4 TOV viro8&r«ii>v—iK$a.lvt\.v: ' t o step out of and above assumptions,' viz. by reaching the apxv ivinrdOerot: cf. 510 B 11.

5 avTois Tots KTX. a^rois is ' the actual things,' ' the originals,' as in aura, /liv TaOra i i o E : 'employing as images the originals from which images were made' (lit. 'the imaged-from' " abgebildet" Schneider) 'by the objects below,' i.e. employing as images the originals in CD, which were copied by the shadows etc. in AD. For a-n-eiKacrdeiai. in this sense cf. aireiKCurOTJi'Cu in Tim. 48 C and (with J. and C.) eUaadivTos in Phaedr. 250 B. Other views of this passage are discussed in App. X. Kal IKCIVOIS KT\. : 'those also, in comparison with those remoter objects, being esteemed and honoured as palpable and clear.' nai is 'also' and not 'and,' as some have supposed, e/cefoms is DC, and eKtiva AD. Plato uses the pronoun etciLvois to indicate that the objects in CD are less near to the mind of the mathematician than those in CE, which are the immediate object of his study (cf. Sidgwick in J. Ph. n p. 98). He could not, even if he had wished to, have written rai aurois (et ipsis) without sacrificing auvois just before. iKftva is said because AD is remoter still. See also App. X. 6 8e8o|ao-|«'vois means, I believe, 'esteemed,' 'valued' as in Polyb. VI 53. 9 rlhv €ir' apery

dedo^afffxtirwv avbpQiv:

cf. the regular use of So^afav for 'glorify' in the N. T. No other certain instance of this usage appears to occur in Plato, or even in classical Greek: at all events neither Thuc. ill 45. 6 nor Dionys.

[SHA ) , €(j>T], OTL TO UTTO ' T a t ? yea)fjLeTplai<; r e Kai r a t ? TO,VTT]<; B

a8e\a,K Texvais VOTJTOV Xeyovrd

10 yeo-Oat, Bvvdfiei,

Xeyeis.

To roivvv

fie TOVTO, OV aiirbs

erepov fidvffave

Tfirjfia TOV

6 \6
r a ? virodeo~ei<; irotovfievos

OVK ap^as,

akXa T&>

OVTI v7rodicreLS, olov eVt/3acret9 Te Kal opfias, iva fie%pi TOV dvvrroOirov eVt TT/V TOV iravTO<; dpyj)v

la>v, dyjrdfievos

avTrjs, TTOKIV av

6£
Thesm. 1. 24 Meineke, cited by L. and S., is a case in point. But the collocation with renixriixtvois makes it probable that the usage, though rare, is Platonic; and every other interpretation of the word is beset with serious difficulties, as is shewn in App. X. T«Ti|ii])i4voi.s- Terfiyjufrois is read by Schneider, with several MSS (see cr. ».), and understood as 'cut off' (abgeschnitten) ; but, as J. and C. observe, this does not suit SeSofatr/i^i/ots, and it is doubtful if the objects can be said to be 'cut,' although the line i s : see on rots

c]

TTOAITEIAC S"

e%6[ievo<; TS>V iicelwis

i^o/j,eva>v, OI/TW? eirl

C al iravTairaaiv ovhevl Trpoo")£pd)fjLevo<;, avTOt<; 81 avTwv et? aiiTa, Kal TeXevra et? 61877. , e<j}7], licavSy; 15 ow- BoKeis
TO VTTO TTJ? TOV BiaXeyeo-dat, eiuo-Trjfiris

TOV 6VTO? Te Kal VOTJTOV Qewpovfievov 77 TO VTTO TWI> TeyySiv

fievcov, a l ? a t vwoOeaeis ap%al Kal huavola fiev dvajKa^ovTai, 16.

KOXOV-

aWa

oii A-&q: oiv A 1.

Good. Beyond this it is perhaps safer not to go. A systematic attempt to correlate all intelligibles among themselves and in their connexion with the Good would have been premature in Plato's day, and is premature still. The permanent value of Plato's conception lies in the ideal which it sets before every succeeding generation of investigators. 12 •traXi.v a5 KTX. The dialectician's progress involves both an ascent and a descent—an ascent iirl TT\V apxyv, and a descent dTro TTJS dpxys ^rt. TT)V re\evT7]v

(cf. Aristotle quoted on 510 B). By the time that he reaches the Idea of the Good, all his surviving iirodicrets have become exact counterparts of the Ideas which are their objective correlates ; the others have all of them been demolished (VII 533 en.). The conclusions (TeXcurai) of dialectic are therefore impregnable;

lectician does not draw conclusions as to particulars: if he did, he could scarcely be said ai(jdt)Tt£ •WO.VTO.'KO.GIV ovhevl trpoa-

Xfnjcdai. See the Appendix to Book v u On Plato's Dialectic. 16 BTI (levTOi KT\. There is no anacoluthon as Engelhardt (Anac. PI. Spec. Ill p. 9) supposes, but OTL depends on fj.avda.voi. With aacpitrrepov cf. V + ; 8 C and 509 D above.
In general, the higher a science is, the greater (according to Plato) is the amount \J/ev5i]s iiriaTTj/MTj is a contradiction in of truth or knowability which its subjectterms (v 477 E «.). For more on this matter contains. Plato's theory on this subject see the Appendix to Book VII On subject is the source of Aristotle's doctrine Plato's Dialectic. o f a7r\tos yvujpLfj.a o r yvojptfj.uiTepa
[Sue

TTAATQNOI

20 fir) alaOtjaecnv avra deaadai ol decofievoi, Bia Be ' TO fir) e V apx*lv D dveXOovres cr/coTreiv, dXX' i% inroffeaewv, vovv OVK la^eiv trepi avra BOKOVGI o~ou, Kairoi vor/rcav ovroov fiera dpxf)<$. Btdvoiav Be /caXelv fioi Boicei<; TTJV TCOV yew/ierpiKcav ov vovv, ft)? fierafjv 25 rara,

r\v S' 6701, aireBelja).

Terrapa

ravra

Te Kal rrjv TCOV TOIOVTCOV e%iv, d\X'

ri So£»7? re Kal vov TTJV Stdvoiav Kal fioi

ovaav.

eVt TOIS rerrapen

ivaQr)fiara iv rrj yfrvxv yiyvo/ieva

'licava>Tfirjfiacn

Xafte, vor/cnv fiev

eirl TO> dvcordrco, ' Bidvooav Be eirl TW Sevrepa), rw rp'iTw Be TTIO~TIV E

/cal TW TeXevrata)

euKaaiav, Kal rd^ov

145 A, B and see Tannery VEducation Platonicienne in Rev. Philos. X p. 523, the Appendix to Book v n On the propaedeutic studies of the Republic and my article in Cl. Rev. XV p. 220, where I have tried to shew that our use of the word ' Arts ' in ' Bachelor of Arts ' etc. is an inheritance from the Platonic Academy. 19 Kal—Bcw|uvoi. The relative sentence passes into a main clause, as in 11 357 B, where see note. 20 avTa: viz. the subject-matter of the so-called ' A r t s ' : cf. v n 518B. 5 1 1 D 22 KaCroi—dpxijs: ' although they are intelligibles with a first principle.' The mathematician does not ascend to an apxy, and therefore does not exercise— for foxetp in its original half-inchoative sense cf. IX 585 B and Kiihner-Blass Gr. Gr. 1 2, p. 434 H.—POOJ on his subject, but nevertheless his subject is vo-qrhv (as we have been told before 510 B, 511 A, c) and has an apxy, viz. his inrodetxeis (ah ai vTToBiffeLS dpx^i- above). Kairoi is not found elsewhere in Plato for Kaiirep with a participle (Hoefer depart. PL p. 28) but occurs in Simonides ap. Prot. 339 C, in Axioch. 364 B and Lysias 31. 34. To write Kaiirep (with Kugler df. part, TOL etc. p. 18) would be rash. For other views on this difficult clause see App. XI. KaXeiv (id SOKEIS.

See J I O D n.

24 «s—oucrav. hiavoia is the most general word for a state (?£is) of mind or mode of thought in Greek; and the limitation here introduced is entirely Plato's own. Plato apparently attempts to fortify his innovation by etymology, hinting that the word Siaxoia is by derivation that which is between (hia fiAaov) vous and 56t-a. So also J. and C. Cf. einairla (with allusion to dicbves) in E. On 56fi;s see 510 A «.

avrd, ava Xoyov,

26 voi)
as we still say, 'is believing.' But Plato has already spoken of AC as So^aiTrbv (510 A « . ) ; so that irwrm should not be confined to the objects of sight. It is in fact a subdivision of 5<S£a, superior in point of 'clearness' (ffo^njxeia) to eUauta. We may regard it as the normal condition of the average uneducated mind. eUatria is the state of mind in which eUbves are held to be true. Here again, if eiicdves are strictly limited to images of bpard (cf. 509 E, 510 A), eUaaia must be similarly confined in its scope, and loses all metaphysical interest and importance: see v n 517 A n. But since the di<6ves are a lower grade of Sofao-ra (510 A ».), eUaffla should be understood as a lower variety of 56£a (as in v n 534 A), viz. the state of mind which accepts as true that which is a copy of a copy (rplrov npbs akqBeiav). In this sense ekao-la (with a play on eUdves) is a new coinage of Plato's. The translation 'conjecture' is misleading, for conjecture implies conscious doubt or hesitation, and doubt is foreign to elKaeia in Plato's sense. Plato may however have intended to suggest that such a state of mind is in reality no better than conjecture. See also X 598 A ». and Bosanquet Companion pp. 261 f. with Nettleship Led. and Rem. II pp. 242—246.

511 E] Joairep

TTOAITEIAC S"

v, ovrco ravra aa<j>r)vel,a<;

e<£' ol<; ecrrtv

•f)
73

Mavddvco,

e<prj, ical fv7%«/3w ical TCITTCO &>? 30

TeAoc noAueiAC r .

•29 uo-irep 4<j)" ots KT\. : "attributing to clause would run wjTep e oaov for e<j> oh is an unhappy /J.£VOS, the first as well as the second suggestion: cf. v n 534 A. A corrector /ierex" becomes IJ.(TCXUV ! f° r 'he accusain q changed the first peTixeiv to ,ueT^x«> tive with infinitive may be employed even which, in deference to Schneider's arguin the subordinate clauses of Indirect. ments, I formerly printed. But the text See on 492 c. The jingle fierkx^"— is quite sound. Stated categorically, the lUer^xe'" is inoffensive: cf. X 614 A, 621 B.

APPENDICES TO BOOK VI. I. V I 488 D. O7rws Be Kvpepinjcrei idv ri rive's fiovXtavrai idv re /nj, e^vrjv TOVTOV fJLiJTt ixeXerrjv oiofjLevoL Bvvarbv elvai X.a/3tiv a/t.a Kal rrjv KvjiepvqriK-qv.

Schneider's translation of this sentence is as follows :—"wie aber zu steuern sei, es mogen nun einige wollen oder nicht, davon glauben sie nicht dass es eine Kunst und Uebung gebe, mit der man dann eben die Steuermannskunst habe." The view which I have given in the notes is in general harmony with this interpretation; but I think that the word /u.eA.£T>7 denotes 'study' rather than actual 'practice' ("Uebung" or " exercitatio" Schneider): see the notes. The strength of Schneider's explanation lies in its conformity with the whole course of Plato's argument both here and in the passages which I have cited from the Politicus. In particular, the exact parallel between idv rk n v t s fiovXwvrai idv re /JLTJ a n d iav rt EKOVTOIS iav re. a.KOvra<s

(in Pol. 293 B) appears to me the strongest possible confirmation of the general soundness of his view. No interpretation that I know of, Schneider's alone excepted, assigns its proper force to eaV rk rives f$ov\uivrai (cf. idv re eKovras, Pol. l.C.) as well as to idv re ju.77. The true pilot cares just as little whether people wish him to steer as whether they do not: his art has nothing whatever to do with the sentiments with which his passengers regard his rule. Schneider's interpretation is also supported by the emphatic pyre rk\vrjv—/mjTe fjLeXerrjv: the false pilot will not allow that you can learn 'either art or theory' of how to steer, because according to him there is absolutely nothing technical or theoretical about steering. The only 'art of steering' which he will admit is the art of collaborating with himself in order to get command of the ship (yavTiKov fjievraXoIvTas/cat Kvfiepvr]riKov Kal «rio"TajU.evoi/ TO Kara vavv os av ^vWafx/idveiv

Seivos ij OTROS dp^ovariv KTA..).

I t must,

however, be admitted that dp.a KOI rr/v KvftepvrfriKijv is not altogether easy on Schneider's view. The reader naturally expects rrjv Kvf3epvriTiKr}v to be different from the rlxyrj and ixtkerr): for on a first examination of the passage, Plato seems to be speaking of the impossibility of acquiring at the same time two different arts: whereas Schneider holds that the two arts are the same, TTJV KvflepvrjTiKTJv being only Plato's way of expressing t h e rixvV a n d fj-eXirr] rovrov omos Kvj3e.pvrj(TU.

Is it possible to devise any explanation which, while agreeing in the main with Schneider's, will escape the apparent difficulty to which I "have just drawn attention? We note that Kv(3epvr)riKT]v has already been implicitly defined by the sailors as the art of helping them to get command (Kv/3€pvrjriKov KTX.

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

75

above). Why then should we not suppose that the sailors 'think it impossible to acquire an art of how to steer (oVo? Kv/3epv>ja-€i) along with KvfiepvrjTiKT)' in their sense of the term, i.e. (practically) along with the art of making themselves masters of the ship ? This interpretation, as far as concerns the language, seems to me possible enough; but it implies that the sailors do think it possible to learn the art of how to steer independently and by itself: whereas they have already said that such an art cannot be taught at all (^ao-Koiras ^Se <5i8aKT<W cTrai 488 B). For this among other reasons I think that this solution should not be entertained. I have endeavoured in the notes to justify Schneider's explanation of 5/j.a Kai, and here it need only be added that one source of embarrassment is the tendency which we feel to give to a/^a more of a strictly temporal signification than necessarily belongs to it in that idiomatic phrase. An entirely different view of the sentence is taken by Ast and others. According to Ast, Plato is here distinguishing between two arts, viz. (1) scientific pilotage (the knowledge of astronomy etc.), and (2) the "ars imperandi—ut quae scientia et ars ipsum doceant, a multitudine ipsi subdita fieri curet." rrjv KvftepvrjTiKijv is (1), and ri\vriv TOVTOV (2). On this view Plato asserts that the crew in general consider it impossible to acquire both the art of steering (i-i^ KvpepvrjTiKijv) and that of steering whether people wish it or no (oVtos /cu/Jepvr/o-ei ri-xyiqv TOVTOV), i.e. in other words, enforcing and maintaining authority. Both arts—so Ast interprets—are united, according to Plato, in the true pilot. This explanation Stallbaum apparently accepts, conjecturing only rfj Kv(3epvriTLKrj for rrjv KvfiepvrjnKTjv. I do not deny that it can be elicited

from Plato's language, if we take this sentence by itself: but it is open to serious objection on the score of meaning, as has been pointed out by H. Sidgwick (/. Ph. v pp. 274—276), Richards (Cl. Rev. vm p. 23), and Shorey (A. J. Ph. xvi p. 234)1. It represents the sailors as admitting that there is a true art of steering, which under certain circumstances it is possible to acquire. But this is precisely what they deny (see 488 B irpos Se TOUTOIS <$>6XTKOVTO.<; fjirjSl SIBOLKTOV etvat), nor could they possibly admit it, so long as they 'have not so much as a notion that the true Pilot should study the year and the seasons' etc. (488 D). Their solitary notion of an art of steering is how to get the helm into their hands (488 c WVTO. iroiovi'Tas OV
allow that there is an art of steering, they would certainly not allow that others possessed it rather than themselves : cf. Pol. 302 A, B. Nor, again, does Plato ever admit that the art of enforcing one's authority has anything whatever to do with the art of steering. In the Politicus, he is careful to point out that they are entirely distinct: see the passages referred to in the note. 1 For another special discussion of the passage see Richter in F/ecieisen's Jahrbuch, 1867, p. 145.

76

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

Jowett and Campbell's explanation is somewhat different. They do not suppose that Plato himself means to attribute to the true pilot both knowledge and power to enforce his authority; but apparently agree with Ast that the false pilot admits the existence of a scientific Kvfizpv-qTiKri, which can be acquired by itself, but cannot be combined with the art of getting possession of the helm. This view is open to all except the last of the objections already noted. Sidgwick and Richards both agree with Grote (Plato in p. 80) that Plato does not regard scientific Kvf3epvrjTiKrj as involving the power to enforce one's authority as well as knowledge of steering. According to Richards, we should read aEvvarov instead of Swarov. " The crew deem it by no means as impossible as it really is that, while a man acquires KvpipvijTiKt], he should at the same time acquire this other art" (viz. OVGJS KvftepvYJcrti, lav T€ Tii'es f3ov\u)VTai idv re fiLij).

T h i s view is

attractive in some ways, but the corruption of dSvvarov to Swarov is not a very probable one, and it would still seem to be implied that the crew admit the existence of a true art of steering, which is, under certain circumstances, capable of being learnt. If, with Sidgwick, we read oioyj.eVu), in agreement with auT<3, this particular difficulty disappears. I formerly accepted Sidgwick's proposal, but there is force in Richards' criticism that " the sentence would be most clumsy in form, nor is it to the point what the true steersman thinks; Plato is describing the state of mind of the crew." Si after oVws is also a difficulty. On the whole, I am now inclined to think that Schneider's interpretation has the most numerous and important arguments in its favour, and for this reason I have adopted it in the notes.

II. V I 492 E. ov yap, r^v 8' lyu>, dAAa (cat TO e7Tt^€tp£iv TTOAA?^ avoid, OVTC yap yiyverai ovre yeyovev ov8e ovv /j.rj yivrjrai aXXotov rjOos n-pos dperrjv vapa rrjv TOVTOIV iraiBeiav TreiraiBevfJievov, dvOpunrnov, (0 eraipe' dtiov ft,&VTOi Kara, TTJV Trapoi/uay i£aipw/i.ev \6yov.

I agree in the main with Schneider's view of this passage, which he translates—more freely than usual—as follows: "Denn keine Erziehung, o Freund, vermag oder vermochte oder wird auch vermogen der Erziehung dieser gegeniiber ein Gemiith zur Tugend umzulenken, namlich ein menschliches; das gottliche freilich mtissen wir wie es im Sprichwort heisst, ausnehmen von unserer Rede." J. and C. (with Ast) connect irpos dpenjv with TmraiStvfjLevov, comparing Prot. 342 D AaiceBaifiovioi 7rpos <j>i\ocrotf>iav—apicrTa 7re7rat8fwTai a n d Gorg. 471 D ev irpos T17V pYjTopiKrjv Tre-n-aLStvadaL, b u t t h e adverbs m a k e all t h e difference.

Without an adverb Plato writes eis dpe-ryv Trou&tvuv (e.g. Gorg. 519 E). An entirely different explanation is given by Stallbaum and others. Stallbaum translates as follows : " neque enim indoles iuxta istorum erudita disciplinam neque fit neque facta est, nee vero unquam net ad virtutem (virtutis habita ratione) aliusmodi (dWolov) humana quidem" etc. But (1) Plato is professedly giving a reason (ovre yap

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

77

KT\.) why it is the height of folly to attempt to teach a young man what is opposed to public opinion, and Stallbaum's translation gives no such reason: (2) -Kapa. cannot mean 'iuxta' 'according to,' but only ' opposed to.' Stallbaum's view, which is as old as Ficinus, has been widely accepted, but no one has yet explained how irapa can be used for Kara.

The adherents of this erroneous view have also in many cases suspected the word dkXoiov. Even if we adopt Schneider's explanation, dXXoiov seems at first sight strange : should not Plato have written a/mvov, which Vermehren (PI. Stud. p. 95) considers more natural ? I think not, for Plato means to suggest that public opinion will not tolerate any kind of dissent, whether better or worse than itself, except the Oelov rjQos, which is a special example of the dXXolov rjdos irpos dptTijv. Instead of dXXolov the following proposals have been made, all of them (except the last) on the mistaken assumption that irapa means Kara.: (1) OVK dXXolov (' not alien to' Nagelsbach), (2) dXXoXov (' other than alien to,' Hermann, who also suggests aX\o rj ovetSos for dXXolov >?#os), (3) d$i6\oyov (Vermehren), (4) dXrjOivov (Richards). The last of these critics ' strongly suspects' that Plato also wrote Kara and not irapd.

III. V I 498 D, E. o i yap TTioTrore tTSov yevofjavov TO VVV Xcyofievov, dXXa. 7TOA.II /JLOLXXOV Toiavr' a r r a pij/xara i^tirirrjSes SLXXTJXOI^ to/xo«ojiteva, aXX' OVK airo TOV avTOfi.d.TOV, wcnrep vvv, cru/ATrecrdvTa- avBpa 8c aptrij ira.pMTuifj.zi/ov Kal U)[JLOL{OfJi€VOV /X€^pi

TOV OVVCLTOV TeA.€U>S €pV0) T€ KOLI XoyiO,

TroXei €T€pa

ira)7TOT£ €
TOiavrrj,

oi

0VVO,0~T€V0VTa £V

KTX.

The view which I take of this passage is new in some of its details, but Reinhardt had already pointed out that Plato is referring to Isocrates (de Isocr. aem. p. 39), and Diimmler has made it probable that the reference is specifically to the Panegyricus (probably published about 380 B.C). The same general view is adopted by the French editors of Book vi (Espinas and Maillet), and was also held by Schneider, as appears from his translation " denn sie haben das jetzt aufgestellte niemals in der Wirklichkeit gesehen, sondern viel eher etwa solche Worte, sorgfaltig mit einander in Gleichklang gebracht, nicht ziifallig, wie diese, zusammengesetzt; einen Mann aber, der sich mit der Tugend in Einstimmung und Gleichklang gebracht so vollkommen wie moglich in Werk und Wort—haben sie niemals gesehen " etc. See also Hirmer Entstehung u. Kompos. d. pi. Pol. pp. 664, 665. Schneider appears to understand TOVOMT arra p-qpxvra. as referring only to what follows (c^e-n-iV^Ses—o-vfjLireo-ovTa), and the same view is apparently taken by Diimmler (C/ir. Beitr. p. 14). That they refer more naturally to what precedes will hardly be denied, and yev6fj.evov— Xtyofnevov is as good an example of Trapo/j.oiuio-i's as one could wish. Reinhardt (I.e.) supposes that ToiavT aTTa p^ora means proposals for political reform, resembling Plato's ideal State, and on this ground holds

78

APPENDICES

TO BOOK VI.

that it is the Areopagiticus, and not the Panegyricus, of which Plato is thinking. But Plato would hardly have compared any of Isocrates' political speeches to his own Republic, and the following words shew that the contrast is intended to be between mere vapouring rhetoricians and true Men. Nor is it likely that the Republic alludes to a work published so late as 354, the approximate date of the Areopagiticus (Christ Litteraturgesch. p. 297). The interpretation which I have given of Toiavr 3.TTO. prijxaTa appears to me exactly to suit dW OVK <x7ro TOV airo/JLOLTOV, u>(nre.p vvv, o-vfi-n-eo-ovra. I t is perfectly true, a s P l a t o says, that

the figure of Trapo/totWts is never deliberately aimed at by him; or, if it is, he has the good manners to conceal his art. Isocrates' p-qfion the other hand, are correctly described as c£«rtnjSes dX.X1jX.0n GJ^ Davies and Vaughan completely miss the meaning of the passage when they translate " they have met with proposals somewhat resembling ours, but forced expressly into appearing of a piece with one another, instead of falling spontaneously into agreement, as in the present case." Jowett errs in much the same way, except that he seems to have suspected an allusion to the sophistical rhetoricians in pjfpiTa—w/xoico/teVa. The view adopted in J. and C.'s note is practically identical with that of D. and V.

IV. V I 500 A. rj KOX iav OVTO) OeSvrai, dXXoiav r oi (jirjaei'S avTOvs So^ay O KCU dXXa diroKptvu(r8ai;

The reading of the best MSS r) rat—dXXoiav TOL KTX. is retained by Schneider and (with t/'s change of TOI to re) by Stallbaum and Hermann. On this view dXXoiav 86£av Xyjij/to-Oau must be understood as denoting a change of opinion from the dXXoiav 86£av of 499 E. But it is extremely awkward to suppose that the dXXoia &6£a is different in the two cases; nor can men be said to change an opinion which it is doubtful if they ever held. These difficulties have led Hermann to read aAA' olav TOI (with Stephanus and some inferior MSS) in 499 E, understanding Aoyi£o7/.ei/os before olav TOI—surely a strange ellipse, and otherwise an insufficient remedy. aAA' olav TOL in 499 E was also adopted by Ast, with other changes much too extensive to need refutation, though supported in part by the reading of inferior MSS. There should be no doubt that dXXoiav TOI in the earlier passage is sound. In 500A Jowett proposes to read r) KCU, joining /cat and ovrm, and placing a full stop after diroKpivtlo-daL. A similar view was held by Ast. But /cat could hardly be taken with ovrm, and r/ KOI would strike every reader as the usual particle of interrogation, rj ydp (interrogative), which Vermehren conjectures (PI. Stud. p. 98), is highly improbable. I formerly read ^ OVK, and altered TOL to Tt. y OVK is favoured also by Campbell, but the authority for the negative—q and Flor. U—is extremely slight, and Baiter's emendation accounts more easily for the reading of the oldest MSS. The retention of (cat 'even' is also an improvement: if a negative had been used, we should have expected rather oiBe than OVK.

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

79

V. V I 501 A, B. ETreira, otjuai, aVepya&tyiei'Oi TTVKVO. av ejcaTepoucrc aVopXcTrouv Trpos r e TO tj>vati SiKatov «at «a\ov KCU crpov Kai TravTa. TO. roiavra, Kai Trpos eKelvo av, 0 4v TOIS avflpwirois 4|"roioi€v, £v/J./jLiyvvvTes TC Kai /ccpavyvvTES «K TU>V eViT^SeUjtictTiov TO dvSpeiKtXov K T \ .

My view of this passage agrees closely with that of Schneider (see his translation pp. 169, 303) except that I think it is better to translate av8peiKt\.ov by the ' colour and likeness of true Manhood,' rather than by "die Farbe des Menschen," so as to bring out the double signification of the word (see on ypd7rois ift-irotoiev ^vjx.fi.iyvvvTK KTX.

(see cr. n.). In that case we must emend and write either iniroioliv Te (Schleiermacher) or Kat iiuroioicv (Ast), or diroftXiTrovTes instead of aW/?A.e7roiev (Stallbaum), or something else to the same purpose. Hermann and J. and C. ignore the difficulty altogether. But even with such an emended text, the sense is faulty; for the legislator who starts with a tabula rasa need not trouble about TO kv TOIS dvOpw-n-ois SUatov etc. His constitution is not a compromise between for example Athens and the World of Ideas, but something as near the latter as the limitations of earthly existence will allow—in other words such a polity as is described in the Republic. The Philosopher-king is not the man to paint an imperfect picture, though he knows that it will be but a picture after all. Burnet prints lirciTa—iravra TO. TOiavra, KO! 7rp6s iictZv' av TO ev TOIS avBphiirois £/i7roiot€v, KTA.

This emendation appears to me to de-

prive cKaTcpwo-e of all meaning and point.

VI. V I 503 C. Eu/aa#£is Kai ju.v>yjiiov£s Kai ay^tvot Kai o^cis Kai ocra aXXa TOUTOIS iVeTai olcrO' on OVK lOiXovcriv a/xa (f>vea8ai Kai veaviKoC TE Kai X as SiavoCas 0T01 KOCT/«
Such is the reading of A and I I : and none of the other MSS have any variant worth discussing. Of the qualities named, the following appear in the description of the philosophic character (485 c—487 A) : evfid6ua, fi-vy/wr), /xcyaXoirpiirua. It is also clear that olot KOO-^-ICOS—tfiv represents o-uxfrpoavvrj (485 E). dyxti/ot and o&ts certainly refer to intellectual qualities, as appears from their combination with evpaOeis sal jx.vrjfx.ove.%, and with ocra aX\a Tovrots IireTai: cf. also Theaet. 144 A. veaviKot 'spirited' has af-

80

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

finities with AvSpeioi (486 B—487 A), but Vermehren {PI. Stud. pp. 98— 103) is mistaken in holding that the two notions are identical. According to Schneider, who retains the reading of the MSS, evfxaOeis—fieyaXoTrpeireh rots Siavoias forms the predicate, the subject being 0101—tfiv. This interpretation gives the right sense, but is otherwise forced and unnatural in the last degree. Moreover, if otot is the subject, we can scarcely dissociate ol TOWVTOI from it, and even on Schneider's view ot roiovroi refers to evpadus-—Siavolas. Stallbaum prints a comma after ^vea-Oai, and understands Plato to mean that a combination of the intellectual virtues enumerated in tv/xa6eh—o£fts is itself rare, as well as the union of spirit and sobriety. Such a view, even if grammatically possible, is certainly awkward; and we have every reason to suppose that Plato did not consider the union of kindred intellectual qualities as in any way exceptional. It is the union of certain intellectual and moral virtues with certain other moral virtues which he considers rare: cf. Theaet. 144 A, B, the whole of which passage is important for the understanding of Plato here. Others, such as Vermehren I.e. and J. and C, suppose that 0I01—t$\v is a consequence of viavtKoi—/ncyaXoTrporeis. This is however (as Shorey points out A. J. Ph. xvi p. 236) opposed to every statement made by Plato on the subject. The opposition between OvfioeiSes, VCOLVIKOI/, av8pelov (by which is meant, in this particular contrast, the active side of Courage) and TrpSov, Koa-fnov, pov etc., is regarded by him as the fundamental antithesis of human character : see for example 11 375 c, in 399 c, 410 D, Pol. 306 c ff., 307 c, 309 E, 311 B, Tim. 18 A and Laws 731 B. We have no right to hide this fact by explaining away VVLVIKOV. The word means 'full of youthful vigour,' 'spirited,' and nothing more. vta.viK.6v is of course a constituent factor in avSpelov, but it is not identical with it, nor do any of the passages which Vermehren cites {Theaet. 165 c, Rep. 425 c, 491 E, 563 E, Lys. 204 E, Ale. 104 A) prove any such identity. Still less does the word mean "generous" (J. and C.), or "kraftig, mannhaft, und sittlich tikhtig" (Vermehren). We may therefore be certain that vcavtKoi—neyaXoTrpareis is opposed to own—tfiv. The MS reading will admit of this only if we construe ve
144 A) t r a n s p o s e d Kai, r e a d i n g <j>v€crSai VZOLVIKOC—KCU oloi KTX.

Heindorf's remedy is however not quite satisfactory, because it lays all the stress upon the difficulty of finding the two opposite kinds of moral qualities united with intellectual sagacity, whereas—as appears from the next sentence—the relevant point is that intellectual vivacity and acumen are seldom found along with one of the two phases of moral character, viz. sobriety and stedfastness. For this reason I now venture on the transposition printed in the text. It is worthy of note that in two places where the scribe of A omitted a passage of some length,

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

81

without the excuse of homoioteleuton, the number of letters is 41 and 39. (See cr. nn. on 504 D, X 601 A and Introd. § 5). Here it is 40 xat veaviKot—Siavoia? may of course be an interpolation, but it is more likely to be an omitted line or lines wrongly replaced.

VII. V I 507 B. KOU avrb Brj xaA.6v /ecu airo dyaBov, Kai OVTW Tre.pl TravTwv a TOT€ tos TroAAa eTi'#e/Aev, iraXiv av Kal tSeav (i£av IKOVTOD,
The difficulties of this sentence have hardly received sufficient attention at the hands of editors. If KCLT tSeW—the reading of all the MSS—is genuine, what is the grammatical object of TiOcvre: ? Two possibilities suggest themselves. One is to understand eV or the like, as parallel to av-ro KaXov and avi-o dyaOov. This view is apparently adopted by Schneider, who translates "Und dann ein schones selbst und ein gutes selbst und so bei allem, was wir dort als vieles setzten, wiederum eins nach der angenommenen Einheit des Begriffs eines jeden setzend nennen wir jedes das, was ist." Stallbaum seems to have taken a similar view, although his note is not quite explicit. But it is so difficult to supply eV as an object to n^eVres that we must, I think, reject this interpretation altogether. The second and more plausible alternative is—with Prantl, and the English editors and translators—to regard the object of TiOivrvs as identical with that of €Ti6ep,€v. But KOT' I8£av \i.ia.v ri^eVres is far from clear. n^eWes ought clearly to be understood in the same sense as eritfe/xev, and the whole phrase should express the antithesis of ok 7roXAa en'^e/xev. We are hardly justified in translating nOevai /car' ISiav fj.iav as 'reduce to a single form' (D. and V.) or 'bring under a single idea' (Jowett), although the phrase might possibly here mean 'regard as belonging to one Idea.' If KOT' ISeav is sound, the least unsatisfactory course is perhaps to print a colon after krWiixtv, and explain thus : 'reversing our procedure, we view them as falling under a single Idea of each,...and call each that-whichis'': i.e. for example SUaiov, a-dirf>pov etc., each of which we took as TrokXd, we now regard as belonging to or falling under one Idea of SLKOLIOV, one of a-(S(j>pov etc. But neither this interpretation nor any other which I can devise (such as 'regard according to' or 'in the light of one Idea of each) furnishes a thoroughly clear and simple sense, or a satisfactory antithesis to o!s iroAAa triOe/iev. The only suitable contrast is that between the one Idea itself and the -n-oAAa. For this reason I have ventured to replace KCLT by /cat. The occurrence of rets 8' av tSeas in the next sentence is also, so far as it goes, in favour of the proposed correction. If we read «ai for Kara, we ought certainly (with Bosanquet) to take 0 eo-riy e/cao-Tov as a secondary predicate after irpoo-a.yoptvofj.tv. The translation ''we call each 'that-which-is'" (Schneider and others) is grammatically possible and even necessary, I think, if Kara, is retained; but it will scarcely be denied that o tcn-iv Znao-rov, taken by itself, is A. p. 11. 6

82

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

most easily and naturally understood as the generalised form of the idiom o lo-riv KaXov, o lunv

dyaOov etc.

If SO, o ICTTIV IKO.(TTOV is an

additional reason for reading «at instead of Kara. We postulate 'one Idea of each' and call it 'what each is.' The balance between iSeW jxiav fKocrrov and o tiTTiv'i<«x
VIII. V I 507 D, E. TTJV Se rijs oi//e
The MSS have no variant of any consequence. Schneider boldly understands avrots as TOIS o/x/xao-ti/, referring to 7z>«. 67Cff., where it is virtually said that Colour, in an act of Sight, eumma eis T-ijv oi//iv. But a careful study of the analysis of Sight in the Timaeus will shew that Schneider's view is not supported by that dialogue. If iv av-roTs = iv TOIS o/j-fxacnv, it is clear from the rest of the sentence that Plato thinks Colour may be present in the eyes even where there is no light. But in the Timaeus Colour does not IIXTTLTTTHV ck rtjv oi/w when light is absent: see 45 c with Archer-Hind ad loc. The fact is that both in the Timaeus and in the Republic Colour is regarded as inherent in things and not in the eyes : see Tim. 67 c xpoa<; iKi
a n d Rep. 5 0 8 c (ov av r a s

By Schmelzer and the Oxford editors, ain-ots is interpreted as TOTS bpwrolf "from TOV oparov supra." Plato certainly allows himself great latitude in matters of this kind, but not, I think, where the result would be that he must inevitably be misunderstood ; and even an intelligent reader might here be forgiven if he referred avrois to rots OjU/tao-iv. Various corrections have been proposed, iv av TOIS is Richards' conjecture; but Plato is careful throughout this whole discussion to use opaTo'v only in the singular, as a general term for the visible: cf. 508c, 509D (bis). For 'things seen' he uses opwjiiva 507c, 508A, 508c, 510D. On this account iv av TOIS <6po)/x€Vois> or (better) iv avToi's [jLev(Hs> appears to me preferable, if the passage is to be emended on these lines. In Cl. Rev. xni p. 99 I ventured to submit another emendation. It will be observed that in the latter part of the sentence Plato treats the colours themselves as the objects of vision (TO TC xpojpxTu lorai dopara), without alluding to the visible objects in which the colours inhere. Cf. also Tim. 67 c ff., and Arist. de An. 11 7. 418 s 26 ff. Hence I proposed to read •Ka.pav
APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

83

inforced by one genus—making three in all—specially adapted by Nature for this very purpose, you are aware that Sight will see nothing and the colours will be invisible.' The order of words recalls o iav pi) irapayevrjTai. rpLTov above, and the position of ev may perhaps be defended as calling special attention to this one thing without which an act of sight is altogether impossible, and as inviting Glauco's question rtVos Srj—TOVTOV; Morgenstern retained iv avTois and connected it with the following clause, but iv does not go well with irapayiv-qrai, and the emphasis on iv avrols is excessive. Other suggestions are i<j>' •§ la-n for iv avrois (Biehl Die Id. d. Guten p. 52), \kv\ ai-rois (Stallbaum) and eV axnol% (Ast). If we might venture to read irapovcnj? Se xpoas, iav (or rjv) airots jui) irapay(vr)Tai KTX., all difficulty would disappear. Meantime, as none of the remedies hitherto suggested is convincing, I have thought it safest to retain the MS reading, understanding alTois perforce as TOIS opw/xeVois. The interesting analysis of Sight in Theaet. 1560 ff. is unfortunately of no use for emending the present passage.

IX. V I 508 D, E. TOVTO Toivvv TO T7jv d\rj8uav irapi-^ov Tots y y fievois Kal T(5 yvyvuxTKOVTi rrjv SwajU.iv aTroSiSov TY)V TOU dyadov iSeav d6i etvai, aiTtav <5e iTTLOTepiov ovruiv, yf(ucr€tos TE xal d\i)Buo.
So A reads. The only important variant is 81a. vov (S v and several other MSS) for Siavoov. Jowett and Campbell, following Schneider and Hermann, retain the text of A, and translate as follows : " This then, which imparts truth to the things that are known and gives to the knower the power of knowing, is what I would have you call the idea of good : and this you will deem to be the cause of knowledge and of truth so far as the latter is known : but fair as are both these, knowledge and truth, you will be right in thinking that it is something fairer than these." /xeV is explained as belonging strictly to alriav and "opposed to the following Si: the idea of good is indeed (piv) the cause of knowledge and truth, but (8e) it is other and fairer than they." Schneider's explanation and translation differs hardly at all from that of the Oxford editors. The above rendering is open to grave objections both on the score of grammar and of sense. Siavoeto-ftu can hardly be used with a participle (ovcrav) without <Js : and ok -ytyvwo-Ko/xeV^? surely cannot mean ' so far as known.' It is also, to say the least, extremely difficult to explain the position of /xiv. Sia. TOV cyycyo^ora /xev eptora, which Schneider (Addit. p. 51) cites from X 607 E, is a very remote parallel. Nor is there any point, so far as I can discover, in saying that the Idea of the Good is the cause of truth so far as truth is known. The Idea of the Good is the cause of all Truth, known and unknown. And 6—2

84

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

there is no echo of any such limitation in the analogous description of Light. For these and other reasons, Schneider's explanation is, in my opinion, untenable. Nor can I devise any other reasonable solution without altering the text. Of emendations there is, as usual, no lack. The smallest change is to read 8m. vov, with S etc. and the editors down to Bekker. But the construction remains extraordinarily obscure. Few will agree with Schmelzer in construing Tjyov/^tvo's 8k (1-171/ TOV dyadov ISiav) aiTiai/ eTrio-n;//.^?—vov, rfyovfJievos 8k ovr
(van Heusde),

(5) to cancel cos—-qyijo-ei as a gloss (Stallbaum), (6) to read Si' for &•' after alriav and Sia vov for Siavoov (Richter Fleck. Jb. 1867 p. 143). Of these suggestions (1) is inadequate; (2) and (6) only make matters worse ; (3) and (5) fail to provide a parallel to opa.To.ivif avTrjs ram-iys (sc. T??; oi^cco?) in 508B, and are also in themselves too drastic. Van Heusde's solution, which (in common with Baiter) I formerly adopted, gives a good sense, if cos be taken principally with the 8e clause ('as being the cause of Knowledge and Truth, although it is itself known by means of Reason'). But it is impossible to assign any probable motive for so serious a dislocation of the text of the MSS. The usual devices of homoioteleuton and the accidental omission of a line in the archetype fail us here. See Inlrod. § 5. The explanation given in the notes is, I think, satisfactory in point of sense, and assumes no corruption except that of yiyvmo-KOjiev-qv to yiyvcocTKo/iei'r/s—a natural error after dk-qBtiaq. I now regard it as much more probable than Van Heusde's solution (see his /nit. Phil. PL ed. 1842 p. 388 n.).

X. V I 511 A. ciKotrt 8k xpw/xevrjv avTois Toll VTTO TUSV (carco airziKa.o~9aoiv KOX eKtivois TTpos €KfLva cos ivapyto-i SeSo^aoyAerais TC KOX T£Ti/«7/u.eVois.

The difficulties of this sentence are familiar to all students of Plato. After much consideration, I believe the text to be sound, and the meaning to be as explained in the notes. In y . Ph. x p. 76 Bywater objects to taking airziKao-8uo-w as ' copied' or ' imitated,' urging that it must refer to the actual copies themselves. In order to obtain this meaning, he would read VTTOKO.TU> for VTT6 TCJV Karco, and explain iiroKaTto aTriLKao-6iio-iv as the ' sensible copies, and not the (intelligible) originals,' i.e. as CD and not CE. But (1) on this view airois loses its force, and (2) a i m /ikv raCra a TT-XCLTTOWIV T€ KO.L ypa.ovo~iv, cov x a i tTxia! /cat iv uSacrti/ eiKo'ves eicriv, TOVTOIS ixkv cos UKOO-iv av xpui/xevoi. i n 5 1 0 E a n d TOIS ToVe fJUfjiijOetcriv in 510 E

(where see note) prove that airuKao-diio-iv means not 'copies' but 'copied.'

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

85

It is true that this sense of airuKaa-OivTa is extremely rare, but Tim. 48 c furnishes a close parallel, and ei'/cao-^eVros in Phaedr. 250 B (quoted by J. and C.) certainly means 'copied.' In this passage vito TWV K<XTU>, and 6.TT- in a.TretKao-df'icn (combined with the play on £IKO<TI), as well as the precise parallel in 510 E, would make it impossible for a Greek to mistake Plato's meaning. Stallbaum's explanation ("formae rerum adspectabilium intelligibiles, sive abstractae ab ipsis rebus et una mentis cogitatione conceptae, quae a rebus inferioribus, i.e. concretis, tanquam similitudine expressae sunt") is in my judgment wholly wrong: see below. Liebhold's conjecture diro for VTTO would make the higher segment a copy of the lower! His further proposal, to read aimus (viz. rais vtroOia-iCLv) 6ju,oiu)s TOTS KTX. plunges everything into hopeless confusion. The explanation which I have given of this part of the sentence agrees with that of Schneider and the Oxford editors. KOX ciceiVois is also undeniably difficult; but KO.KU (proposed by Bywater I.e.) is hardly less so; and we are certainly not justified in transposing avrols and exei'vois, as Richards proposes to do. Should we p e r h a p s p u n c t u a t e a-n-eiKaa-Gua-L KCC! CKUVOIS, irpos cKelva KTX., a n d understand KO.1 IK(IVOIS as only ' et illis,' ' illis quoque' as in Symp. 212 A /cat eiTTtp rip aXXto avBpunriav, aOavaTu KOU (Ketuw ? T h e objects in CD are

'also' copied by those in AD, exactly as the vo-qrov is by CD (510 A). If SeSo^ao-jueVois is not 'valued,' it can only mean 'opined,' and we must translate either (1) 'being opined and honoured as palpable,' or else (2) 'being opined as palpable' ("fur wirklich gehalten" Schneider), 'and honoured accordingly.' If we adopt the second alternative, us evapyeai belongs only to 8e8o£ao-;u.eVois : but TCare 'vulgarly esteemed distinct and valued accordingly.' On this view ok would hint that the objects in DC are not in reality, compared with those in CE, ivapyrj: and the same insinuation would be still further emphasized by SeSo^atr/icvois (' opined ' as opposed to ' known '). This interpretation is possible so far as the Greek is concerned, except that tKtlva can hardly mean anything but AD. Nevertheless, even if we allow that Uilva. could refer

86

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

to CE, an allusion to the popular prejudice in favour of materialism would be out of place in a scientific classification of TO OVTIX in their order of 'clearness.' And Plato has already shewn a tendency to introduce the shadow segment at each stage "in order to make it quite clear at each step how the whole classification coheres " (Bosanquet): hence rot's TOT€ /xift,7]6et(TLv

(510 B) and w

Kal (TKLOI Kal iv vSacriv

etxdi'es

eio-(.v (510 E). Finally, the whole description in TOVTO—aireiKaa-Oucnv passes first from CE to DC, and then from DC to AD (vtrb TISV KO.TW)! and a return to CE in the last clause of the sentence, such as Stallbaum supposes, would be artistically unpleasing.

XL V I 511 C, D. OTL fLtvTOi /iovket 8iopi£,eiv £cnepov tlvai TO VTTO T^S TOV SiaXeyecr^ou iTrio~Tijfirj^ TOV OVTOS re KCU VOTJTOV Oewpov/xevov r/ TO ino rail' Tt\viov Ka\ov/X€VU)t', ai<s at vtro&io~Wi <*pxa' K a i Siavoia fxiv avayKa^ovrai aWa fxrj aiaOijo-eo-iv aira BeaaOai 01 Seto/xevoi, Sta. Se TO .jxrj iw' ap)(fp> o-KOirelv aW i£ viroOto-euiv, vovv OVK lo~\iiv irepl avra. SOKOVCTI O~Ol, KOLITOI VOtjTWV

0VTU1V J

The ordinary view of the last clause of this sentence appears to be "obwohl es in Verbindung mit dem Anfange denkbares ist" (Schneider: cf. Jowett's " although when a first principle is added to them they are cognizable by the higher reason "). Some of the difficulties which this translation involves are pointed out by Krohn (PI. St. p. 141). The most serious of them is that it makes Plato imply that the objects of mathematical study as pursued by mathematicians are not vorjra, whereas he has repeatedly said that they are (see note ad loo). It may be urged on the other hand that we ought not to take the words too strictly, and that vovv OVK io-^tLv irepi aira. SOKOVO~L o~oi prepares us for

taking VOTJTWV in a narrower sense than it has hitherto had. But yoiiv OVK icr^tiv is a different thing from the assertion that the objects are not vo-qra, for vov% is expressly limited by Plato to the higher intellectual method throughout the whole of this passage, Bidvota being used for the lower, as the next sentence carefully explains. In a passage expressly occupied with defining terms, Plato is not, I think, likely to have contradicted himself within a single sentence, by first saying that /xa8r]fi.a.TLKd (as ordinarily studied) are VOIJTO. and afterwards implying that they are not. JXCT' apxi?s is also far from clear on the ordinary view, for (1) the use of the preposition is obscure, unless something like Xajxfiavoixivwv is understood, and (2) it is not easy to interpret ap\rj<s of the dpxn Kar l$ox>jv, i.e. the Good, just after we have been told that ixad-qixariKa. possess dp\ac of their own (ai9 ai vwodio-Wi ap\ai).

It may be said that dpxnv in eV apxyv dveXdovres is the Good. So no doubt it is, from Plato's point of view; but we should translate this also 'a beginning,' for the contrast is between the dialectician who ascends (iir dp-^jv dvtXOovTf.'s) to an dpx>] and the mathematician who

does not, but nevertheless has one (without ascending) in his viro&

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VI.

87

On these grounds I am unable to accept what seems to be the current interpretation. Campbell appears to take VOIJTO. /ACT' ipxys as a single phrase denoting a special sort of vorjTa ("while not absolute vor)Ta, they are VOIJTO. par cipxys" Vol. 11 p. 16). This is certainly better than Jowett's view, but linguistically it is a little harsh, and in point of fact the higher vorp-d (except of course the Good itself) are also vo-qra. per' <xp^s, for /ACT' ap^s cannot be construed ' with a hypothetical dpxij.' The interpretation which is given in the notes agrees with that of Prantl, and (if I understand him rightly) Krohn. It is, in my opinion, the only natural meaning of the Greek, and what Plato, if Plato wrote the words, intended to say. The explanation of this clause is a matter of some importance because, if Schneider's translation is right, it would appear that fiaOrj/xaTiKa. can, under certain circumstances, be apprehended by the higher noetic process, and on this an argument might conceivably be founded for identifying them with Ideas. In App. I to Book vn I have tried to shew that Plato himself distinguishes no less clearly between the contents of the two higher segments of the line than Aristotle assures us that he did. In reality however the present sentence does not affect the question either way. The use of KCU'TOI is so strange that some may be inclined to suspect interpolation. It is noticeable that KCU'TOI was often thus used by Plotinus (e.g. x 9. 490 ink.). The clause could easily be spared, and may be spurious ; but the evidence is not sufficient to justify its exclusion from the text.

I.

Mcra

raina

Brf, eiTrov, aireiKacrov

vaiv iraiSeiwi

TOIOVTW

re -rrepc ical airaiSevaias.

5 1 4 A—S17 A The following comparison represents our nature in respect of education and the absence thereof. Let its imagine a number of prisoners confined in a subterranean cave, and unable to see anything except shadows of images and other such objects, cast by the light of a fire. Such men will believe that shadows of manufactured things are the only truth. If they are released, and led up step by step towards the light, they will turn and flee back into the cave; but if we compel them to emerge, they will gradually gro~u accustomed to the brightness, and be able to gaze upon the Sun and understand his sovereignty in the domain of visible things. Pity for their former friends will then begin to mingle with joy at their ozou escape. Should they redescend into their former place, the darkness will at first affect their vision, and expose them to the laughter of the others, who will, it may be, lay hands upon their deliverer and slay him. 514 A ff. The simile of the Cave presents us with a picture of the life of the uneducated m a n (TT]V T\p.(Tipav tyhaiv TratOet'as re iripi. KOX aTTai5ev(ria.s 514 A:

cf. also 515 A). From this point of view it should be compared with Theaet. 172 c —177 C, and (in spite of the different situation) with Phaed. 109 A—E, where the equation is : —Depths of Ocean : Hollows of Earth = Hollows of Earth : The true Earth. Plato bids us connect the Cave with the Line (517 A), and does so himself (I.e., and 532 c). "We have seen that the lower segment of the line {A C)is spoken of sometimes as bparbv, sometimes as Zo^aarbv (VI 510 B n.).

irddei

rrjv 514

i&e yap

Plato does not even now distinguish between the two terms; and since the avaldevros is concerned with rt> do^aarbv in general rather than with TO bparbv exclusively, we shall best apprehend Plato's meaning if we interpret the simile by the following proportion :—Cave : bparbv s. So^aarbv = bo^aarbv s. bparbv : voip-bv. See on 517A and App. I. 2 181 7
Karsten), and similar expressions occur in the Orphic verses e.g. ravra irar^p Troirjae Kara
Tim. 95 D) : see Rohde Psyche* 11 p. 178 n. and Dieterich Nekyia p. 159 n. There is however nothing to shew that Plato borrowed the underlying idea, much less the details, of his simile from any previous writer : for the metaphorical application of aviji, v\p66ev and kindred words in connexion with true iracdela is a favourite usage of Plato's (cf. Theaet. 175 B, Soph. 216 c, Phaed. 109 A ff.), and the simile might easily have been elaborated from such a metaphor. For a strikingly eloquent imitation see Cic. de nat. deor. II 95 (translated from Aristotle: see Frag. 14. 1476s 34 ff.). With the life of the cave-dwellers Bosanquet aptly compares the account of uncivilized humanity in Aesch. Prom. 447—453. A kindred though not identical figure is employed in Fitzgerald's Omar Khayyam LXVIII: " We are no other than a moving row Of magic Shadow-shapes that come and go Round with the Sun-illumined Lantern held In Midnight by the Master of the Show."

514B]

nOAITEIAC Z

89

avvpayrrow; oiov iv tcaTayeia) olKrjcrei cnrrjXcuooSei a Trpos TO <£«? rr)v elaoBov i^ovcrrj, fiaicpdv, Trap' a-rrav TO <JTrrj\aiov, iv ravr-p 4K iraLBcov o W a ? iv Becr/xois Kal ra aKeXrj Kal TOU? av^evas, B ware

fieveiv re avrov

5

ei,'? re ' TO rrpoadev fiovov opav, KVKXW Be ra<;

Kecf>aXas viro TOV Bea/Mov aBvvarovs irepia/yeiv, <£<w? Be avroXs 7rupo? avtodev Kal iroppcadev Ka6fj,evov OTricrdev avrwv, fj-era^v Be TOV 7TH/3O? Kal T&V Becr/j,a)Tcov eirdvu) 6B6v, Trap r)v ISe Te^ioi/ Trapw/coBofxt)fievov, &(TTrep TOI? OavfiaTOTroiois trpb rSiv avOparrrav vpoKeirai 10 6.

a$Tou Hirschig: avrovs codd.

TO A2H q : om. A1.

3 avair«orTtt|i^vt)v KTX. Herwerden den's proposal to insert &KII>T)TOVS. suspects corruption, on the ground that 5 1 4 R 7 iiro TOTJ 8€O~(ioG KTX. the cave is dark, except for the light of "Puerile interpretamentum" says Herthe fire. But unless the entrance to the werden, quite superfluously. Hirschig's cave is open to the light of day, how are aSwarovvTas for adwarovs is no improvement. The word, like b'vras, depends of the prisoners ever to emerge, as they course on iSt. For Kaopevov, Hirschig, ultimately do (515 E)? The euroSos is with Cobet's approval, conjectures Kaolong (fianpd) and steep (515 E), SO that the daylight cannot reach the cave in any liivov, and so Baiter also reads: but Kaoixtvov leaves avroU out in the cold. case. Prantl is right, I think, in understanding /xaKpav of length and not width, "Vide ne 0<2s irvpbs ita in unam notionem coalescant, ut alterius attributum although Schneider and the English simul etiam alteri conveniat" Hermann. translators apparently hold the other This explanation is correct: cf. 517 B. view. See next note. 4 7rap' airav TO crmjXaiov should 9 eirdVw 6S6v. iwdvodov (Badham), which means 'ascensum,' is out of place (I believe) be taken separately from here, eiravoi means only that the road is /Aa/cpaj/. The words define the width of at a higher elevation than the prisoners the entrance, which is 'along the whole (so also Schneider): it should not be of,' i.e. 'as wide as,'the cave. Thereason taken with oiov in the sense of a 'raised will appear later: see on Spa raivvv 514 B. way' (Jowett). There is no reason why The translation " extending along the entire length of the cavern" (D. and V.) the 656? should be raised above the level of the ground, and it is unnecessarily seems to render fiaupdv altogether otiose. harsh to construe the adverb with the See Fig. ii on p. 65. noun. The fact that verbal nouns occa6 |Uv£i.v Ti avrov. See cr. n. Hirsionally take an adverb in Plato (see on schig's emendation, which Cobet apIV 434 c) does not justify Jowett's conproves and Hermann and others adopt, I struction in this passage. now think right, piveiv is not, I believe, 10 (00"n*€p TOIS 9aup.a.Toiroiois KTX. used absolutely in the sense of nh>uv As in a Punch and Judy show. Cf. avTov, which is the meaning required [Arist.] de Mitndo 6. 3O.8b i6ff. oi vtvpohere. It might be possible to understand jiivuv as equivalent to \xiveiv diai>ri- o-wdarai ixiav firjpivffov iirKTirao-dfievot e a T TOVS, in view of Crat. 426 E and Phacdr. iroiovcrc Kal a y ^ j / a KiveTadat Kal x ?P °v fijSou sal u>iwi> Kal 6
TTAATQNOI a, inrep wv ra Oavfiara "Opa Toivvv Trapa TOVTO TO TH-^IOV TravTohaira virepkyovTa \181vd

Te Kal gvXiva

[5HB BeiKvvacriv.

epovTa<; dvdp(O7rov<; o-Kevrj re

TOV TSV)(IOV Kal avSpidvTas Kal nravrola

'Opa>, er).

eipyao-fieva,

| Kal aX\a

£a>a 515

olov etVo?, TOVS fiev

cf)8eep6vTmv. "ATOTTOV, er), Xeyets eiKova KOI Seo-ficoTas aToirovs. 5 TOU? yap

TOIOVTOVS irpSirov

'Ofiolovs

r/fiiv, ffv 8

iym'

fiev eavTcov Te Kal aXXrjXcov o'iei dv

TI kwpaKevat aXXo irXr)v Ta^ aKias Ta? virb TOV irvpbs et? TO KaTavavTcov TOV airrjXaiov

Trpoo-Tri7TT0vaa<;; IIw? yap,

ye Ta<; Ke<j>a\a<; e^eiv Si;

TWV Trapa(j)epofieva)v

10 hiaXeyeadat,

oloi

T

elev 10.

ov

rjvayKaafievoi

TavTOV TOVTO ;

er), el

' elev Soa fjiov; Tu

/J.rjv;

7rpo9 oX\?;Aou?, ov TavTa

Et

TtB oiv

r/yel av TO,

raOra H
do^acrrbv generally as well as in the 6par6v in particular (see on 517 A), but we need not suppose that every detail is significant. Comparisons have been made between the vapafapovTes and (in the opardv) 5afytoi>es (Campbell II p. 16, comparing Tim. 43), or (in the SoZaarbv) Sophists etc. (Shorey, Idea of Good etc. p. 238). The latter analogy is the more fruitful, but neither of them is altogether free from difficulty, and Plato may have intended the irapa^povra only as part of the machinery of his similitude. If the Cave is to represent the world ofT& woWd, it must have a semblance of life of the TrapaTcs: but the 6«YYO|i.cvoDs merely prepares the tion between the objects inside and outway for 515 B el Kal ^ u KT\., and beyond side the cave in point of reality. Thus this, it has, I think, no meaning. It cer(1) the typical examples duSpiivTes etc. tainly does not ' ' prepare for the science are themselves images of the natural of harmonics" (as J. and C. hold): see objects of the superior bparbv : (2) the 532 B «. and App. I. originals of the Cave are all (except the TUV irapa<|>€pcvTuv (bracketed by Baiter) prisoners themselves 515 A) tmevaara, whereas those of the superior oparov are is natural enough, irapa TOVTO T4 TCIXIOV (p4pom-as being too distant to cause diffi—primarily speaking—cfevTevrd (for the significance of this see ,^32 c n.) : (3) the culty. 5 1 5 B 8 TC Se ; TUV Trapaepo|«contents of the Cave, both originals and vwv KTX. After TOVTO supply oi'ei if shadows, may be regarded as less lumiewpaK&at. avTote. I have placed a mark nous and true than the opard outside, beof interrogation after T'L $4, in order that cause they derive their light and truth, TWV irapd m a y have its proper not from the Sun, but from an artificial Fire (see also on 517 c). The interpre- emphasis: cf. V 470 A n. 10 oti Tavra KTX.: 'do you not suptation of the simile is to be sought in the pose they would believe that they were

ffpwiroi, and suppose that the BavjxaTOTTOIO'S is " not the actual exhibitor or puller of the strings, but the master of the show." The Hvdpuiroi and the dav/xaroTTOLoi are the same, and Plato might, if he had been so minded, have written W(77rep roh Bav^aroiroLols irpb eaurwe KT\. The substitution of TCDK avdpwiruv for iavT&v puts the matter in a more objective way, and has also a contemptuous effect. 12 opa roivvv KT\. roivvv is ' also' (1 339 D 11.). The low wall which crosses the eteodos at a point between the prisoners and the fire intercepts the shadows

nOAITEIAC Z Trapiovra avTov<; vofxt^etv bvo^id%eiv, a-rvep op&ev; 'Avdy/cr). Tt o ; et, Kau rf^u) TO Beafiar^piov iic TOV Karavnicpv e%oi, oirore Tt? TWV Tvapiovrcov (pdey^airo, oiei dv dWo TI avrovs rjyeladai TO (pOeyyofievov r) TTJV irapiovaav amdv; M s At" OVK 670)7', erf>rj. C TlavraTraat. ST], TJV S' iyco, 01 ' TOIOVTOI OVK dv aXXo TI vo\j,l%oiev rb 15 d\i]de<; f) Ta? T&V cncevao-Twv aKids. floWr) dvdyKrj, erfrrj. 2«O7ret 8rj, t)v 8' 6706, avTwv \vo~iv re Kai ta&cv T&V Seo-/xu>v Kai TTJ? dcjjpocrvvrj<;, 01a TIS tiv eirj, el (f>vo-ec roidSe <;v/u./3aivoi avTOi<;- OTTOTS Tt? \v6eir} Kai dvajKa^otTO i^ai(f>vrj^ dviaTaaOai re Kai Treptdyecv TOV I I . Trapt6vTa F l o r . T : irapbvTO. A S ^ . roidde q praebet eir\ tpvaei. roiS.de, el. naming these particular passing objects which they saw?' They have never seen anything of the real -rrapiivra (or Tapa.vTevTd: see on Spa, TOIVVV KT\. 514 B a n d (pa.vTdtTfj.aTa 9eia 532 c . Plato takes no account of the fact that the prisoners also see shadows of themselves (515 A).

18. el A 2 S : o m . A 1 .

Pro ei-q, el (ptiirei

17 Xvo-iv KTX. According to 532 B (where see note), \tiaiv—TWV dWuv ei'SwXa (516 A) symbolizes Plato's irpoiraiSeia or inferior VOTJTOV. 18 ti i5a"€i ToidSe KTX. tpvuei has been variously interpreted as follows. (1) '(piaei est revera' (Ast, Stallbaum): (2) 'si res et natura ferret,' 'in the course of nature' (Schneider, J. and C , D. and ^•) • (3) '
FIAATQNOI

92

[5I5C

20 av%eva Kal ftahl^eiv Kal Trpo? TO dk avajiXeireiv, irdvra Be ravTa dXyol T6 tcai Bid ras fiapfiapvyds dBvvarol Kadopdv e/celva, ovaa? ecopa, TL dv o'let aiiTov eltrelv, el Tt? ai/rw Xeyoi, D wv ' Tore on rare /j,ev ed>pa dvayKa^oi ipcoTwv airoKpiveaQai 6 TI k'o~Tiv; OVK oiei avTov diropelv re av Kal rjjeiadai ra Tore opoofieva aXTjdeo-Tepa rj ra vvv BeiKvvfieva; Uo\v y, ed/rj. I I . OVKOVV Kav el Trpo? avrb rb <j)co<; dvayKa^ot ' avrbv j3\e-Ii Treiv, aXyeiv re av ra o/ifiara Kal <j>evyeiv aTroo-TpeecrTepa TO>V BeiKi'Vfievcov; OVTW?, e<j>t]. E t Be, fjv 8' iyd), evrevOev eXxoi Tt? avrbv /3la Bia Tpayelas T ^ ? avaftdaecos Kal dvavTovs Kal fir] dveirj irplv el;e\Kvcret,ev et? TO TOV rfkiov <£«r), e%ai
A2H: om. A1 q. nisi fallor A 1 .

TL

24. Kal ST] Kal S ? : f " i 5 ? ) A . 33. aveit) A 1 : avlt] A 2 IIS : avloi q.

20 TO 4>i3s is the light of the fire (514 B): contrast avrb T& Qs 515 D. dvapXe'imv. ava- is appropriate, for the fire is Hvwdev (514 B). Education always points upward in Plato (514 A n.). 5 1 5 D -23 fYYUT«po>. It is needless to add <wv>, as I formerly did (with Richards, who compares I 330 E). The copula is easily supplied, especially with Terpafi/xivos following. 24 op8oT«pov and not dpdbrepa (as seems to be generally believed, even by J. and C.) is the reading of A. The adverb ('more truly sees') can alone be justified. For the meaning see vi 490 E n. pXeiroi. The indicative fl\e-irei (which I formerly read, with q, Flor. U, Bekker and others) would be more usual, " in an indirect quotation depending on an optative which refers to the future" (Goodwin MT. p. fii). But the rule which excludes the optative in such cases is not absolute, as appears from Dem. 16. 5 (cited by Goodwin I.e.), and
25. 1-KaaTov A 2 S q :

Kal 8ij KTX. airopeiv is almost a technical term of Socrates' dialectic (cf. Xen. Mem. Ill 10. 7 and Theaet. 149 A ff.), but Plato has in mind the effect of his own TrpoiraiSela, as appears from 532 B, c. 5 1 5 E 29 i|>ev-y€iv airo6|i€vov KT\. AS when a bewildered disputant takes refuge again in the fallacious position from which he has been dislodged: see I 334 B n. For cSwaxcu Richards would read 5ivai.ro, comparing ctTrep bpipev in 515 B. divartu treats the simile as a reality, exactly like apfiXvuTrei in J I 6 E: compare also 538 A «., and (for the construction) Phaed. 67 E 01) 7TOXXT7 av a\oyla el'77, el fj.7) atrpevoi ^Keiffe i'ouv, ol afpiKO/JifroLS eXiris iffTiv 06 5td /3iou ijpuv rvxelv. 31 ^XKOI. KTX. Cf. Theaet. i^B&nn 54 y£ Tiva aurds, <3 0t\e, eXKiarj a'vw KT\. The alliteration of dv- (dpa/3d
5I6D]

nOAITEIAC Z

93

ovaa? av paara KaQopw ical fiera TOVTO iv TOIS vBaai rd r e TWI/ 5 dvOpunrmv Kal ra TWV aXXwv e'lBcoXa, varepov Be avrd- etc Be TOVTWV Ta ez' TO> ovpavw Kal avTov TOV ovpavov vvKTcop av p'aov B oeaaacTO, Trpoo-fiXe-jrcov TO TQ>V dcTTpcav T€ Kal aeXijvr}^ ' <£&>?, rj /j,ed' rjfiepav TOV tfXiov r e Kal TO TOV rfXtov. Ilta? 8" oii; TeXevTalov or), oip,ai, TOV rfXiov, OVK iv vBacrtv oi/B' ev dXXoTpia, eSpa (fiavTacr- 10 fiaTa avTov, aXX' ainbv Kad' auTOV iv TT} avTOV'Xjcopq.hvvatT av KaTiBelv Kal dedcrao-dai olo<; eaTCv. ^KvajKalov, e<prj. K a t TavT av fjSr) crvXXoyi,£oiTO irepl avTov, on OVTO? O Tv TO. iv TW opa>fjLevq> C TO7T&) Kai eKeivcdv, cbv ' uc^ei? icopcov, Tpoirov TLVOL irdvTcov a'lTios. 15 AfjXov, ecfyrj, OTI iirl TavTa av /X,6T eKelva eXOoi. Tt ovv; dvafii/jivrjcrKOfievov avTov Trjf Trpu>Tr)<; otV^crea)? Kal TJJ? e'«et aortas Kal TOiv Tore %vvheo~iJitt>T(av OVK av oiei ainov fiev evSai/Movi^eiv Tr}<; /u,€Ta/3oXfj'i, Toi><; Be iXeelv; Kal fidXa. Ti/xal Be Kal k'iraivoL el Tives aiiTOi'i f/aav Tore Trap dXXrfXmv Kal yepa TU> ogvTaTa KaOop- 20 5SVT(, TO. vapoovTa Kal fivrjfiovevovTi fidXicrTa, baa r e irporepa D avTOiv Kal ' varepa elcoOei Kal dfia TropeveoSai, Kal eK TOVTWV Srj BvvaTWTaTa dirofiavTevo/jievo) TO peXXov ^eiv, Botcels av avTov iiri,6vfJbr]TiK(h
OVTOS I I : afirds A.

symbolizes the higher stages of Plato's 7rpo7rcu5eta, and {jarepov 8$ aura.—olbs iaTw (the higher bparbv) corresponds to the higher VOIJTSV. See 532 B, C nn. aird, ra if T(? ovpavip—viKTwp and roe TJXIOV represent an ascending scale of Ideas up to the Good: cf. note on TOD wvTodeTov vi 511 B. It may be doubted whether in point of fact the released prisoner would not be able to look on the heavens by night sooner than upon 'objects themselves' (ai>r<£) by day. But the simile holds good in so far as the eye mounts ever higher: and the moon and stars are nearest to the sun (-qXioeiSrj, says Proclus in remp. I p. 294. 6 KrollJ, which is the ultimate goal. 5 1 6 B 13 o-vXXcytJoiTo KT\. should be interpreted by VI .soo. B (the Good as the cause of Being). OSTOS is preferred by Stallbaum and others to avrds (see cr. «.), in which J. and C. find " a solemn emphasis." There is no difficulty about the repetition (avrou—aurta), but ai)r6s

' ipse' is less suitable here than the deictic OVTOS : cf. avrri in 517 C and VI 462 E n. 516 c 20 TW ojjvTaTa KaOopwvTt KTX. " Induction conceived as inference from particulars to particulars, its test being prediction (not explanation), and its method being association of images or unanalysed likenesses, by contiguity in co-existence or succession" Bosanquet. Plato is thinking chiefly of the empirical politician and political adviser, who foretells the future from the present and the past (cf. Thuc. I 22), but limits his intellectual horizon by his own experience, and knows nothing of the real determining causes of events. The vast majority of Athenian statesmen belonged in Plato's opinion to this category: see on v 473 C and VI 488 B. 22 auTuv does not of course depend on Tpbrepa (as D. and V. translate), but is a partitive genitive after 6Va.

TTAATfiNOZ

94 25 re

Kal

iv8vvao~Tevoi>Ta<;, rj TO TOV 'Ofirjpov

o~<$>6Zpa ftovXeadat, iirdpovpov trap'

[516D

aKXrjpa),

Kal

OTCOVV dv

Kal eKelvws %rjv; av Zi^aaOat 30 S' 6706.

iovra

ireivovOevai

r\K(ov €K TOV rjXiov;

ireTrovOevat. Kal dXXa>,

dvBpl

fi&XXov rj \elvd

re

OUTOJ?, ' e7], eycoye olfiai, irdv fxdXXov'E

rj %r)v iice£va>5. K m TO&e 8r) ivvor/aov, 7/1/

el irdXiv 6 TOIOVTOS Karaftas

dp" oil aKOTOvs

dv

dr/Tevefiev

dvaTrXeas

eh TOV avTov OCLKOV Kadi^

a^o'vr) TOW 6cf>8aX/j,oiis e^

K a t /x,dXa y , ecf>T). T a ? Se Sr) tr/cta?

irdXiv el heot avrbv yvajfiareuovTa

8ia/i,iXXao~dai TOK del 8eo-fid)Tai<;

eKeivoi';, iv w d/x/3Xvo)TTei, irplv

KaTacrTrjvai Ta ofifiaTa, OUTO? 8' 517

6 •xpovos fir) irdvv oXiyos e'tr) Tr}<; o~vvi)6eias;, dp oil yeXaT* dv trapdo"Xpi, Kal XeyoiTo dv irepl ai)TOv, to? dvafids TO. o/LifiaTa, Kal on 30.

OVK a^iov

dvu> Sie^Oap/Aevos rjicei

ov&e ireipdcrOai avco levai;

0 TOIOVTOS I I : STI OVTOS A.

5 1 6 D 25 TO TOB 'Onifpov KT\. I formerly proposed to omit ireirovBivai., but a precise parallel is furnished by

Kal TOV

Baiter: om. codd.

by the Scholiast (dLatcptvovTa, dLayvyviliGKOVTO. a/cjOi/3ojs), Suidas and Timaeus (if with Ruhnken we read yvoi/iaTfijovTa for Symp. 198 C a.Tex"<*>s rb TOO 'O/iTjpovyvt^fjioyetjovra). A similar explanation {irtirbvdri. S.v makes ireirovdivai. equiappears in the margin of A (yp Kpivovra. valent to the future perfect—a more yp yiyvCivKovT a/cpi^y). The word is vigorous form of expression than the derived of course from yi>&/ia ('means of future (or aorist with &v) would be. The judging,' 'test'), for which see Jebb on quotation (which is from Od. XI 489, cf. Soph. Tr. 593. yvui/j.a.Te6u> occurs only supra III 386 c) "has a curious felicity, here in good Greek, but became more being the words of Achilles in expressing frequent afterwards (for instances see his detestation of the world of shades Ruhnken in Tim. Lex. s. v.). Here, as (lit. shadows) in comparison with the J. and C. remark, it seems to be "used world of human life " (Bosanquet). It is with some degree of contempt" (like better, I think, to connect &\\b> with TevTafa in 521 E). di^rev^jjisv (Ameis on Od. I.e.) than with 34 d(j.p\-uioTTei. For the mood see irapa. (as Schneider does). 515 Ere. anfiXvtbTTOi. occurs in q and 27 Kai OTIOW KTX. &v (which RichFlor. U, and is read by Bekker and ards would alter to 5TJ) is as suitable here others. Herwerden adds in. after d/ias before, since de •weirovBivai depends in p\vcbTTei, comparing 517 D, but the text both cases directly on So/ceis. The con- is sound. fusion of &v and 5i) is not so frequent as 5 1 7 A 1 OSTOS 8* 6 xpdvos KTX. is some have thought: see on V 450 C. still under the influence of el. With ap' 28 So£d£eiv= 'opine' is technical: for 01) 7^XWT' av KTX. cf. Phaedr. 249 D 4^urthe cave is an allegory of ris So^auTbv ra.iJ.tvos 8£ T&V avdpwjrlvoiv tnrovSac1x6,7wv, (514 A H . ) . Kal Trpbs Ttp deiip ytyvb/j.evos, vovOeTeirai. 5 1 6 E 31 av. See cr. n. and IV /xej' vwb TWV TTOWWV 61s irapaxivuiv, iv$ov437 B n. Stallbaum proposes ay irXeuis, ai&fav 8i \i\ri8e TOVS woWotis, Tkeaet. but Baiter's solution (which Cobet and 172 c, 174 c—175 B, Soph. 216 D and Herwerden also recommend) is easier infra 517 n. and better. dvdTrAeus suggests conta4 OVK a£iov KT\. The prisoners are gion : see Ruhnken on Tim. Lex. s. v. almost relieved to find themselves able irxoiii as usual is inchoative or ingresto suppress their higher promptings and sive ('get'): cf. 520 D and 527 B. sink back into indolence and self-com33 *yv«[mT€vovTa: 'discriminating,' placency. 'distinguishing,' 'judging,' as explained Kal TOV liri\«ipoSvTa KT\. is a mani-

SI7B]

nOAITEIAC Z Xvetv

re Kal dvdyew,

Xapeiv /cat diroKTivvvvat, III.

Tavrrjv

95

el TTOOS ev ral<; %ep<7t SvvaivTO 5

diroKTeiveiav dv;

%(f>68pa
TOIVVV, f\v 8' 67a), rrjv elicova, a> [\e T\avica>v,

B TrpocraTTTeov airaaav rot? e'nTrpoaOev ' \eyo/j,evocs, rrjv /zei> Si o-vjretw? cuvofji,iv7)v eSpav rjj TOV heafjiWTrjpiov OLK-qtrei d<j>o/j,otovvTa, TO Be TOV Trvpo^ ev avTrj ^>a>? TT} TOV rfKiov Svvdfiei' T-qv he ava> 10 6. Kal diroKTivviivai., airoKTeiveiav &v n o s : Kal airoKTtlveiv, aTOKTivvivai dv A l l et (nisi quod airoKTivvvvai scribit) q : Kal diroKTi.vv'uei.v, airoKTivvtivai dv S . 10. auTrj

A 2 II: fortasse eavTij A1.

fest and touching allusion to the death of Socrates, whose fate was the most conspicuous example in Greek history of the principle here laid down. See Zeller4 II 1, pp. 223—227 and cf. vi 496 c, D nn. Read in the light of another and even more momentous sacrifice, the sentence assumes a kind of prophetical import, like the famous passage about the \byos Setos in the Phaedo (85 c, D). See Geddes's Phaedo of Plato pp. 280—283. The text is difficult to determine. If we

517 A—518 B The simile of the Cave should be connected with the Line. The Cave is the visible world, the fire is the Sun, and the prisoners1 journey towards the light resembles the ascent of the soul into the intelligible sphere, in which the Idea of Good reigns supreme. IVe need not wonder that the philosopher is unwilling to leave the light of thought for the darkness of practical affairs, or that he is dazed and confused when he does. retain Xa(3eic KOX dvOKTeiveiv, airoKTivvivai 7 TaiiiT)v KT\. If we interpret the av, we must either (a) regard ap' oi— lower section of the line as 6par6v and noW701T' dv as equivalent to ap OUK ofei thing more, the following comparisons are involved:—(1) Fire = Sun: (2) Shadows y^Xoir' av avrbv Trapaax^v Ka' X^cff^at in, and take \iyeadai. &v as equivalent to of avdpiavres and other aKevaara cast by Fire = Shadows etc. of €?i> for t h e diroKTeivciV and other comparisons exhaust the signifiad for the dv of A : but otherwise there cance of the Cave as an allegory of is no important variant. The emendations dtraiStvna. In order fully to apprehend proposed are (1) Xafteiv, xav airoKTeLveiav its meaning, we must regard the lower (Ast), (2) \afieiv, Kal diroKTeLvoiev dv section of the line as SO^HCTOV in the (Stallbaum), (3) Xafielv, KO.V airoKTivvtioLev sense of V 475 E ff. Plato himself does (Cobet), (4) \afleiv, Kal awoKTeivciav &v so: see VI 510 A n. The shadows and (Baiter). The correction in the text originals within the cave will then symappears to me not only easier, but bolise 5<5|tu which are respectively twice more in harmony with Plato's fulness and once removed from the truth which of expression. I suppose that the error they seek to portray (see on 517 D), and arose thus. A scribe accidentally omitthe ascent from the Cave into the bparbv ted atroKTCvvdvat, and the infinitive was will represent the soul's ascent from the wrongly replaced after, instead of before, So^aurbv into the VOTJTOV—from the airoKTelva.av. T h i s would give \apeiv iroXXd (in the widest sense) to the ev, Kal cLTTOKreLveiav, airoKTivi'fivai. dv, from Cf. 514 B and 532 B, C nn. which the change is inevitable to the text of A.

96

nAATQNOZ

[517B

dvri/3aaiv Kal deav TWV avco Trjv et? TOV VOTJTOV TOTTOV T % dvoBov ridels ov% dfiaprrjaei T»}S 7 ' ejirjs eXiriBo1;, eTreiBr) eiridvfiel<; dicoveiv #eo? Be TTOV olBev, el aXrjdrjs ovtra ra, S' ovv i/j,ol cuv6[ieva ovrw tyaiveTai, ev TS yvoaaTw reXevraia 15 r) TOV dyadov IBea Kal fioyi<s opaadai, 66elcra Be ' o~vXXoyi? dpa irdcn irdvTcov aim) opdcbv re Kal KOX&V alrla, ev re 6para> (£r), Kal eyw, b'v ye Bi] Tpoirov Bvvafiai. "\6i TOLVVV, r/v 8 iyoi, Kal ToBe ^vvoirjdrjTi, Kal fir) 6av/j,darj(;t OTI, ol evTavOa ekOovTes OVK edeXovcriv TO. TCOV dvGpanriov irpaTTeiv, d U ' avco del erreiyovrai 1 avrcbv al -ty-v^al BiaTpb/3ei,v • et«o? yap TTOV OVT<W9, e'iirep av Kara D Tt)v Trpoeiprj/j.evriv eiKova TOUT e%et. EtVo? fievTOi, e<jyr). Ti $i; 25 ToSe olei TU 6avfiao~T0v, el OTTO delwv, rjv S' iyd), decopiwv eirl ra. dvdpanreui r t ? eXdwv Kava da^Tj/iovel Te Kal ipaiverai cr(f>6Bpa yeXolo<; en dfijBXvaiTTCOV Kal irplv iKavSi^ avvr)6ri<; yevea0ai TW irapovTi aKOTCp dvayKa&fievos ev BiKacrT7]piot<; fj aXXoQL TTOV d
avTT) q : auryj A S : airy) (sic) II.

5 1 7 B 12 IXirtSos: 'surmise': cf. H 383 B n. The diffidence of tone recals VI 506 E : cf. infr. 523 A. 14 §o.Cvi-ra.L. For the construction cf. I 334 B n. TeXcvraia as well as [*.6yis should be taken predicatively with bpaaScu. The sentiment is as in vi 505 A (on—tir/iei/), where see note. ' 5 1 7 c 17 T6KoCo-a KTX. TfKovcra reminds us that the Sun is the Zicyovos of the Good (vi 506 E). On a\r)deiai> Kai vot-v see VI 508 D n. OTI Set depends on (paiuerai, not (as D. and V. translate) on a-vXXoyuTTea. Cf. VI 50^ A, 506 A nn. Plato's guardians are not to rest satisfied with the einujv or tuyovos of the Good; they must see the Good itself, and infer (not by intuition, but) by means of reasoning (avXKoyLUTia) that it is the cause of all. See the notes on vi 511 B (airrds 6 \670s and TOV dwiroBiTov). 5 1 7 D 26 d
174 B , c

OTOLV iv SiKacT-qplip

ij

irov aWodi a/say Kaadrj irepl TUIV jrapa iroSas—SiaXiyeaffcu, yd\a>Ta irapix^—^ daxyv-ovvvii decvr/ ye\o?os (paiver a i . The whole of the description of the 0tX6cro0os in the Theaetetus should be carefully compared with this passage, 27 STI d(j.p\uciiTTwv is logically subordinate to d]/ayKa^6/J.evoi. 29 TOV TOB SiKaCou KTX. treats the Cave as an allegory of Sojaora (see on vi 510 A, VII 517 A). The expression 'shadows of the just' is vague (cf. ffiaay-axpiivrum in ^20 c), and 7} kyak^rtav uiv ai <mcu introduces more precision. We may regard dyaX/xdruv as symbolising the enacted laws of a city, and their shadows as the "representation or misrepresentation of the existing laws (themselves only 'images' of justice) by a rhetorician or pleader" (Nettleship Hell p. 141 n. 1). Compare (with Shorey/ate of Good etc. p . 287) Soph. 234 c and Pol303 C. 30

OTTT) TTOT^—ISOVTWV.

For the real

5i8B]

nOAITEIAC Z

97

VTTO TWV aVTTJV BlKaiO
518 vavfiacrTov,

€i). 'AXX.' el vovv ye e%oi ra,

av, on Birral

Kal UTTO Birrtov yiyvovrai

<£
vofilaa? yiyvec&ai Kal dBvvarovcrdv

itna-Koirol

av,

eircrapd^ea

Kal e« aKorovs

Kal irepl yjrv^v, ri Kadopav,

irorepov

OVK av aXoylarats

e'« (fravorepov

fiapfiapvyrji

/3iov

el yeXav e V avrfj ei7) 7) 6 iirl

IV.

fiovXoiro,

etc Te ravra

yeXa>, dXX' 5 inrb dr}6el,a<;

av6repov ' lovcra ovrco

av KarayeXacrro';

Aet Brj, elrrov, rj/j.as roiovBe

viro

Brj TT/V /J.ev

ov-% olav rives

6 yeXwi

avra> 10

Kal /xdXa, e(f>rj, perpiax;

vofitcrac irepl avra>v, el eirayyeXXofievol

ravr'

a
9. evSaiiiovlaeiev q : tiSaijiovqaeLev AIIS. in our city, after they have ascended to the Good, must rejoin the prisoners whom they have left. To force them thus to redescend, tnay seem unjust; but Law seeks to make the whole city prosperous rather than a single class. And indeed it is also just that they should thus repay their country for having reared and educated them. They will themselves admit the force of our demands, and take their turn in the work of government, not eagerly, but as a necessity. We have seen that a well governed city is impossible unless a life better than that of ruling is open to its rulers, and the life of true philosophy is better. but only b y dr/ffeia: ^vveOifoixevoi yap 5 1 8 B ff. Nothing that Plato has bef/.vp[(p P^XTLOV &ipeavdT«pov ('greater brightness,' ' more light') and Xa/iirportyov are neuter. The omission of articles elevates the style. Richards would delete inrb \a/iirpoT4pou, but the words balance bird a-qtidas exactly as t&KoruTcu balances liapixapvyijs ^uir^irX^orai (' has been dazzled'). Any stronger antithesis than iiri arjOelas would give a false meaning, for the blindness is not caused by
A. P. II.

Be

re Kal f3Lov, rrjv Be iXerfcreiev, Kal

ffrrov

ry avwdev €K rjKovarj.

dXrjOrj' ri)v iraiBetav

r/Kovaa

e/j,Tre-7r\r]crTat,, Kal

evBaifiovucreiev av TOV irnOovi

ofi/iaffiv,

eh w<;.

otrore 'i8oi 8opv/3ov[/<evr)v

B eaKOTCorai,, rj elf d/j,a@t,a<; Tr\ei.ovo<; eh \afnrporipov

OTTUKTTIOVV

riv 8' iya>,

98

TTAATQNOZ

15 TOiavrrjv icai elvai.

[518B

(f>acrl Be TTOV OVK evovcrrji; ' iv T17 ^v^fi

eiri- C

(7T>jfir]<; O"0et5 ivriOevat,, olov rv(f>\ols 66a\/j,ol<; otyw ivTiOevres. <$>ao~l yap ovv, ecprj. 'O Be ye vvv X6yo<s, t)v B' iyoo, crrj/xauvei Tavrrjv TT)V evovcrav e/caarov Bvvafiiv iv TJ/ i^rv^rj KOI TO bpyavov, a> Karafiavddvei, e/caaros, olov ei 8/xfj.a fj,r) Bvvarbv f/v aXX-w? ^ %i>v 6\(j> 20 TCO a-oo/xari crrpifyetv

irpos TO fyavbv iic TOV O-KOTCOSOV;, OVTW fw

etc TOV yiyvo/nevov

trepiaKTeov elvai, eto? av els TO OV

position is emphatic, and makes us halfsuspect some allusion to a particular Sophist: cf. Aristotle's use of rice's (Bonitz Ind. Arist. p. 598). Similar sophistic eirayyi\p.aTa are ridiculed, though on different grounds, by Isocrates Soph. 2 ff.: see also Prot. 318 Bff.and Eitthyd.

all his proofs of Immortality. In its deeper bearings, therefore, the view of education here presented is incomparably grander and more profound than the usual connotation of the word either in ancient or in modern times. We educate our pupils not only for time, but for eternity,

273 D ff. (aper-ipi, £ri s c . 6 EV6V5I]IJ.OS,— and therefore iretpas ovdev dvi]ffofiev} ?ws oi6/j,eda oloj r elvat Trapadouvai KaWiffr' i.v ^/' Trel Kai TOVTOV Kai rovs dXXous, dvdpunruv Kai Tdxtirra), a n d cf. N e w m a n ij irpoijpyov rt Tronjaoip.ei' eh 4K€LVOV rhv Politics of Aristotle I p. 387. It should ploy, OTB.V avffis yevo/xcvoi. TOIS Toiotfras

be mentioned that the double thai has been suspected by Richards, who would omit the first; but Plato himself is not averse to such repetitions: cf. ixeTixe'"— ^ertxetv in VI 511 E and x 621 B n. 5 1 8 c 16 €VTifl^vai. Cf. Theognis 429—438 (ei 5' rjv Tro^rbv re /cai e'vderov dvSpl vorjfia. 435). The grossly material and mechanical view of education which Plato here attacks has some affinity with what is sometimes called 'cram.' ivridivcu was used of a nurse feeding children (1 345 B «.); but such an allusion, though not in itself inappropriate, is scarcely intended here. Cf. also Symp. 175 D, E. 17 6 S« ye vvv Xo-yos KTX. Sophists profess to put iirurTrnj.1] into the soul; but Plato's argument indicates that the power

(vrvx^^v \6yois (VI 408 D). See also X 618 C ff. and Phaed. 107 D f. obhkv yap aXXo ?x ol;(ra e ' y AXdov ij ipvxi} ^pxeTa( ""XV •rijs xaiSeias re Kai Tpo<prj$ KT\. Michael Angelo used to say that every block of marble contained a statue, and that the sculptor brings it to light by cutting away the encumbrances by which the ' human face divine' is concealed. In like manner, according to Plato, it is the business of the teacher to prune the soul of his pupil of those unnatural excrescences and incrustations which hide its true nature (519 A, B «.), until the human soul divine (vi 501 B n.) stands out in all its pristine grace and purity. It should carefully be noted that in Plato's theory of education the entire soul is involved (fiV 6\]) or faculty of i-mcrr-rifii] (ravTi]v rty 6v- Trj \pvxy). The Platonic Tre/jiayaiy^, voL[iiv), and its organ vovs are already although, or rather, perhaps, because, it present in the soul of each individual, applies primarily and immediately to the just as Si/as and 6'^a are already possessed intellect, effects a moral no less than an by the prisoners in the cave, vam is in intellectual revolution. The moral disfact the Hiibv TI h ri/xiv, according to Plato, cipline of Books 11—iv, so far from being through whose indwelling man is most overthrown, is strengthened and consolitruly man by being like to God (vi dated by being intellectualised. Cf. also 501 TI, IX ,=,89 D mi.). The doctrine that 519 A B(7*._ t*.d8i]tns is dvafivqais implies what is funda18 iKacrov. eKaoTtf was read by mentally the same view: see Meno 81 A ff. Iamblichus (Protrept. 16) for imcroM: and Phaed. 72 E—76 D, especially 73 A but cf. 527 D n. epWTlhfXeVOL ol cLvBpOJTTOL, £&v TIS KaXulS 19 jjvv. See on iv 424 D. Here, as ^pwr^, avrol Xi'yov&Li' iravrcL Tj ^x€i' K-OXTOI in Gorg. 513 A and Laws 678 c, it implies ei ^CT; ir(iyxavev O-VTOIS eiriar7)fj.ij evov
5I8E] nai

TTOAITEIAC Z

TOV OVTOS TO (

D TOVTO 8' elvai r)v 0

iya>,

(p

rj yev7)Tai TayaOov

avrov

99 dvaa-)(ea6ai

fj yap;

Nat.

av elt) Tr/s Treptayoyf/s,

pacrTa T€ /cat

fieTaaTpa
TOVTOU TO'LVVV, Tiva

Tpoirov ax;

ov TOV i/j,voirjcrai 25

avTw TO opdv, aXX1 &>? eypvTL fiev aiiTo, ov/c dpOa><; Se TeTpa.fifievq> ovoe /3\€TTOVTI At

fiev

ol eSei, TOVTO SoafjiTj^avrjcraadai.

TOLVVV

aXXai

dpeTal

KaXovfievat,

"JLoiicev yap, ev-

i^u%»7?

KivBvvevovaiv

€77^? TI eivac rSiv TOV
5 1 8 D 13

KaX do-Kr/aeaiv

. II et nisi fallor A 1 : Set

TOUTOV TO£VVV K T \ . " C o n -

strue: (^ 7rai5e£a) ett] av T^XVI] T^S Trcpiaywyijs (i.q. TOO irepiayeiv, quod praecedit) TOOTOV avTov {TOV opydvov rijs \pvxys, y KaTafj.avdav€L ^Katrros)—011 (r^x^v) To0 ifiiroi7J
Ast. This interpretation is, I believe, correct. Plato began by asserting that Education is not what certain Sophists declare it to be—the putting of sight, as it were, into blind eyes. For there is already in every man's soul an eye or opyavov, which sees or learns already; what is required is to turn this 6pyavov round. Hence he concludes (rolvvv) Education is not (as the Sophists say) an art of putting sight into the soul's eye (rod e/j.irotijo'a.t avT$ TO bpciv refers to TVfp\ots 6
an art of turning round just this very eye or opyavov which is present in every soul from the first. The prevailing view since Schneider regards roirov a&Tov as anticipating and explained by, not as depending on, TT\% wepiaycoyijs. This yields a tolerable sense, but makes it difficult to supply the subject of lAeTaaTpafprjaeTat, and CLUTQ

is also awkward.

On Ast's view Tiva—

rj he TOV (ppovfjaai 30 A2.

Texvy '• see last note. F o r dtaf/.rjxo.v'qo'aaQa.1 A s t (with some inferior MSS) reads i^ p.rixavficra
Laws 746 C TOVT' ai>TO §ia.p.7)xavaa8ai O7rtus av yiyvr/Tat. 28

at

X | €V TOCVVV KT\.

aXAat is

anticipative )( T) Sk TOV (ppovijaai below. Ka\ou/j.evai. (as Bosanquet points out) should be taken with fvxris (lit. 'which are called soul's' i.e. 'which are commonly said to belong to the soul'). Plato does not mean to deny that they are virtues, but they do not belong to soul essentially and from the first. Krohn (PL Si. pp. i8,s ff-), who, with the editors generally, takes Kakoti^evai as ' sogenannten,' affirms that Plato here discards the virtues of Book IV; but he is merely contrasting these and other virtues or excellencies with vbriffLS. 29 iyyvs TI etvoi. Campbell conjectures iyyvs TI Teivew. I once thought of £77i>s Ti Teivai, taking the aorist as an explicit reference to the ethical virtues already discussed; but the text is doubtless sound: cf. V 472 C and VIII 544 D (,ueTa£u TI TOVTOJV TO*'/ eiaiv).

5 1 8 E 30 idari Kal do-Ki^o-€(ri.v. Aristotle Nic. Eth. 11 1 is in effect a commentary on this text: note in particular

/j.tTao'Tpa.tfrjtTeTcu explains TOUTOV avTou 7j 5' ridiKT] (iperrj) ef Zffovs Trepiylyverai. rijs wepiayuyi)!, a n d the subject of fj.€Tas l -fiaeTai as well as the antecedent of (1103 7)—ovdefiia TWV ^BLKGIV apeTuiv tpiitrei -fj/uv iyyiyvtTat. (ibid. 19)—rds 6" airy is at once seen to be TO opyavov $ KaTafj.av8dvet. eKao~Tos, for it is identical dperas \a/j.(3dvofj.ev evepyqaavTes irpbTepov(1103^31).^ with the antecedent of TOIJTOV avroi. r\ Se TOV (J>povt]
pendent final infinitive (Weiske quoted in A. J. Ph. IV p. 418), a construction for which see Jannaris Historical Grak Grammar pp. 483, 578. It depends on

but does in reality belong to (for Ti^ ovcra cf. I 337 B n.)—is an essential attribute of—something more divine (than that to which the other virtues belong), 7—2

nAATQNOS

IOO TTOVTO? /xaWov /j,ev Svvafiiv

deiorepov

TWO? Tvy%dvei,

[518E w? koiKev, ovcra, b TTJV

ovSeTrore d-rroWvcnv, VTTO Be T?J? Trepiaywyrjs %pr)o~ifiov

T€ Kal d)? Bpifiv /j,ev /3A.€7m TO yjrvxdpiov Kal o£eo>? Biopa Tavra e irKeiai KaKa Tldvv

j

fiev

vTrrjpereiv, epya^ofievov;

ovv, k'(pr]. TOUTO fievTOi, ijv 8' iya>, TO TT?
el eK 7ratSo? evdii<; KO-rrTOfievov TrepieKOTrr) Ta<; Tr}? yevecrea)<;

viz. pous. The meaning of (pp6vi)<7is and Isocr. Paneg. 64, 65 (quoted by Kiihner Gr. Gr. u p. 1015 n. 3). The has changed since IV 433 B (see on instances cited by Schneider [Addit. IV 428 B) in conformity with the intellecp. 52) viz. Tim. 56 B, \_Eryx.] 404 A and tualism of Books VI and v n . Thuc. I 25 are not strictly parallel to 31 iravTos |iaXXov has been suspected, and Madvig proposes iHpa.uiJ.aTos or TT\6.G- this. /J.O.TOI /xaWov, Richards opyduov fiaWov: 5 1 9 A, B 7 TCIS Tijs •yev&rcws KTX. : ' as but the text is indubitably sound. The it were the leaden weights, which are of phrase, like Travroiv uaXurra, means 'most the family of Becoming, and which, assuredly,' and has nothing to do with the through indulgences in eating and through comparative BuoTipov, but emphasises pleasures and gluttonous desires conthe whole assertion exactly as in Crit. nected with such like indulgences, adhere 49 B and Prot. 344 B. to it' (i.e. to such a nature, rb rijs TOIYTJs is equivalent to virb 5£ Tjjs Trepiaywyyjs re Kal fj.ifj where T&S TOV Ktjtprjvos ^vyyevets iirtdvfj.las = T&S Kijcpnvwdeis i7r1.dvu.lai. The /xoAu/3('according as it is or is not turned 5(5es are the accumulated products of round'). See on vi 498 A. sensual indulgence and desire: see X 611 5 1 9 A 2 8pLp.ij piiv KTX. ipi/xv is C ff., especially a vvv avrf}, are yyjv effTtto'shrewdly,' 'astutely,' like a quick-sighted lawyer: cf. (with J. and C.) Theaet. 17 5 D fj.^vrj, ycqpa Kal TeTptbSr] TroWa Kal rbv (TfxiKpov iiceivov TTJV ^vxty Kal dptfxvv&ypia Tr€pnrt
519D]

TTOAITEIAC Z

IOI

B f-vyyevet? tiairep ^o\u/3Si'8a?. ' at Br) iBcoBai? re Kal TOOOVTOV r)8orat<; re Kal \i%veiai<; TrpocrveK yiyvofievat, Trepuccnai crrpeovv el aTraWayev -rrepiecnpefyeTO eh 10 TO, aXrjdt], Kal eKelva av ro avro TOVTO T£>V avTu>v dvdpunrcov EIKO? ye, e<j>r). ogvraTa ewpa, axnrep Kal e<j> a vvv Terpa-Tnai,. Tt Be; roSe OVK eiKo'?, -fjv 8' iya>, Kal dvayKr) e'/c TCOV irpoeiprjfiivcov, firjre Ton? diratBevTovs Kal d\rjdela<; nTreipovs iKavais av -rrore C iroktv eTriTpoTrevcrai, ' fir/re rovs ev TracBeia ia>/u,evov /Stw OVK e^ovcrcv eva, ov GToya^ofievowi Bel airavra irpdrTeiv, a av Trpdrrcoaiv IBia, re Kal Brjfiocna, TOWS Be OTL e t o n e ? elvat, ov ivpd^ovcnv, r/yovfAevoi ev fiaKapaiv vn?). 'H/J,eTepov Br) epyov, r\v 8" eyai, T'OV OIKKJTWV, rds re /3eXTi'V, eire

the anacoluthon cf. Laws 810 D, E (Engeltagion, Imbodies and imbrutes, till she hardt Anac. PL Spec. Ill p. 37). Cobet quite lose The divine property of her gratuitously adds TO. before i
102

TTAATQNOI

[519D

(f>av\oT€pat etVe airovBaioTepat. "E7retT', ecpr), dhiKricroficv CIVTOIK;, Kal Troirjcrofiev j(elpov £>]v, SvvaTov avrols ov afieivov; V. 'E7re\iy TpeTreadai OTTJJ e/cao-TOS ftovXeTai, dXX' 'iva KaTa^prjTat. aura? avToh eVt TOV %vvhecrfiiov TTJ? TroXews- 'AXrjdrj, 'i^>rf STreXaOofnjv yap. 5 ^Ke-ifrai TQLVVV, elirov, a> YXavKwv, OTI OUS' dSttcrjo-o/Aev TOII? Trap' rjfjuv (f>iXoa6(f)ovuei, firjSevl Tpo<pr)v 6<j)eiXov, /£?}£> iicTuveiv Tto nrpovv^eio'Qai Ta Tpoelam vfia
i~ ^ir«iTa and e?ra are used like our ' what!' in indignant or quasi-indignant questions. Cf. Gorg. 466 c, Ap. 28 B and elsewhere, with Blaydes on Ar. Av. 9:1. 5 1 9 D, E -29 erreXdOou KTX. irahiv does not mean that Glauco has forgotten twice, but only that he remembered before. The emphasis falls on iTre\ddov rather than on 7rdXii/. Plato is thinking of v 466 A, where Glauco says n€ixvr)fj,ai when challenged on this point. To this explaintion, which he gives as an alternative, Schneider inclines to prefer the view which sees in TTOKLV a reference directly tolV4iQAff. But the interlocutor there is Adimantus, not Glauco, and even Adimantus in IV could not strictly be said to forget what Socrates for the first time expressly asserts (iv 420 B oii ,UT]I> 7rp6s TOVTO—17 7r6Xis) in reply to Adimantus' difficulties. v6|j.w is the reading of all the best MSS, and was restored by Schneider for voiaoOtrQ. Law is personified throughout the whole sentence: cf. (with Schneider) Tim. 24 v>. vofiodcTr] gives a good sense,

but is weaker than v6//.ip: Law, we feel, is free from selfishness and partiality, but a legislator need not be. 52O A 4 en\ TOV £w8eS 7roA£ras. Cf. Laws 921 c. 5 TOCVUV = 'further' (1 j^gDn.). Socrates has not yet replied to Glauco's indignant ddiKr/aoixev auroiis; but procecds to do so now. oi8' aSiK^
520 D]

TTOAITEIAC Z

103

C reXecarepov eiceLvuiv ireTratBevfxevovs ' Kal fiaXXov Bvvarov? a/x(porepuv fieTe^eiv. KuTaftareov ovv iv fiepeo eKaara) et? r-qv rmv 15 aXXcov %vvotKi]? vvv at TroXXal VTTO crKiafia- 20 D %ovvT(iiv T6 71730? dXX->j\ov<; Kal GTacria^ovTtdv ' -rrepl TOV dpxeiv OIKOVVTCU, a>K 6%et- iv TroXei fi r}KiT). 25 'kireidricroiHTLv ovv rjfuv, olei, 01 rpocpifioi ravr aKOvovTei}' 77 see note on iv airaaiv oh (cm III 402 A. S2OC 14 a(i<|>0T«pti)v: "et publicorum Van Cleef (deattr. in enunt. rel. usu Plat. negotiorum et philosophiae" Stallbaum. Cf. Gorg. 485 A i U ' , ol/iai, T6 opSdrarov p. 46) explains the construction as equivaitTTtv a/j.OTtpo)i> fieraffx^v. Is t h e dew-lent to iv 7) ?r6Xei, comparing Men. 96 C, ptjrtKSs or the irpa.KTi.Kbi /3ios the better? which is however (like Tim. 45 D) only an example of inverse attraction. It is clear that the subject was often de24 TavTT)v: an anacoluthon, as in bated in Plato's time: see the fragments of Euripides' Antiope in PI. Gorg. 484 E ff. VI 510 E. For the sentiment see 1 b and hx'\sX.Eth.Nic. 1 3. io95 I7ff., x 7. 347 i> »• H77 a 12 ff. If we contrast them with 2j o-\ov
T7AATQN0I

104

[52OD

Si/ccua ' yap Si) BiKaioK; eTriTa^ofiev. •wavTO'i yJr\v fidXXov a>
OVTO)

yap e'^et, r/v B eyw, a> eralpe-

el fj.ev j3tov e^evprjcreK afieivco TOV apj^eiv TOK | fieXXovaiv apgeiv, 521 eaTi
01 ra> OVTI TrXovaiob, ov %pv
Balfiova irkovTelv. ^oyFjs dya6rj<; re /cat e/M(ppovo7). "E^ei? ohv, r)v 8' eyd>, $iov

aXKov

Tivd TTOXITIKOOV dp%aiv Kara
10 r) TOV T?}? d\r)6Lvfjs (f>iXoao(f>ia<;; Ov fid TOV Ata, r) 8' 05. 'AWa fievToi, 8ei ye fir; epacrra? TOV apyeiv levai hf at/Toel Be fAt], o'l ye dvTepao~Ta\ fiayovvTai. TTw? 8' ov; Tti/a? ovv a\Xovs dvayicdcreK levai eVt (pvXatcr/v T?}? 7ro\eax>, rj o'l irepl TOVTWV re (j>povifMOTaToi, Si wv dpicrTa TToXt? olieeiTai, e^ovo-i Te 15 Tt/aa? aA.A.a9 KOX /3lov d/u,eiva) TOV TTOXITIKOV ; OvBivas

dXXov;,

e<pr). II. fiaxovvTai A 2 II: /j.dxovrai A1.

13. ot H : oi A.

52OE 29 iravT6s |i^v KTX. The X6XIS in my opinion incorrect. avSpwv ayaSCiv has now been found. That 6 Txol KTX.: 'men who are poor 13 ot KTX. The copula is rarely and an-hungered for lack of goods of omitted in a relative clause except in their own.' So Schneider and Bosanquet statements of proportion like Gorg. rightly explain the passage, iruvav is used 465 C. An example occurs in II 370E: almost in its original etymological sense see also Kiihner-Blass Gr. Gr. II 1, p. 41. (ire'iva. from Trev-ijs, iree-o/iai): cf. Xen. We ought not to revert to the old readCyr. VII j . j o and VIII 3. 39 u /j.a.K&pie ing o'iwep for of wepl (with q and E. S.
521C] C

VI.

TTOAITEIAC Z

105

BoiAet ovv TOUT' f)8rj aKOTrasfxev, rlva rpoirov

oi

roiovroi

eyyevqaovrai, /cat 7T&)? ri<; dvdget avroiir). TOOTO or), a)? eoiKev, OVK oarpd/cov Trepiaywyrj

eic WKrepivfj'i

TIVOS

av elrj Trept,crrporj, dXXa tyvxfis 20 r/fiepas

2

eh

£CKr)0ivr\v, rov

ovros

1

17.ffKoirQfAevA II: (TKOTTOI^V A .

quire are such as will tend to draw the soul from Becoming to Being, and are at the same time of some practical utility in war. Our earlier training in gymnastic and music will not serve the purpose; nor yet will the mechanical arts. What do you say to Number and Calculation, which enter into every art and science? Their importance in strategy is obvious, andwe shall find that they do emphatically, if rightly used, lead the soul towards Intelligence and Being. 521 c ff. For Plato's theory of the higher education see Appendix I I on ' 7 he Propaedeutic Studies of the Republic' and Appendix III on 'Dialectic.'' 19 XYyovToi 81^ nves KTX. With els Seois ive\6ea> cf. Plut. de ser. num. vind. 566 A £\e7e 5e TCUJTT} rbv Aidvvaov els Seovs aveXffetv. If Plato's words are to be taken in their full significance, we can hardly (with J. and C.) suppose that the allusion is to Heracles, Pollux etc., for Heracles' descent to Hades was an incident which happened long before his ascent to Heaven; and Pollux's life among the gods was intermittent. Cf. Schneider in his translation p. 304 n. 187. Schneider himself suggests that Plato is thinking of legends about e.g. Aesculapius' deliverance from Hades, after Zeus had smitten him (cf. i n 408 C and Roscher's Lexicon d. Mythologie I p. 620), and others have thought of Briareos and the iica.Toyx^'-P01 '• see / / . 1 402—405 and cf. Hes. Theog. 617—721. Mr Walter Headlam has pointed out to me that Semele was also raised from Hades to Heaven, citing Paus. II 31. 2 and ib. 37. 5: cf. also Plut. I.e. AI6VV
examples are certainly more to the point. It is worthy of remark that Justin Martyr in a remarkable passage of his Apologia pro Christianis speaks of the ascent of Asclepius and others into Heaven as Pagan parallels to the Christian doctrine of the Ascension : '\T]<SOVV 'Kpurrbv—aBi KOX uToSavbiiTa KOX avaurdirra d

e/s rbv oipavbv, ov trapa TOVS Trap' v/uv \eyofjifrovs vlovs TUJ Afi KttLvhv TL (p£po[Lev. iroaovs yap vlovs <paaKov
Tryphone 69). I was once half inclined to suspect that the clause aj
as he threw it. According as the white or black fell uppermost, one side ran away and the other gave chase. Plato means that education is not, like the 'spinning of a coin,' an affair of no consequence, to be settled off-hand, and by chance, but a slow and laborious scientific process, dealing with the gravest of all possible issues. See also App. VI. < nJ l s l X' 1 w*pwiY«>Y^ K T ^- : ' ' h e turning round of a soul from a day which is as night into the true day, that is, the ascent into Being' (not the tarrying in yiyvojxevov, which is the vvKTtpiVT] r)y.ipa). In vvKrepwris TIVOS ri/xe'pas (for which see

520 c nn.) Plato, more suo, plays on the

106

TTAATQNOI

[521 c

ovcrav enravohov, r}v By iXocroi,av 0X7)61) t]cro/J-ev elvai. /j,ev ovv. 1

Svvapcv;

II&>? ydp ov;

T t av ovv elr\, tu TXavKoov, fidOr/pa i/ru^?;? j

25 OXKOV CLTTO TOV yiyvofxevov

iirl

TO ov;

roBe B' evvoS) Xeyav

OVK ddXrjras /J,4VTOI iroXe/xov e<j>afiev TOVTOVS dvayKalov ovras;

"Eafiev yap.

b tflrovfiev, dvBpdaiv

Aet apa Kal TOVTO irpoae^etv

Trpos eKelvat.

elvai.

30 Kal fxovaiKrj e(f>7j.

To irolov;

Aet (tevToi, e<j>t), etirep olov re.

ev ye

Tv/xvacrTiKr)

rw fiev

irpoadev

eiraiBevovTo

TTOV irepl

TO

TvfivacrTiKr}

r)filv.

yiyvofxevov

*Hv

Kai

BnjXOofiev;

'AW

k'^rj, dvTt,aTpo(j>o'i TT)<; yvfivaaTiKr)1;, el fiefivrjaai, TOU? cf>v\aKa<;, Kara re dpfioviav

eiapfioariav

S TrapaBiBovcra, Kal Kara. pv6/u.bv evpv8fiiav, d8eX
eypvaa,

raxna,

airoWu^evov

TOVTO fiev Br/ OVK av elt] 0 ^t]TOv/u,ev /u,ddrjfia. | Ov apa fiovcTiKt) ocnjv TO irporepov

li/xa-

elvai veovs

M.r) ayj>r](7Tov

reTevTaKev • crcofiaTOS ydp avgrjs Kal (pOicrewi eiriaTarei.

rovrcov

Haw

OVKOVV Bel crKoireicrOai, ri rcbv fiaOTj/jidrcov e%et roiavrrjv

Qaivercu. ydp.

'AXX'

rjv eKeivrj j \

edecn TraiBevovcra

rivd, OVK evKrrijfiriv,

ev re TOIS Xoyoi<; erepa

Kal OCFOL ixv8d>SeL<; ru>v Xoywv

yv/Ava(TTticrj—f/.ovffiKTJ I I : yvjJ.vaaTLK'r)—f/.ov(riK7] A .

exclamation 'i»i| riixtpa.': cf. IV 422 D, E is TOOTO. With irpoukx^i-v 'insuper habere' nn. (It may be noted that Plato's adap(a rare use) cf. Trfioaytvitrdai. II 375 E «. tation is from vi>£ rj/iipa rather than from 5 2 1 E 30 iv y( TU irpdop&v otirav j3d#ous fievos, 4v5ia.Tplj3wv (Tim. Lex. s.v., where Ruhnken elaborately illustrates the word. 528 D. The daylight in which the diraiSee also Stephanus-Hase Thes. s.v.). Sevros lives is darkness ; the true day is the ascent of the soul out of the oparov reiirafw is always, I believe, semi-conand io^aaTov into the votjrov: cf. 517 B temptuous in Plato (Phil. 56 E, Tim. 90 B). Brugmann's connexion of the word TTjp hk ivta avafiaaiv Kal deav TC>V avtn TTJV els rbv voryrbv Toirov rrjs \pvxvs with aitiu (Vergl. Gr. I p. 362) may not &voSov TiOeis oix anapTi/)(r<:i rijs y inijs be right, but the notion that reunify is iKirlSos. This and this alone is true philfor ratirdfw (L. and S.) is certainly wrong, 5 2 2 A 2 oi\otroia itself is ixovuiK-q: cf. Ill 403 c Clement Strom, v 14 p. 196 Migne n. and VI 499 D. \pvxns Trepiaywyii iK vvtcTcpi.vfjs TWOS r/fiepas 3 dvHoTpo<|>os KTX. is best explained els aXijdaiyjv TOV foros (vv. 11. HVTOS and by III 410 C—412 A, and Kaxo Tt o.fOPTWS ivros) o8 tions see on I 339 B. D (771/' 5 4yu repeated). Here " iteratum itp-q—ethicam, ut ita dicam, vim habet" &|>a|«v. Cf. Ill 403 E, 416 D and VIII 543 B.^ (Schneider). I formerly omitted the 1- 8«t apa KTX. The subject of irpocrword (with Flor. T), but now believe it €X«"/ 'S T6 naO-ripa 8 £-qTovp.ei>: its object genuine. £6r) (II2, v and two other MSS,

522 D]

nOAITEIAC Z

icai bo~oi aXrjOivcorepoi, r)o~av. B olov (TV vvv

£rjTei<;, oiBev

avafUfiwr)
107

/xddrjfia Be 7rpo? TOIOVTOV ri

r/v ' ev airy.

TCS yap

OVTL TOIOVTOV

ovBev el%ev.

Bai/J,6vi,e TXavK(ov, TI av e'lrj TOIOVTOV ; al re yap TTOV airao~ab eBo^av

elvai.

IIw?

dyaOov,

'A>cpi/3e
8" ov;

Kal

Teyyat

firjv

iyw,

aXX', a>

fidvavcrol

TL eV

10

dXXo

Xeiirerai fid9r)fj,a, fiovo~LKri<; Kal yvfAvaaTiKij1; Kal TMV Te\vS)v Kej(a>picrfievov;

Qepe,

r)v 8" eyo>, el firjBev eTi

C Xafielv, T£>V eVt irdvTa

TetvovTwv

TOVTO TO KOIVOV, w Ttdaai

e«TO? TOVTCOV

TI Xd/3a>[iev.

Trpoa-^puvTai,

To irolov;

Te^vat

' Olov

Te Kal Bidvoiai 15

Kal eTTiaTrifxaL, o Kal TravTl iv TrpcoTois dvdyKrj fiavOdveiv. e(pr).

e^ofiev

Wolov;

To avXov TOVTO, TJV S' iyco, TO ev Te Kal TO, BVO Ka\ TO,

Tpia Biaytyva>o-KeLV \oyio~/J,6v.

Xeya

Be avTo

ev Ke<j>aXai(p dpi,d/j,6v Te Kal

rj ov% OVTW Trepl TOVTCOV e%et, w? iraaa

iirio-Tij/xT] dvayKa^eTai

avTwv /ieTo^o? yiyveadat,;

OVKOVV, rjv S' eyco, Kal 7] iroXefUKrj; D yeXoiov yovv,

ecprjv, ' cnpaTriyov 11.

Teyyt] Te Kal K a t fidXa, e<j>r]. 20

IIoXX.'), ecprj, dvdyKrj.

'Ayafiifivova

Ylay-

iv rats Tpaya>BLaL<;

KtxwpiaiAevov A 2 I1 : Krxupiffydvitiv A 1 .

with Eusebius Praep. Ev. XIV 13. 3) is unsuitable in point of sense, and also because of arra. 7 d\T|8ivuTEpoi: not = " more true' but 'true on the other hand.' The comparative only points the contrast with jUf(?c65ets: cf. Homer's well-known "yvvai-

the second knowledge is attained by a scientific discipline. Cf. II 376 E, VI 502 E nn. 5 2 2 B 10 at T« KTX. On Te used avaKO\OV8US see II 373 B n. "Quid addere Socrates in animo habuerit, Glauconis intercipientis verba docent : Kal nty TI IT dWo \direTai /xddi]fia" (Schneider). jp n $5oi;av. VI 495 D. irpos TOIOUTOV T I KTX. : ' useful for any S 2 2 c 15 Sidvoiai scarcely means the such purpose as you n o w require.' ayaffop mathematical sciences here, as J. and C. goes with 7rpos: cf. with Schneider X e n . suggest, but simply ' modes of thought': Mem. IV 6. 10 ap odv Tods /Lt£y ayadois irpbs Ta deLva Kal iTixlvdvva. 6i>ras a.v- cf. vi 511 D n. Plato does not, I believe, 5pelovs iiyeT etrcu, robs 5^ KCLKO US det\ov$: use the plural of Sidvoia in its peculiar The words oXov—foreis are equivalent to technical sense, and in any case such a meaning is here unsuitable. 71736? olov—^rjTels sc. ixadrnxa dyadov e?fat: 17 TO 'iv TC KTX. Cf. Laws 818 c ,UIJT£ cf. iv Tr6\eirj = iv jrdXft iv 3 (520 D «.), and (for $y)T&s with infinitive) IV 443 B. The If [ttfTe btio [iT}Te rpla fj.r)tf 6\us dpTta Kal Oxford editors connect dyadov with TOIOV- irepiTTa dvvdfj.evos yiyvuaKeiv, fnjde dpidTOV and not with /xadijfj.a, referring olov
vvv fijTeis 'probably to /xaSi/jua'—a highly unnatural interpretation, because it separates olov from TOIOVTOV, and leaves irpos out in the cold, dyov (yp II and Eusebius 1. c.) for dyadov is an obvious but wholly unnecessary 'emendation.' The present passage is Plato's authoritative statement of the relation between his two curricula of education. The aim of the first is morality, and its method habituation ; in

5 2 2 D 22 iv Tais Tpa-ycpSCais KTX. Plato speaks as if he were bored to death by Palamedes' damnable iteration. Plays on the subject of Palamedes were written by all three dramatists (see the fragments of Aeschylus 180 ff., Sophocles 426 ff., Euripides 582 ff. Dindorf), and the invention of number or the like is ascribed

nAATQNOZ

io8

Ha\a/j.r)8r)<; e/cdcrroTe diro^>aivei.

[522D

rj OVK evvevo7)Ka<;, on <j>rjff\v

dpiOfibv evpasv rd<; re Ta^et? ro3 CTTpaTOTreSq) Karaarrjcrai 25 Kal egapiOfirjcrai vavs re Kal raWa Ttov OVTCOV Kal TOV ' Ayafiefivovos,

Trdvra, a>9 Trpb rov

avrov

" A H o Tt ovv, ' rjv 8' eyoa, /MaOrjfia dvayKalov

30 dvhpl 0r)crofjLev Kal XoyL^eadai e(j>r], fxaXicrra,

etrecrdai. To irolov;

elvao

&v

K-tvSvvevei

^rjrovfiev,

s, eXKTiKw OUT 1 TTavrdiraai ireipdcrofiai,

olu

TTo\efJUKG> E

Svvaaflat,; eirateiv,

Tlavrm /j.aX\ov

' E w o e i ? ovv, eiirov, irepl TOVTO TO

8' el Kal avOpwiros §vo~ei

re Kal apiO^elv

el Kal OTIOVV /xeWet Ta^ewv

/xddrjfia oirep eyd); d\y6vrcov

KUITOI TTOLOV riv

"ATOTTOV riv , e<j>r), eycoye, el r)v TOVT a\r)0e<;.

bv elvau;

7',

dvapi8/j,rj.

a>? eotKev, ovB ocrov? 7ro8a? etyev

s, elirep dpt,8fielv fir) r)irl(naTO; VII.

ev \\ia>

irpb
r)v 8' eyco, TO 7 ' ifiol

to him by Aesch. I.e. Soph. Fr. 379 and Eur. I.e. Aeschylus also gives Prometheus the credit of the discovery (P. V. 459 f.). 27 KCUTOI KT\. 'Well, what d'ye think of Agamemnon for a general now?' Kairot (lit. 'and yet' sc. if this was true) is often thus used to introduce a question 'cum quadam indignatione' (real or, as here, feigned); for examples see Kugler de part, TOI ap. PL p. 18. iroiov TWO. is derisive, as TToio; constantly is: see on 1330 A. D. and V.'s translation "Yet what do you think of Agamemnon as a general?" misses the ijtfos of the original, which is correctly reproduced by Schneider and Jowett. 5 2 2 E 30 Kal \oyil«r9ai TC KTX. KCU ' also,' because " et aliarum rerum et arithmetices peritum imperatorem esse decet" (Schneider). Cf. vi 506 A. The word is omitted by II 1 q 3 and some other MSS. Kat may of course be spurious, but it was not likely to have been added by a scribe, and the balance of MS evidence is in its favour. The other variants (rj and 17 TO and fj.d\\oy rj in place of Kat) are corruptions due to .the erroneous idea that &\\o TI is ' any other' and not 'nonne.' 31 (idXXov Sk KTX. fiaWoi/ Si is ' vel potius,' as usual. ay^paJTros —' human being,' not 'anything of a man ' (D. and V.), which suggests an entirely wrong idea. We may compare the Latin use of homo, for example in Cic. ad Quint. II 11. 5 "sed cum veneris, virum te putabo, si Sallusti Empedoclea legeris: hominem non puta-

TCOV irpo's TTJV vorjaiv

^prjcrdai SOKOW

K

ovo'els aina 523

Dws, e<jyt), \e7ei9; BrjX&aai.

a
bo." For the sense cf. Laws 819 D, where the Greek ignorance of arithmetic appears to Plato O$K avdp&TTivov d\Xct itTjv&v TIVS>V eipai fiaWov ffpe/i/i&Toiv. The know-

ledge of number is one of the characteristic differences between man and the lower animals: see Tim. 39 B and [Efiin.\ 978 c. 5 2 3 A 1 4>v
523

nOAITEIAC Z

Biaipovfiat

Trap' e/tavra)

dyeoyd

re elvai

yevofxeva

tjv(i(f>a8i rj a-rrenre, ha

el

olov

ecrTiv

/xavrevofiai..

el-rrov, el Ka6opa<;, TO. fiev iv rals

109 ol Xeyo/xev Kal fxrj, jjvvKal TOVTO aafykarepov

AeUvv',

k'(pr). Aeiicvvfu

5

S77,

alo-Orjcrecriv ov -rrapaicaXovvTa '

B Ti)v vorjauv 6t? eTricnceTJriv, to? iicav6}<; inro T?}? alcrdrjaeayt; /cpivo/Aeva, ra

oe TTavraTraai

BiaiceXevofieva

aladi]aea)<; ovSev

vyies

Zrfkov OTi Xeyeis

Kal ra

eVu%6? ov Xeyco.

Uola

eKeivt]v iTricrKe-^racOai, &>? TTJ?

Troiovcrrjt;. • Ta, iroppwQev, e<£??, <\>auofieva 10 ir]/j,eva. Ov firjv, e<j>r), Xeyeis;

C \OWT<X, rjv $' eyat, oaa fir} eicftaLvei els evavTiav S' eicftaivovTa o>? Trapa/caXovvTa

irdvv, Ta

fiev

rjv K iyd>, ov

' ataOrfaiv

-irapaitad/j,a' TO.

Tidtj/xi, eVetSai> r] al(jQr\at,
ing, apprehends '•great'' and 'small' (for example) as distinct and separate from one another, unlike the senses, by which they were seen together and in confusion. It is thus that we are first led to ask 'What is the great?' 'What is the small?' 5 2 3 B ff. In this section of the Republic, Plato ascribes the originating impulse of his intellectual discipline to the stimulus supplied by the self-contradictory evidence of sense-perception. On the connexion of this principle with earlier Greek philosophy see 523 c n., and on the aim and scope of Plato's theory of Education as a whole App. I I . 8 us iKavws KTX. is taken by Krohn (PL Fr. p. 91) as excluding the possibility of Ideas of concrete things. Such an inference is unwarranted, i/cavuis, 'adequately' 'satisfactorily' (cf. E below), does not imply that sensation can apprehend everything there is to know about e.g. a finger, but merely that in the case of a finger etc., sensible perception is as a rule all that we demand : we are not impelled to summon vtms KT\. On aiaffrj-

50, 355 (TrpcJs avdp&s ovSiv iiyih ear' tipya.av.ivov).

10 rd iroppuScv KTX. readily suggest themselves to Glauco, for they were familiar examples of optical delusion in the Platonic school: cf. (for wbpptiiQev <pa.iv6/ieva) Prot.

356 C, Theael.

191 B,

infra X 602 C ff., and (for iuKiaypatprjiiiva) II 365 C «. 5 2 3 c 13 ato-8r)
38 B ff. with Bury's notes). And in point of fact, the sort of contradictory judgments which are here ascribed to the initial step in the psychological process, viz. aXtrdyffis (524 A), have already been attributed to 56|a in v 479 B—479 E. We have already seen that Plato throughout the whole of this part of the ReHiblic is not careful to distinguish between alcrdt)Tbv (especially bparbv) and So^aorov (vi 510 A n.); and the same tendency shews itself again here. But in this part of the dialogue, Plato's argument is no way affected by his imperfect
TTAATQNOI

no

[523C

15 fi&XXov TOVTO rj TO evavTiov BrjXol, et'r' iyyvdev rrroppcodev.

-rrpoo-rmrTovaa ene

cuBe Be a Xeyoj <7aicrTepov e'laet,.

OVTOI, (pafiev, rpel<;

av elev BaKTvXoi, o re afUKpoTaTOs Kai 6 Bevrepov Tldvv y , e<pr). 'fi? iyyvdev dXXd

fj-01 trepl

avTwv

Kai 0 fieaos,

TOIVVV opatfievovs XeyovTos fiov Biavuov,

ToBe uKoirei.

To TTOLOV ;

Aa«Ty\o? jxtv

20 ai/Tcov cfraiveTai o>o<,'&> oparai

edv T iv iff^aTai,

edv Te XevKos edv T€ /tteXa?,

idv Te 7TdiT^ii? edv re \67TTO?, Kai irav o TI TOIOVTOV. TOVTOK OVK dvay/cd£eTai TI ITOT

ecrrt BaKTvXo^-

25 TOV BaKTvXov OVKOVV, KXTJTIKOV

iv iracn, yap

TO>P TTOWCOV rj tyvXV TVV vo-qaw eTrepea-dai, ov&afiov yap

TovvavTcov

t; oi^t? avTrj a/jia eeryfj.-rjvev

rj BUKTVXOV

elvai.

r)v B' eyoo, eiKOTws TO ye TOIOVTOV OVB' ' eyepTiKov

eli).

Et'/coT&j?.

yap

ovv, e^rj,

T i Be Brj; TO fieye8o$Z

avTwv Kai Trjv a/jLLKpoTr/Ta r) oi}ri<; dpa iKavw Bia(pepei iv fxiarw Tivd avTwv Keladai

Ov

vorjo-eoo
r) e V iayd/Tto;

Kai tocrav

30 7ra^o? Kai XeTTTOTrjTa rj fiaXaKOTrjTa Kai aKXrjpoTr/Ta rj acf>rj;

15 6'IIT' iyyiitv KTX. (like as iyyidev etc. below) is said to prevent misapprehension, in view of Glauco's ra ir6ppoidev etc. in B. 16
5 2 3 D 20 lav T€ iv |x^cru KTX. : i.q. e'cti' Te iv fitatp y 6 bpiiififvos «rX. This is said with reference to their size : cf. E below and Phaed. 102 B, c, where the difficulty is explained by the theory of Ideas. Thus b is both great and small, great relatively to «, small relatively to c. Similarly with the other antinomies. The Philebus dismisses such puzzles as T& bfd^fiev/j^fa TWV davfj.atTTWi' Trepi TO Iv Kai woWd (14 D)—an indication perhaps of the priority in date of the Republic (cf. VI 50s c n. and Jackson in / . Ph. X pp. 26 3 ff.'). 23 dva/YKai^Tai. is said of the 'Drang nach Wahrheit': cf. 524 c, E, 525 D and 518 E ff. It is not the 'nature' of Soul to acquiesce in falsehood : for man is an oijpdviov cpvrdv, oi)/c <=yyetov (iv 443 B n.). T TOV 'ATTOXKW.

24 ovSa|xov : 'at no stage' viz. in the psychological process, not exactly 'never (as Jowett, D. and V. etc.).

524 B]

TTOAITEIAC Z

ai aXXai 524 iroiei

i n

aicrd'qcTet'; dp' OVK eVSew? TO. TOiavTa SrjXovatv;

€Ka
alo0r)cn<; rjvdyKacrTai

TTpSiTov Kai e m

fiev r\ eiri TU> cnckripui

ra

/juaXaKw reTaydat,

yeXXei TTJ ^jrvyy w? TavTov aric\i)p6v Te Kai fiaXaKOV OuTa)?, e<j>rj. OVKOW,

r)v 8" eyco, avayicalov

Kai

fj toSe TeTayfievq irapay-

alcrdavofiivr);

ev rot9 TOIOVTOK

av

Ttjv yfrv)^r)v diropelv, TL TTOTS crrj/iaivei avTt) r) cua-dr/aR TO cricXrjpov, 5 eiirep TO avTo Kai, fiaXaKov

Xeyei,

Kai f) TOV KOV(]>OV Kai r) TOV

1

fiapeo ;, Tt TO Kov<pov Kai fiapv, el TO Te (3apv Kovcpov Kai TO /cov(f>ov B fiapv

(rqiiaivei

;

' Kai

yap,

ep/j,7]velai Kai eiricKe^rew;

6077, avTai

Beo/xevai.

ye aTOtrot rrj ^rv^rj

al

EtaoTto? apa, r)v 8' iyco, ev

Tot? TOLOVTOV; TTpwTov fiev TTeipaTai \oyto-p,6v

Te Kai vorjaiv yfrvyr) 10

vapaKaXovaa

eTruTKoireiv, etVe ev etVe Bvo io~Tiv eKao~Ta rac elaay-

yeXXofievwv.

IIw? S' ov;

OVKOVV eav Svo (fraLvrjTai,, eTepbv r e Kai

5 2 4 A 1 irapayyt'XXei KTX. :'intimates to the soul that the same thing is both hard and soft when it perceives it to be so.' With wapayyiWtt (needlessly suspected by Stephanus) cf. Tim. 70 B TOD k l TOS c3s3 TIS & &SIKOS Trepl avra yLyveraL

Trpa^is. T h e E n g l i s h

translators, together with Schneider, appear to take UK with aiadavoixtvi) (" that it feels the same thing to be both hard and soft" D. and V.). But such a construction is difficult (cf. Kiihner Gr. Gr. II p. 652) and the meaning scarcely satisfactory. It should be remembered that touch does not always report that an object is both hard and soft, but only when it feels the object hard in relation to one thing and soft in relation to another, and similarly in other cases. This limitation is expressed by alcrBavofxivq (as well as by iv TOU Toioirois), and explains its emphatic position. I have sometimes thought that should be added after aiadavonivq, but the object can be supplied from (is—/tioXo(c6i'. Prantl understands the construction in somewhat the same way as I do. 5 diropelv. The word is Socratic: see on 515 D. It is worthy of note that Plato, like Socrates, makes intellectual diropia the beginning of Education. See App. II. aCrr) 1^ ai'cr6T]
sense of resistance.' But Plato nowhere recognises any such sense, and if he did, he would call it 7) rod Koixpov Kai /3ap^os, and

n o t i] TOV Kov<pov KOX T] TOU j3ap4os.

The parallel in TL TTOTS trtj/j-aivei—X^yet shews that Plato means: ' what do the sensation of light and the sensation of heavy mean by light and heavy, if they indicate, the one that the heavy is light and the other that the light is heavy ?' The last clause contains an elegant chiasmus. Schneider understands avTjj ri atadt)<ns a s 17 a.l
b u t it is

better taken as deictic: cf. 516 B, 523 c. Otherwise his view agrees with mine. 5 2 4 B 8 OLTOiroL. Herwerden's a?ropoi is an elegant conjecture, in view of d-Tropciv in A and 524 E ; but the text is more forcible. 9 ep|iiiveitti='communications,' not 'interpretations,' as D. and V. translate. ai'
T7AATQN0I

112 ev etcdrepov

aiveTai;

Nat.

E t apa

Bvo, TO. ye Bvo Ke^dypia/jbiva vorjuef evoei, ' a\X'

ev.

'Op6do<;.

[524 B ev tKarepov,

ov yap

a/x<poTepa 8e

av aj(a>piaT(i ye Bvo

M e y a fir/v Kal ch/w Kal a/niKpoi' ecopa, C

afi.iv, aXX' ov Ke^copicrfievov, aXka

avyKexvpivov

Ti. fi yap;

Nat,

Atd he rrjv TOVTOV o~a7jveiav /j,eya av ical cr/xiKpov rj vorjais r/vayIBelv, ov avyice-)(Vfieva, aXka OVKOVV evrevdev

Bicopio-fiiva, Tovvavnov

iroOev irpdorov eTrep^erat

20 r t ovv HTOT ecTTt To fieya av Kal TO a/Miiepov; Kal OVTCO Srj TO /lev vorjrov, TO S' oparov

r) 'xeivq.

epeadai rjfiiv,

YlavTavaai

eKaXeaafiev.

/j,ev ovv.

' OpdoTar, D

er). VIII.

TavTa

irapaK\rjTiKa

Toivvv

Tr)<s hiavoias

25 "1/j.a Tot? evavTiois

eavTols

Be fir/, OVK iyepTiicd SoKel fioi OVTW. elvai; Xoyi^ov. 30 alaOrjdei

ical apTi

Ov £vvvo
Xeyeiv,

apiOfios

7rapaic\r)Tt,Ka 6pi£ofievo<;, ocra MavOdva)

TOLVVV rfBr/, er), Kal

Te Kal TO ev iroTepcov Boicel

'AXX' etc TCSV irpoeiprffievuiv, e<$>r]v, ava-

iKavrS<; avTo icaff1 axiTO opaTai

el fiev yap \a/u,fidveTai.

I TO ev, OVK av O\KOV

•27.

&)? ra fiev

ecTi, TO, Be ov, a fiei' et? TTJV a'icrdijaw ifiviirrei,

TJJ9 vorjcrews.

T t ovv;

eire^elpovv

2

rj aWy

TIVL

ei-'r; eirl TTJV ovclav, E 1

voripwv A II: wbrepov A .

have conceived, not of two, but of one.' see, we see bolh as one and as infinite in numPlato's object is to make out that viijins, ber. This is also trite of number generally, in order to clear up the avyKexv^vov TI since it is true of 'one.'' The science of of sensation (<5id rijv TOVTOV o-a^fyeiav) is number is therejore a suitable study on compelled to view sensation's ii4ya.-Ka.l- educational as well as on utilitarian (TixiKpov (for example) separately, i.e. as TOgrounds, provided it is pursued in such a /xiya and rd aiuKpiv. These antinomies way as to lead the soul from visible to the consequently force us to ask ' What is the invisible 7iu?nbers of tnte mathematics. great?' 'What is the small?' etc.; and We may add that arithmetical studies are just herein consists their periagogic or an excellent test ofgeneral capacity, a good educative value, for to such questions the intellectual discipline, and difficult. theory of Ideas alone furnishes an ade5 2 4 D ff. On Plato's treatment of quate and final answer [Pkaed. 99 B ff.). apiBfi-qTiKij—i.e. the Science of Number, K€xuipto~fJ-€voi vori
525 B]

TTOAITEIAC Z

eoffTrep eVt TOV BaicTvXov eXeyofiev el 8' del, TI avrai a/xa oparav ivavTumfia, ware /ArjBev fiaXXov ev rj ical TOVVCLVTIOV <j>alvea0ai, TOV eiriicpivovvTOS 8r/ Beoi av fjBr] ical dvayicd^oiT av iv avT<j> ^frv^rj airopeiv ical fyjTelv tcivovaa ev eavTtj TTJV evvoiav ical dvepwrdv, TL 525 TTOTE koTbv avrb TO ev, ical OVTW TWV | dyroytSv av ecrj ical /tiera- 35 enrl TTJV TOV 6W0? deav r) irepi TO ev ixad-qo-is. 'AXXd i, etj>r), TOVTO y e%ei ov% r)iuo~Ta r) irepl TO avro 6yjri<; • afia yap ravTov &)? ev T€ opaifiev ical eo? aireupa TO irXrjdo1;. OVKOVV e'iirep TO ev, riv 8' eyw, ical gvfnras dpidfios TatiTov ire-rrovde TOVTO ; lieu? 5 8" ov; 'AXXa firjv Xoybo-TUcrj r e ical dpidfj.rjTHcr) irepl dpi6/j,ov irdcra. "TTrepB Kat /j,dXa. Tavra Be ye tyalveTau dyioyd ' Trpo? dXrjdeiav. vai<; /x€i> ovv. ilv %r]TOVfiev apa, to? eonce, padrjixaTav av ecr}' TroXe/xiKM fiev yap Sid TO? Tafet? dvayicalov fiaOelv TavTa, iXoo~6G) Be Bid TO T?}? ovo-las dirreov elvai yeveo~ea><; igavaBvvTi, fj 10 XoyicTucm yeveo~6ai. "EcrTt TavT', etprj. ' O Be ye rjf 5.

TOCTO I I : ToiiTif

5 2 4 E 31 ei 8' dei TI KTX. A visible iv is always seen both as £v and iroXXd (one wood, many trees; one tree, many branches etc. )• 33 £v avT<£ is not iv Tip ivl, but 'in the case in question,' 'in such a case,' "dabei" (Schneider): cf. I 339 E n. 35 aurd TA 'iv. See on airuv TWV apiBixCov 525 D. 5 2 5 A 3 r\ irepi TO avro 6'<|>i.s. I formerly read air6 instead of TO air6 with S and a few inferior MSS. avrh, which Bekker, Schneider and Stallbaum adopt, is easier, but lacking in authority; and rb avrb is in reality more elegant. The marked antithesis between T) irepl T6 (v /J.6.8970-is ('the intellectual apprehension of the one') and r/ irepi TO ai/rd 6\fiis ('the visual apprehension of the same') makes it clear that TO aird means 'the same' as that with which T\ /iddrjcns was concerned (viz. TO fv), and not (as Hermann imagined) 'one and the same object of vision' (like TOI)T6K presently). Plato may have deliberately employed the two forms TO airb and rairbv in order to dissociate them from one another. 5 KOA £u|jiiras dpiSpos KTX. Because

A.

presents us with three separate cases of the contrast between iv and 7roXXd. TOVTO

(see

cr.

n.)

is

preferable

to

ToiVifi, which appears in no MS except A, and would be superfluous after elirep TO Iv. Two MSS do in point of fact omit the word altogether. 6

Xo'yUTTlK'q

T€

KCll

apl6|JLTJTlK1^.

Greek mathematicians distinguished between api6iJ.rfTi.KT) 'the science of numbers' and XoyicrTw?! 'the art of calculation' (Gow Greek Math. p. 22). It has been doubted whether Plato also held this distinction; but a comparison of Gorg. 451 B, 453 E, Theaet. 198 A (on dpi.Sy.riTLKrj) with Gorg. 451 C, Charm. 166 A, Pol. 259 E (on XoyiGTiKri) proves that he did (Rothlauf, 1. c. pp. 19—21). Plato does not insist on the distinction here, but we may reasonably suppose that his pupils would begin with Xoyur/ioi {XoyicrTIKTJ) and rise from thence to dpi6ixrfri.K7): cf. c, D and Laws 8r7 E, 819 A ff. See also on XoyiariKif in B. 7 T a v r a : i.e. rd. rod aptB/xov. 5 2 5 B 7 dXtjOeiav: viz. the Ideas, and ultimately the Idea of Good (517 B). 10 •ycveo-eios. See on 519 A. •fj = 'alioquin' (v 463 D «.). Liebhold b i s rb eK fiovddiov absurdly adds iariv after yeviaBai. (Euclid VII def. 2), or in other 11 XO^IO-TIKU : ' a reasoning profiwords a aiarrnna fjLOvddav (Theo Smyrn. cient in the art of calculation,' with a p. 18 ed. Hiller), and thus for example play on XoyiUTUcbs in its deeper sense, as a visible three (i.e. three visible things) A. P. II.

TTAATQNOI

114

[525

v\al; TroXefUKO*; re Kal i\6o<; fieWovras eV rrj iroXei, rwv fieyicrrwv /xede^etv eirl XoyicrrtKrjv avrfjs firj Ihiwriicws, dXX' ew? av iirl 6eav C IS I iivai Kal dvddirreadat rfjs rwv dpidfitSv vaea)<; dfy'inwvrai rrj vorjaet, avrfj, OVK a>vr)<; ov&e irpda-ew; %dpw a><> ifnropovs r) Kairr/Xovs fieXerwvras, aXX' eveKa TroXefiov re Kal avrr)<; rrj<; ifrv^r}'; paara)vrj<; fieraarporj, Xe^et?. Kal 20 (ir)v, r)v S' iya), vvv Kal evvooo prjffevros rov irepi, TOU? Xoyicr/ioii'; fiadrjfiaro<;, &>? KOfi\p*6p ecrn Kal TroXXaxfj -)(pr)(nnov rjfilv 7rpo? 0 D ftovXo/jLeda, edv rov yvcopi^eiv eveKa Ti? avro eirirrjhevrj, dX\d /ITJ rov Ka-rrrfkeveiv. TLfj 8tf; e<jyr/. Tovro ye, b vvv &rj iXiyo/iev, co? cr6$pa avv dpi6/j,S>v 18.

pq.cmJ»>7is I I : pg.
'nature of numbers' i.e. the Ideas of Shorey points out (Chicago Studies I p. 1, 2, etc., because only then will he know 222 n. 4), comparing the double meaning of Tapavofiia in IV 424 D. \. Cf. (with J. and of government: cf. 534 D and Afiol. 22 D C') II 370 A ivvoCj yap Kal avrbs elT6vT0i crov. with my note ad loc. 5 2 5 c 15 9eav—avTrj. The 'nature Xo-yi.o-p.ovs: see on \oyi in B. of numbers' cannot be fully seen except 5 2 5 D 24 avTwv TWV dpifl|i(Sv: 'numin their connexion with the Good and bers themselves,' e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4 etc., in with all other votyra (VI 511 B—D «».). other words individual mathematical numPlato does not of course imply that apc8bers and nothing more, auruv means' by UririKri by itself will achieve this result themselves,' 'alone,' i.e. with nothing (although it may be doubted whether alaByrbv about them, such as is present in some of his successors did not exalt the the bpaTa 7} airra ffibfiara tfxovras aptdfiiofo science to something like this dignity: ( = Aristotle's alaBtiTticol or
riOAITEIAC Z

5 2 6 A] avayxd^ei

SiaXeyecrOai, ovSafif/ airohe'xpij.evov, lav

Ti? avTrj opara 25

rj airra crtofxara e%ovTa<; apt,6//,ov<; TrpoTeiv6/j,evo<; BiaXeyrjTai. E jap

TTOV Tou? irepl ravra

8eivov<; ' , &>
ru> \o Te/j,veiv, KaTayeXcbcri, Te KCU OVK aTroBe^ovrai, KepfiaTL^rj<; avro,

licelvot, TroWaifkaaiovcnv,

<pavfj TO ev fir) ev aXka 526 Tt ovv otei, tw T\av\K(ov,

-jroWa

fiopia.

dlaOa

Tt? avro TO ev eTri^etpf) aX\'

ev\a/3ov/j,evob ' AXr^OearaTa,

el T19 epoiTo avrovs,

lav crv

firj TTOT£

e$r\, Xeyet?. 30

' f i 0av/u,daioc, irepl

•noiaiv aptdfia>v BiaXeyecrOe, Iv 0I5 TO ev olov vfj-els a^iovTe

ICTTLV,

27. deivotis S ? : Seivous dtio A l l , sed SIJO punctis notavere A 2 II 2 S y : ofioCre- ?ITTU' A : d^ovvre (sic) effTtv II.

and App. I.

For airwv in this sense cf.

obstinate fellow who will not admit the indivisibility of their unit. The words 'back again' in D. and V.'s translation "they multiply it back again" correspond to nothing in the Greek and suggest an erroneous idea; nor can the Greek mean "that division is regarded by them as a process of multiplication, for the fractions of one continue to be units" (as Jowett suggests). Each of these explanations misses the humour of the original. The word /xopia is doubtless genuine, though its rejection (proposed by Herwerden) would improve the antithesis. Cf. nopiov re ^xov tv eaury oubev (526 A), for which (Theo Smyrn. 18). If any one mainpopta. here prepares the way. tains that the mathematical unit is divi5 2 6 A 1 irepl iro£
ai)r6 T6 ?V in E, avrrj TT} vor)aei ^26 B and aptBixSiv airS>v akV oil auifiara ixov' TUV [Eflin.~\ 990 C. 27 Seivoiis- The word Stio, which was originally written after Seivoiis (see cr. «.) in A and II, is probably due to a marginal adscript on the words idv -m airb rb £v imxeipxi—riixveiv. Burnet neatly conjectures 5«>>oiis ad, but ad is inappropriate here. 5 2 5 E 27
n6

TTAATQNOZ

terov re etcacrTov Trav vavrl e^ov

t c eavToi ovSev;

5 eycoye, on dWeof

rl

teal ov8e crfitKpbv 8iaepov fiopiov av

otei

irepl TOVTWV Xeyovaiv,

do l\e, OTL TC3 OVTL avaytcalov

iravra

a

VTr]V TTJV aXrjdeiav;

T t 8e;

airo/cplvacrSai;

TOUTO ey^wpel,

rjfuv

(fraiveraL ye irpoaavayKatpv 10 avro.

ai/rovs

re

a>v BiavorjOfjvai, /xovov hvvaroi1.

8' ovSa/uw? fiera^eipi^eadai

^

[526 A

'Opas

KivSvvevei avrfj

ovv, %v 8' eyw,

elvai

TO fiddrjfia,

rfj vo-qaei xprja-flai TTJV B

Kal fj,ev 81J, ecfyrj, 68pa ye iroiel

r68e i]8rj etreaKe-^rui, a>? o'C re vaet Xoyiarixol

el$

TO, /AaOrjjiaTa a>? eiro<; elirelv o^et? (jjvovrat, 0% re /3pa5et?, av

iv T0VT03 iraL8evdu>(n Kal yvfivdaeovrai, dS><Tiv, o/titu? et? 76 TO o^vrepoi iwi8i86aaiv;

"Eariv,

ecpr), OVTCO. 8.

avrol Kal

Kav fir)8ev aXKo axj)e\riavrdov

yiyveadai

/xrjv, ' a>? iywjjiai,

iravTes a ye C

T J I I : om. A.

which only one exists, the Mathematical and the Sensible, of each of which there are many. See on vi 510 D and App. I, where I have quoted further evidence on this subject, and endeavoured to explain the philosophical truth which is contained in the Platonic doctrine of mathematical numbers, magnitudes etc. as intermediates between the Ideas and sensibles. 5 av KTX. WV is for irepl u>v rather than a (as J. and C. hold): cf. VI 510 D

thought far more than now, and been, from the Platonic point of view, all the more valuable on that account as an educative discipline. The treatment of numbers by Euclid Books VII—X will illustrate Plato's observation: see Gow Gk Math. pp. 74—85, with De Morgan's remarks there quoted. 16 <»s TOVTO. us = ' quam' instead of •fl is found sporadically in Greek literature after comparatives: see my note on Ap. 30 B, 36 D. To say that in all such cases ov -rrfpl TOVTIOV Siavooifxevoi, and (for the the comparative is equivalent to OIITU grammatical construction) i n 402 A n. with the positive is only to shelve the BiavoTjffTJvtu should be understood in the difficulty; and it is better to recognise technical sense of VI 511 E. the usage as exceptional than summarily 7 T<£ OVTI dvayKatov. Perhaps with to dismiss it as a barbarism (with Thompa play on TvpoaavayKa.^ov (J. and C.): see son on Gorg. 492 E). J. and C. after oihk on ry'6vnVI 511 B. iroAXd supply a irdvov oiha niyai> Trapi5 2 6 B 11 6£ets K T \ . Plato was X^Tai, but the ellipse is too difficult, very emphatic on this point: see Laws especially as oiSi wo\\d is only a kind 747 B and 819 C. 4>iiovTcu was restored of afterthought to or elaboration of 01) by Schneider from the best MSS. Earlier pq.8tws. editions read a.ivovTa.i on inferior autho- 5 2 6 c—527 c Next in order comes rity. Plane Geometry. On its practical uses dv—"ywjJLvdtrwvraL KTX. Even Isocrates •we need not dilate; the important question admits this, although his self-styled ' Phiis whether it tends to turn the soul tolosophy' was something very different wards Being. A mere tiro in Geometry from Plato's: see Antid. 265—266, esknows that it is not d practical art, in pecially yv^vaaiav ixivroi. rrjs ^vxot spite of such terms as 'squaring' etc., Kal irapa 0i\offo0fas KCLXW TT\V 81a-which the poverty of language compels it TptfHiv TTJC Tuair-qv (mathematical studies). to employ. The object of geometrical 5 2 6 c 14 a. ye |xci£u KTX. is an im- knowledge is ever-existent Being. For portant principle with Plato, who does this reason we shall prescribe the study not believe in any royal road to learning: of Geometry, a subject which is moreover cf. 530 c and VI 503 E. In antiquity, practically useful and an excellent eduwhile algebra was still unknown, api$cational propaedeutic. fiTiTiKJi must have taxed the powers of 5 2 6 c ff. On the subject of this

526 D]

nOAITEIAC Z irovov

irapi^et

ovBe iroXXa. av evpoif

fiavddvovTi

Kal

a><; TOVTO.

117

fieXerdovTi,

OV yap

ovv.

TOVT(OV OVK ucf>eTeov TO /j.dOrjfia, dXX' 01 apccnoi TOVTO fiev TOLVVV, elirop, ei> r)juv Kt-iaday

i-^o/Mevov TOVTOV r) yew fierpiav,

Br) eveica

r a ? (f>vcrei<; Trai,-

av(iTi/u, 77 B' 6V

BevTeoi iv avrw. IX.

OVK av paBiax; 15 Havrcov

o-Keyfrtofieda dpd

e(j>r), Xiyeis ;

BevTspov 3e TO

Ti Trpoa-qKei rffilv.

AVTO

TOVTO, fjv S' iyu>-

To irolov; 20 "Ocrov

/xiv,

D e
iv

a v r a t ? r e Tats

[id^ais

avTov iye<»/ieT/CHtfo? Kal fj,r] wv. 16. &v eCpois I I : dveipois A.

Kal

ff^/xaTtfovirt

Kal iropeiaa,

TO. OTpaTo-

BiafyepoL av ai/Vo? 25

'AXX,' ovv Br/, elirov, 7rpo? fj,ev TO,

19. tv t£ g: iv AH.

26. 5T) A 2 II: om. A 1 .

section consult Blass and Cantor referred the irp&TT) at^yi, i.e. presumably the to on 524 D, Rothlauf I.e. pp. 50—69, line, which, according to the Pythagoand App. II to this book. The great reans, is a collection of points (cf. Laws importance attached by Plato and his 894 A and Rothlauf I.e. p. 51). And in school to geometry and kindred studies point of fact the line represented number is attested from many sources: see for among the Pythagoreans exactly as the example Philoponus in Arist. de an. 1 3 point is the geometrical symbol for the (Comment, in Arist. p. 117. 26 6 IlXdroiy unit : cf. IX 587 D ». Hence ixbpevov 011 Kal irpb T17S 5uLTpi{3i)s ^Treytypairro roirov: we take the Sevripa afil-T) after 'AfyeitiiiiTptp-os fj.7) ei£Tai, TT)V dxKitv dtpatpoiicav TOV Plato's time: see Grasberger Erziehung voepov TTJS diavotas 0OJT6S KT\., and D. L. ti. Unterricht II p. 340 and cf. App. II. IV 10 irpbs 5^ rhv fi~qT€ IXOVGIK^V fj.i]Te oo-ov fi&v KTX. is exactly the attitude of the historical Socrates, as Krohn yp p (PI. St. p. 376) and others have pointed fioiiXbiiepov 5£ nap' avrbv (SevoKp&TT]) out, comparing Xen. Mem. iv 7. 2 ff. (poirav Hoptuov, t-
[526 D

nAATQNOI

n8

ToiavTa /3pa-%v TI av e^apKol yecofieTpias T€ Kal XoyiafiaJv fiopiov TO Be TTOXV avTrjs Kal iroppwTepco irpoibv aKoireladat, Bel e'i TI E 7rpo? eKelvo reivec, 777509 TO rroieiv KaTiBelv paov TTJV TOV dyadov 30 IBeav. Telvei Be, (pafiev, iravTa avToae, baa dvayicd^ei yfrv^rjv el<; eicelvov TOV TOTTOV /xeTaaTpicpeadai,, ev a> iaTi TO evBaifioveaTarov TOV 6'VTOS, b Bel avTrjv TravTi Tpoirw IBelv. 'OpOcSs, e<prj, Xeyeis. OVKOVV el fiev ovaiav dvayxd^ei dedaaadat, -rrpoarjKei,, el Be yevecnv, ov TrpoaiJKei. afxiv ye 8r/. Ov TO'IVVV TOVTO ye, | J)v B' iya>, 527 dfi(f>taj3r]TrjaovaLV T)pXv b'aoi Kal a/MiKpa yecofieTptcK kfnreipoi, OTI avTT) 7) einaTriiMr) irav TOvvavTiov e%ei Tot? ev aiiTrj Xoyoi<; Xeyofj,evoL<; inrb TWV fieTa^eipi^ofievcov. IIo)?; ecfjtj. Aeyovat, fiev irov S fidXa yeXoico<; Te Kal dvayKaia><;' cb? yap TrpaTTOVTes te Kai irpd£eo>i? eveKa iravra^ TOW Xoyovs Troiovfievoi Xeyovaiv Terpayavl^eiv Te Kal irapaTeiveiv Kal •wpoaTiQevca Kal irdvTa OVTCO <J •28.

irpoibv I I : vpocribv A .

32.

0 I I : oi A 1 : 08 A3 .

5 &va-yKa£cos 'in beggarly fashion' ("nothgedrungenenWeise" Prantl). They are 'hard up' for words to express their meaning, and must consequently use language which does not: cf. vi 510 D. J. and C.'s explanation "with merely practical needs in view" is quite wrong; 527 A 3 OXITT\ r\ lirio-TTJ(jLt) K T \ . : 'the nature of this science is in prenor does the word appear to me to concise contradiction to' etc. irav TOVVO.VTIOV tain " a facetious allusion to geometrical is adverbial, and $xei intransitive. In necessity" (in the sense of V 458 D), what follows Plato is not (as Stallbaum as they assert. Madvig's dxd/fws for strangely supposes) censuring contemavayKaius is a singularly unhappy sugporary geometricians, " sed vitium quodgestion. dam ipsius scientiae" (Schneider, who 7 irapaTeCveiv = ' to apply,' e. g. a refers to VI j i o B—51 x A), for even parallelogram to a given line: cf. Men. those oiroi ml o-/i«pa yeuixerplas (fiirupoi 87 A {irapa rr\v dodeiaav—ypafj.fj.riv irapaagree with him. It is however probable Telvavra. KT\.) with E. S. Thompson's on other grounds that Plato himself was note. Blass takes the same view (de PL afraid lest his pupils should depend too math. p. 19). Euclid's expression for this much on geometrical figures and instruis TrapafiaKkfLV (x 18 ff. and passim: cf. ments; and Plutarch tells us that he Cantor I.e. p. 145). The ordinary transreproved Eudoxus and others for this lation 'produce' (as e.g. a line) has no %'ery fault: a7r6X\w(?cu 7a/) OUTU Kal authority, and Euclid's word for 'prodia8eyyd|j.evoi is said " non sine eleganti geometry). See Rothlauf I.e. pp. 66 ff. quadam irrisione" (Stallbaum): cf. VI and Gow Gk Math. p. 181. 505 c «.

5 2 6 E 31 TO 6v8ai(iove'oTOTov TOU OVTOS is cited by Stumpf (I.e. p. 95 n. 3) in support of his identification of the Idea of Good with God : see on VI 5°5 A. 33 •y&'ten.v. 519 A n.

527 c] B TO 0

TTOAITEIAC Z

119

ecrTi TTOU -rrdv TO fj-ddrj/xa I yvcocr€a><; eveica

TlavTaTTCHTi fiev ohv, ecjtrj.

OVKOVV TOVTO en

it

BtofioXoyrjTeov;

To

•KOIOV ; 'XI? TOV del 6W0? yv
KaX airoWv/x^vov. yeo}fj,eTpt,Krj yvwais

Evo/u.o\6yrjTov, icmv.

'O\KOV

e<j)r)' TOV yap

del 6W09 r]

apa,

^v^?

a> yevvale,

7rpo?

d\r}6eiav e'ii) dv KaX direpyacrTiKov ^>i\oao<j)ov 8iavoia<; irpof TO ava> o-)(eiv a vvu KCLTCO OV Beov e^o^ev. ' O ? olov r e fidXiaTa, er). C 'Xi? olov T ' apa, TJV 8' ' iyco, fidXio-Ta

irpoo~TaKTeov, OVM? ol ev Ty IS

O~OL fj.r)8evl Tpo7T(p yea>/u,eTp(,a<; dj>e^ovTai. 2

1

11. eio/n.o\6yr]Tov I I et yp in m a r g . A : e5 dwfioXoyriT^ov A . d
8 TO 8^: ' whereas': cf. I 340 D n. S27 B 10 TOU ael OVTOS. Plato held the objects of mathematical study to be dfSicc Kal aKlvrfTa ' eternal and unchangeable' (Arist. Met. A 6. 987!= 16: cf. vi 510 cff., VII 526 A «.), but not Ideas. The Platonic meaning of TOV del bvros is certainly not exhausted by the observation that "the truths of every science are always true" (Bosanquet). &ros implies substantial existence, independently of our thoughts, and independently also of particulars. The existence of TO fiaffr;pamcd as Mi^/tara TOW 6VTUV or copies of the Ideas, 'moving in and out o f the material substance of the Universe, which they stamp with an infinite diversity of forms and shapes, is a cardinal doctrine of Plato's physics {Tim. 50 c al.), and Eosanquet appears to me to rob the words of Plato of half their significance, in the fruitless attempt to find in his ontology nothing but what commends itself to certain schools of philosophy in the present day. See v 476 E and App. I. 10 TOO ITOT^ KTX. : 'that which at some particular time is a particular instance of becoming and perishing.' TI

KCL\ ydp TO,

16.

(e.g. Lack. 185 A hkwv yap TTOV rj xpv ^ TavavTla yevoixivmv KT\.): cf. also (with Schneider Addit. p. 57) Procl. in Tim.

136 E TOC—dSiaip^TUi TT6.VTO. 6VTOS

et al. The indeclinable form adds to the emphasis, and indeed TIC6S (if placed after woTi) could hardly stand at all. Schneider translates "des etwas werdenden und vergehenden," apparently taking TI predicatively with yiyvoixivov. But the expression ' that which becomes something' suggests a substratum underlying yiyvdfievov, whereas the only correct antithesis to Sv (TOU del 8 pros) is 7i7^6^ei/o»' itself. Stallbaum wrongly explains TL as " aliqua ratione." A few inferior MSS omit the word. I believe the text is sound, though possibly TL should be accented, as in the exactly similar Aristotelian usage of m " ad significandam TT\V aro^TTjra" (Bonite Ind. Ar. p. 763) e.g. 6 TU tLvdponros. The use of TTOT^ also reminds us of the irori of the Categories.

12 •ye(i)|j.6TpiKii is an adjective (Schneider). 14 o-xetv. The tense is inchoative or ingressive, as usual: see 516 E ». 5 2 7 c 16 KaXXiiroXei. Socrates rallies Glauco on his 'braiftoun.' The word, as J. and C. point out, is full of tenderyiyvofjL4vov = &VTOS (the copula) ytyvojxivov ness and affection. Callipolis was the rivbs, but yiyvojjiimv itself involves the name of several cities in Greece (Papecopula, the presence of which would here Benseler Gr. Eigennam. s.v.), a fact be intolerable. Cf. V 473 D n. and which sufficiently refutes Herwerden's Euthyph. 10 C ef n yiyverai ?J TI rl Trda^ei, oi>x ^ yt-yvbtxtvbv ^
[527C

I2O

irdpepya V

avrov

ov (Tfj.iK.pa. Hoia;

fj 8' 6'?. " A T€ Brj o~v elires, r\v

eyd>, TO Trepl rov -noXefiov, Kal Brj Kal TTJOO? Trdcras fiadrjcret';,

axrre

KiiWiov

d"iro8e%ecrdai, lo-fjuev irov

20 btoicrei r)fifievo<; re yeco/Merpia1; Kal firj. ecprj.

Aevrepov

Brj TOVTO riffSfiev

OTI TW 0X.0) Kal TTUVTI

To) iravTi fuevTot, vrj Ai",

fiddrjfia

rots

veoif;

X. T t Si; I TpLTOv 6wfj,ev dcrTpovofiiav; fj ov SoKel; 'E/10IH yovv, et]' TO yap irepi a>pa$ evaicr6r)TOTepco<; e-^euv Kai fitjvwv Kal 24.

17

a v T o v : v i z . TOU

eixol yovv I I : ifiOL-y' ovv A .

ftf/

1 8 Kal 8rj Kal KTX. See on 526 B. •20 Tipp.€vos T«. Herwerden excises re, comparing 526 D; but the MSS are a safer guide. 5 2 7 c—528 E Shall we prescribe Astronomy as our third subject ? Glauco approves, pointing to its usefulness in practical affairs. After reproving his friend for advocating the Platonic curriculum chiefly on this ground, Socrates observes that the solid should first be studied in itself, and afterwards the solid in motion. In other words Stereometry should precede Astronomy. Although the problems of Stereometry are not yet solved, we may hope for success under proper guidance, and with the support of the State. 621 D ff. On stereometry in the age of Plato see Rothlauf I.e. pp. 69—74, Cantor I.e. pp. 194—202, Tannery Rev. Phil, x (1880) pp. 523 ff. The most famous stereometrical problem of Plato's time was the so-called ' Delian problem ' or duplication of the cube, and it is highly probable that Plato had this question in his mind when he wrote the present chapter. A dramatic poet, whom Valckenaer supposed to be Euripides, had already made allusion to it in the lines ixitcpbv y' IXcifas [ia.aiki.Kov irijKbv r&tpov" 1 <5t7rXd
Tdx« Taov (Nauck

Trag.

Gr. Fr. p .

676). The story runs that the Delians, having been commanded by an oracle to double a certain altar, were in great perplexity, Stairefupafitvovs di robs Trapa r y n\arwi>i kv AKadyj/uq. 7ew/^rpas d^iovv avroh evpeiv T6 $Tyroiiitvov (Eratosthenes, quoted by Eutocius in Archimed. i n pp. 102 ff. Heiberg. See also Plut. de gen. Socr. 7. J79 B—D and de tl ap. Delphos 6.

386 E f., and Johannes Philop. quoted by Sturm Das Delische Problem p. 10). Plato favourably entertained their application, and the students of the Academy set to work with extraordinary enthusiasm. A remarkable stimulus was thereby given to the study of stereometry, and the Delian problem was successfully solved. The anecdote may of course be apocryphal, but we have not the smallest reason for rejecting it. The memory of such incidents is usually cherished with peculiar care in the history of a College, and Eratosthenes (276—194 B.C.) was born only seventy-one years after Plato's death. In any case the duplication of the cube may well have seemed in Plato's time a question of the first importance for the purposes of stereometrical science, for, as Tannery remarks (I.e. p. 256), the duplication of the square, which had already been discovered (Men. 82 B ff.), was believed to be the key to plane problems, and so it was probably surmised that t h e 5nr\atTLa
would give the solution of a whole series of solid problems. English readers will find a short account of this classical airopla with some of its ancient solutions in Rouse Ball's Math. Recreations and Problems pp. 154 if. The most elaborate and exhaustive history of the problem and its solutions in antiquity is that of Sturm Das Delische Problem 1896. 23 cpol yovv. Schneider and others write g/xoiy' ovv (see cr. «.), but ovv is too strongly illative for this passage. Cf. I 335 E n. 24 TO 7ap wtpl KT\. Cf. 526 c K. and Xenophon there quoted, esp. § 4 iX 8i Kal aarpoXoylas tpirelpovs 7/7X TavTijs fj.ivroi /J.^XPl TOV "I«T6S 6 veadcu, KOX re iopxv Kai fi7]vbs Kal iviavrov SOvaffSai yiyvuxsKiw KTK. and infra ras uJpos TSIV v diayiyviio-Kovret. The ana-

527 E] eviavraiv

TTOAITEIAC Z ov

/MOVOV yewpyia

<XTpaT7jyia ov% r\TTov.

ovBe vavri\i,a

<pav\ov,

d\Xa

^aXeTrov

fia8r)fiao~i,v e/cd
' aTroWv/xevov KpeiTTOv tv opaTai.

Bowels Xeyeiv

Kal 25

trpoaTarreiv.

Trio-Tevo-ai, on

Ti y^vx^t

TO 8'

eoriv

iv Toi/rot? Tofc

iicicadaLpeTal re Kal dva%w-

Kal rvcp'Xovpei'ov VTTO TWV aXXa>v eimr/Bev-

acodfjvai

01? fiev

pvpltov

o^ixarwv

raiira

^vvBoxet

ovv

QGOL Be TOVTOV

Plato Kai (' both ') /xrjvQp /cat frmvrwv depends on upas, which is the accusative p l u r a l : cf. Lmus 812 B e6aur$rjTovs Suv yeyoi>4i>cu irepi r e rods pvt)/j.ovs KT\.

Practical astronomy will enable one to tell both the time of month and the time of year by looking at the moon and the sun. For upas ixriv&v cf. also, besides the passage of Xenophon just quoted, Eur. Ale. 449 f. Sirapra KUKXAS avUa Kapveiov irepwiaaeTai wpa ' f/.Tjv6s KT\. Schneider and the English translators take oipas as genitive a n d parallel with ixyvwv KT\., but it is difficult to see what evaiirSrp-oT^pas iXeLV 7 r e / ) ' ^»*au™» can m e a n : for iiri.iJ.iXeiai' Totei&ticu iviauTov Kal ojpQv in VI

488 D is quite different. Schleiermacher translates the passage correctly. F o r this form of the

comparative adverb see I 343 E n. 26 i]8ils tl '• ' you amuse me.' See I 337 D n.

fj,6va> yap dfxr]^dv(o^

/jir}Bafj.y rjo-6rjfievoi eialv,

logy of this passage suggests that in

£vcucr8T|T0T«'pu>s.

7rpoar]Kei, aWa

'H81/? el, rfv B' iyd>, on eoiicas BeBioTi TOIX;

TroXXovif, [ir] Soicf}? axprjcrTO, /xadtjfiaTa ov nravv

121

30

avrw to?

ev

ei/co

spearian vehemence and profusion. Cf. n 365 c n., and see the admirable remarks on metaphor by the author of the treatise 7rept iHpovs 32. 4 TrX'rjdovs Kal T6\/J.T}S fxera(popwv—rd evKaipa Kal fftpoSpa irdOr) Kal TO 'yevvaibi' vtf/os elvai
\&yovTi. The eye of soul is purged of its blindness: its smouldering fires flame forth afresh. To translate " ' is polished ' like a soiled mirror " (J. and C ) , besides being wrong, falls far below the level of Plato's ii^os The chiasmus in iKKaBaiperai—rvtp\otjfj.€vov

adds to the literary

effect. On other readings in this passage see App. VII.

5 2 7 E 32 ois n*" ovv KTX. The logical sequence is somewhat difficult. Do not (says Socrates) be so anxious to per11 n^ SOKTJS KTX. The usefulness of suade ol iroXXoi of the usefulness of our 'useless' studies is a fundamental princurriculum. Its true utility is difficult to ciple in Plato's theory ; and (as Schneider points out) on iv TOVTOIS KT\. is intended understand, and oi TroXXof will not easily be persuaded of it. Those who agree to shew that liberal studies are in the with us about its true utility will highly highest and truest sense useful. approve of your proposals ; but ol TTOXXO£ TO 8' SO-TIV. I 340 D n. will not, for they can see no practical 28 \a\eir6v. Cobet's7ra7X < ^ e7rol '( a f ter advantage (worthy of mention) accruing Nicom. Introd. Ar. i n 7) is a wholly from them. 56£eis Xiyciv attributes the progratuitous change: see App. V I I . posals to Glauco as in D fir) 5OK?;S—irpocr29 «KaoTov. Every human being has Tdrreiv, and aWrjv is said with reference an opyavov if/vxys viz. vovs: it is indeed to TO!/TOU. To the JxpeXia of intellectual the possession of vovs which makes him salvation such persons are blind; and at once truly human and therewithal they cannot see any other, i.e. any practidivine (VI 501 B».). The genitive is much cal w
122

IIAATQNOS

[527 E

r)yijo~ovrai o~e Xeyeiv ovSev dXXrjv yap n V avrcov ov% opwa-iv 35 d^Lav Xoyov MeXlav. cncoTrei ovv avrodev, 7T/30? iroTepow; SiaXeyei,' ff ov I 7rpo? ovherepovs, dXXa cravrov eveica ro fieyiarrov 7rotet 528 Toil? Xoyovs, (f>6ovoi<; fJ-'fjv ou5 av dXXa), ei Tt? Tt, ovvaiTO WK avTwv ovacrdai; O#T<»?, eij, aipovfiai, ifiavTov eveica, TO TrXeio~Tov Xeyeiv Te ica\ ipandv icai aTToicpuveo-Bai. "Avaye TOLVVV, i)V S' iyd>l 5 et? Toinriaw vvv Srj yap OVK opffcSiro e%rj<; eXd/3ofiev Ttj yew/ieTpla. I7e5? Xaj36vTe7] • dXXa TavTa ye, do SwVpare?, So/cel OVTTW 5 OUK opSus: see on rb ixofitvov TOVTOV 5 2 7 E—528 A 35 O"KOTT€I o$v K T \ . 526 c. The subjects ought to follow each ' Very well: make up your mind once for other in the order of their complexity: see all with which of these parties you are App. II. Plato's error was of course discoursing: or are you not addressing deliberately "contrived to emphasize the your remarks to either, but' etc. ? Glauco's principle which it violated " (Bosanquet), insistence on the practical uses of astroand also, it may be added, to enable him nomy may be all very well with a popular to call especial attention to the study of audience, but are out of place in a philoStereometry, on which he laid very great sophical discussion. For this peremptory avrbdw cf. Symp. 213 A. ov irpbs ovde- stress (527 D ».). 7 T|'8t) should be taken with t>v ('alr^povs lit. 'not to neither': cf- the familiar IxdWov rj ov for JUSMOP ij (Kiihner Gr. Gr. ready in revolution '), not (as D. and V.) with \afi6i>Tes. II pp. 771—773). I understand ij—ova5 2 8 i; 8 Sevrepav aii^nv KT\. It is ) even in 10 TavTct •yt—'pvprjcrSai. Plato does naval language 'inhibere,' but 'put out to not of course mean to say that the study of sea,' as in Hdt. VII 100, v m 76 et alStereometry had not yet been invented, and occasionally in Attic (for avi.yeaOa.1). for the subject had already in one form or Cf. avexoJptfG'a-s 528 D. another engaged the attention of the Py-

528 c]

nOAITEIAC Z

a yap, r]v o eycv, ra airia'

on re ovhefiia TTOXI<; evriflws

123 avrd

*Xet' <; £r/Temu ^aXeird ovra, iirLaraTov re heovrai 01 tyTOWTes, avev ov OVK av evpoiev ov irpwrov /xev yeveadai, ^aXeTTOV, eirena

C ravra

icai jevo/xevov,

&>? vvv e^et, OVK av ireiOoivTo ol irepl

^7)rr)Tt.Kot /j,epovov/j,evoi. ' el Se r/r6\i<; oXr) jjvveTrio~TaTol 15

12. TC A-'II: om. A1.

14. OVK—fieyd\oippovoi/ievoi II et in marg. A 2 : om. A 1 .

thagoreans, Anaxagoras and Democritus €VTC|AO>S ? x 6 l : 'holds in honour,' as (Blassl.c.p. 2i, Tannery I.e. X p. 524), not in VIII 548 A. The expression usually to speak of Hippocrates of Chios, who had means 'is honoured' (Xen. An. 11 1. 7): concerned himself in the fifth century B.C. hence dyei. for %xu is proposed by Herwerden, who compares 528 c, 538 E. But with the question of the duplication of the cube (Allman Gk Geometry etc. pp. the error is not an easy one in such a MS as A, and it is safer to keep *x ei a n d take 84 ff.). He only means that its probel c the p h r a s e as = fi/ 71,1x17 ^X ( f- ' " iTi/ifj/ lems had not yet been ' discovered' f ei irjvpijfjdat as in Pythagoras' TjvprjKa.) or ?X ' Hdt. Ill 3, iv eivolq. lx " [Dem.] 284. 11, and Jebb on Soph. Ant. 639) as ayeiv solved. When and by whom the 'Delian ivTlfitos = ayetv iv rtfj.rj (538 E). problem' in particular was definitively solved to the satisfaction of the Academy, 14 10s viiv ? x a belongs no doubt to is not quite clear. The tradition which the following clauses (iv 4I9AK.): but ascribes a solution of it to Plato himsee also on 528 c. self is beset with grave difficulties, as 15 p.t7aXo4>povov(ji€voi is condemned Blass (I.e. pp. 21 — 30) and others have as un-Attic by Cobet ( F . Z . 2 p p . 232, 531); but fj.eya\6(ppo:v, /j.€ya\o(ppo(Ttjvr] are A t t i c , pointed out (see especially Cantor I.e. and Xenophon uses neya\o
nAATQNOI

124

[528 c

ayovcra avrd, ovroi re av Treidoivro, Kal ^vve^w^ ivrovws

^rjrovfieva

i/cavfj ryevoiro OTTT) e ^ e f

re av Kal

iirel Kal vvv viro rdv

TTO^XCSV dri/jLa£6[A,eva Kal KoXovo/xeva, virb Be TC5J/ ^TJTOVVTOJV, \6yov

OVK ixovTow Ka8' 6 ri xprjcrifia, ofJMx; 717)09 airavra ravra j3la W 20 ^a.piroavfjvai. Kat /xev D

of this further meaning. If there is anything in this conjecture, to whom does Plato allude? Not, surely, to himself, although some have suspected the philosopher of blowing his own trumpet in a somewhat similar passage of the Phaedo (78 A): see Lutoslawski's Plato's Logic pp. 263 f. We are told by Plutarch de genio Socratis 7. 579 c that Plato referred the Delian deputation to Eudoxus, telling them that the problem was oif TOI <pavXov

utility of stereometry (as described in 527 D, E ) , and are unwilling to throw their whole hearts into a 'useless' study. 19 piij—avtjavcTai. Hlass (I.e. p. 22) observes that in these words "sine dubio mathematici ex schola Platonis profecti intelligendi sunt." It is just conceivable —though of course no stress should be laid on the conjecture—that vita xapiTos conceals some complimentary allusion to a particular person. If so, Eudoxus may oi)5' afji(3\u diavoias opwtnjSf aicpws St Tas be intended (see above on 528 c). There ypa/inas TjcrKi/yii&jjs (pyov etvaf TOVTO is, it is true, a tradition that Plato and jU^v odv E05o£op adroit rbv Kyidtov Eudoxus had not always been on the best ij rov Kv£iK7)i>bi> 'EXiK&va avvreXiaeiv of terms (Allman Gk Geom. pp. 128 f.), KTX. NOW we know that Eudoxus not but during the visit of Eudoxus to Athens only himself achieved a solution of the between 368 and 361 B.C., they appear Delian problem (Sturm I.e. pp. 32—37), to have worked harmoniously and even but was also, in the fullest sense of the cordially together (ib. pp. 133, 178). See term, 'the founder of scientific Stereoalso 530 A ». But we have no evidence metry ' (Giinther in Miiller's Handbuch V to shew that Eudoxus bore the sobriquet 1, p. 30), and did more for the subject of X"/"si though his character and perthan any of Plato's disciples (Cantor I.e. sonality (see Arist. Eth. Nic. x 2. 1172^ pp. 208—210). For these reasons I think 15 ff.), and even perhaps his name, deit not unlikely that Plato has Eudoxus in served such a compliment. I think Plato his mind. Eudoxus and his pupils seem means merely ' through elegance,' i.e. to have been living and working in the through the inherent elegance of the subAcademy along with the followers of Plato ject : cf. T6 ye iirlxapi Kal ditupepbvTws some time bet ween Plato's second and third lxelT h e use of iiirb is as in inrb Mm visits to Sicily (368 B.C. and 361 B.C. : (pu>vT]v Ippriie a n d t h e l i k e : see Kuhnersee Allman Gk Geometry etc. p. 178), Gerth Gr. Gr. 11 1, p . 523. Badham's and it is a pleasing and I hope pardonable ewiXdpLTa for into x&PiT°s ' s a n unlucky conjecture—I do not claim that it is venture. Dr Jackson suggests that vtb more—to suppose that Plato avails himXdpiros may perhaps mean 'by grace, self of this opportunity to pay a graceful favour,' 'on sufferance': but Glauco's compliment to his fellow-workers. See reply appears to me against this view. also on line 19 below and Introd. § 4. 5 2 8 c, D 20 ovSiv—(|>avijvai: 'be 16 CVTCIXUS d'yowra. The phrase is brought to light,' 'discovered,' 'solved': illustrated by Lobeck Phryti. p. 419. cf. X 602 D a n d ijipijtrdai and tK
528 E]

TTOAITEIAC Z

125

or), k(f>r], TO ye eTru^api ical BiatyepovTox; e%ei,. ehri a vvv Br) e'Xeyes. yeayfierpuav erldr]^. aarpovofiiav

rr/v ft,ev yap wov rov eirnreSov

fiera ravTrjv, vcrTepov 8" dveyoi>pi^a<;. paXXov

fipaBvvW

av!jr)<; fiedoSov, OTL TT) fijTJjffet

E avTrjv fiera yeca/MeTpiav aaTpovojiiav 'Op#&K, er], Xeyeis.

EtVd?, r) S' 6V 29.

e\eyov,

"Lirevhaiv ei;r)<; yap

yeXoioos e^ei,

yap, ovcrav 25

U7rep/3a?

(popav ' ovcrav /3d6ov<;.

TeTapTOv TOLVVV, fjv 6" iya>, Tidci)/J.ev fidd^fia

aaTpovo/j-oav, a>? virap^ovo'r]^ 7roXt? fieTirj.

irpayfiareiav

N o t , fjv 8' iy. E t T a y , e<pr}, TO /u,ev irpoiTov

e^rjv, TW%V TT&VTa Bie^eXOelv Tr)v (jadow;

dWa

Tr)<> vvv 7rapaXenrofiev7j<;, iav

avTrjv

teal 6 ye vvv Brj fioi, w Sw/cpare?, 30

vqi A 2 II 2 S q : Trapa.\nrofj.ivris A 1 !!.

5 2 8 D 2 1 oXXd |ioi KTX. The recapitulation is intended to emphasize once more the principle regulating Plato's sequence of subjects (528 A n. and App. II). 24
with bodies of three dimensions, but in Astronomy we have one additional element, viz. Motion, so that the study of Astronomy, as Plato conceives it, is a degree more complicated than Stereometry, and forms its natural sequel: cf. 528 A, B. Plato's conception of dpiff^TiK^ and yewfj-erpiKri would have commended ffTr€v8o/j.ev TOX^WS, we are apt Tes itself in the main to the mathematicians fipaSweiv ; hence the proverb
126

riAATQNOI

irepl aaTpovofxias &>? <; eiraivovvTi, vvv y av eirabvS). \ iravTi yap /u.01 BoKel BrjXov, ort, avrr] ye avayKa^et 529 ijrvj(f}v et5 TO dvo) opav ical airb TO)V ivOivBe e/ceiae ayet. vIo"&)?, fjy S' iya>, iravTl BrjXov TTXTJV ifioi' i/iot yap ov BOKCC OVTCO<>. 'A\\a 7r<£>iXoaocj)iav 5 dvdyovTes, iravv iroielp icdro) fiXeTreiv. IIco?, er), \ 6 7 e t ? ; OUK ayevv&s /x,oi Botceis, rjv B' iyco, rr)v irepl TO, avco /j,d0r)o~iv Xa/xftdveiv Trapa aavTW r\ EITTC KivBvveveis yap ' Kal e" Tt? iv 6po(f>fj 7TO(/ct'X,-B fiaTa 8eco/u,evo
9.

history of Astronomy as a passionate protest against mere empiricism, and an emphatic if exaggerated vindication of the theoretical side of the science. See also on 529C, D and App. I I . 5 2 8 E—529 A 31 ft i\o
Koijcrei I I : vo-qaeuv A.

particularly Hippias (see Prot. 318 E and cf. Isocr. Pan. 26—28). Inoi—av&yones Plato takes them at their own valuation. For the Greek cf. 511C ^i>xi?s 7re/>ia7WY!) 4K WKTepivrjs rivos i][i£pas els a\y}divfju,Tov 6VTOS obffdv e7rdeo5(H', rju 5i) L\oaolav aXf}9fi
the contrast with the false philosophy to which some would lead the soul, iniyonres preserves the idea of education as an ascent, in harmony with the prevailing metaphor throughout this book. The translation " those who embark on philosophy " (D. and V.) is untenable : so also are the two other versions in J. and C. (' raise astronomy to the rank of a science,' 'refer astronomy to philosophy'), as Shorey—whose view is more nearly correct—has pointed out (A.J. Ph. xvi p. 237)5 OUK a7«vvu>s: ' with a fine audacity,' " n o n sine generosa fiducia" (Schneider), as in Gorg. 492 D OVK

y £ p x and elsewhere. 5 2 9 B, c 7 KivSuvevets yap KTV Glauco conceives of astronomy in exactly the same way as the Aristophanic Socrates ; and this indignant repudiation by the Platonic Socrates is the more intelligible, if (with Nettleship Led. and Rem. 11 p. 274 n.) we suppose that Plato is thinking of the Clouds. Our astronomy (says Plato in effect), our vision upward, is not what Aristophanes made it appear to be, but something very different. See below on &va tcexv&s in B and 0- inrriai viuiv in c.

529 c] evr)ffiic&$.

TTOAITEIAC Z iya> yap

127

av ov Bvvafiao aXXo TO vofiio~ao avco TTOIOVV 10

tyvXV" /3Xe7reti> /jiddt^ia

rj eiceiva, 0 av irepl

TO OV T€ y /cal TO

dopaTOV, idv Te TIS avco Kej(i}va)s rj KOTCO av/j,p.efj,VKCorjfju avTov—iiroaTrjfnjv yap ovSev e%eov TCOV TOIOVTCOV—OVTS avco aXKa icd-rco ainov TTJV yfrv^rjv, Kav i£ VTTToa<> vecov ev yfj tj iv daXaTTy XI.

AOKTJV, e(f>r], e%&)' 6p8to<> yap

Br) e\eye<s Seiv daTpovofilav

/MOO iTreTfKrj^as.

fiavOdveov irapd

^ Kara I I : ij KCLTW A .

5 2 9 B 10 aXX.o TI vo|i£crai. KTX. : 'think any other study one that makes,'

d\\d

a viiv fiavddvovaiv,

/MeXKooev axpeXoficos irpbs a Xeyo/jtev jxadrjcrecyOao; 12.

' /3\eTreiv

fjuavOdvr).

T

15 TTCO$ el

OSe, rjv 8' eyai'

viojv II: [lev A.

CIT' 4 » u t f x i ' '

r l

"

I dirb TT)S 6po
roip ya\ediTy]s Karix^ev.

I t will be ad-

mitted that Plato had some ground for aliud irwovv idque huic loco magis aptum, his anger. I don't in the least care, he says in effect to Aristophanes, whether scilicet non solum facere sive faciendo in your Socrates looks up or down : so long praesentia occupatum esse, sed vim et as he studies aiadifTa, he is not my consuetudinem faciendi habere aliquid Socrates, and I disown your caricature. existimare" (Schneider), irowvv is half adjectival, like crvfirpdpov in Xen. Rep. For the general sense cf. (with J. and C.) Lac. I 6 (quoted by Ast) TOVTO av/xipipov Tim. 91 D. 13 4in.
}

" Aliud esse puto vofilcrac ri TTOIGZV,

X^

&S oSovs I KCLI T6.S irepiopas

128 ravra

TTAATfiNOI fj,ev ra eV TG3 ovpavw

[529c

•jroiiciX/j.aTa, eirelirep ev oparw Treiroi-

5 2 9 c, D 19 TauTa (i^v KTX. 'Yonder embellishments in the heavens, forasmuch as they are wrought in that which is seen with the bodily eye, we should indeed consider more beautiful and perfect than anything visible, but far inferior to those which are genuine and true—far inferior to the movements wherewith essential speed and essential slowness, in true and genuine number and in all true forms, are moved in relation to each other and therewithal make that which is essentially in them to move : the true adornments, which are apprehended by reasoning and the mathematical intelligence, but not by sight.' The clause KaXXi&ra ptv —^Xfl" ' s concessive, and «r«xep iv opart} TreiroLKtXrai gives the reason why rd ev

Platonic astronomer, on the other hand, looks with the eye of Siavoia at the dXt}diva. iroiKtXfuiTa, i.e. at the motions

of true or mathematical stars. These mathematical stars <popas irpbs aWtjKn (ptpcrai iv T<ji d\ri$ii>if

api$/x$, i.e. in

mathematical number, e.g. in 3 and 23 (not three months, etc.), and also h aXiiff((Ti axfiiMfw, i.e. in mathematical orbits, viz. the perfect ellipses which are imperfectly reproduced in the orbits of the visible material planets. Furthermore, although here perhaps our imagination may refuse to follow Plato in his flight, just as the visible Mars in his journey carries with him the yiyvi^va. which he contains, so Plato represents the true stars of mathematical astronomy odpav^ TroLKi\fj.a.Ta iroXv ivdetr&v dXTjOivwv as carrying round with them ret ivbvra, (sc. TroiKt\fia.Tojif), for the dX-^dtva TTOIKLX- i.e. the mathematical realities which are in them. The mathematical counterpart p-ara are wrought, not iv bpartp, but ev vorjTQ, i.e. in the lower vor/rov, with which of Mars, for example, will take with it in its revolution those perfect mathematical and which alone the true astronomer as forms which are imperfectly reproduced such is conversant. See App. I. The clause as TO OV T&XOS—<popds KT\. explains in the canals and snow-caps of the visible Mars. Plato in short conceives of a Tiic dXr)ffiv&v (irouaX/i&Twv), being equivamathematical oipavbs of which the visible lent, as Schneider points out, to TOUT' i(rri, TCIV (popGsv, ds KTX., ' t h a t is, the heavens are but a blurred and imperfect expression in time and space, just as every movements which ' etc. So much for the visible and material triangle is only an relation between the different members of approximation to a true or perfect, i.e. a the sentence. In order to grasp the mathematical, triangle. The following meaning of Plato, we should read the remark of Aristotle's is intended as an sentence aloud, letting the full stress of the voice fall on the words dX-qdiv&v, 6V, objection to Plato's theory, but, according to the doctrine of this part of the Reodaa, aX-qdivy, dXijddtrt and -ovra in r& ivbvra tpipEL. Each of these words is public, Plato would have accepted the criticism as containing a just and true emphatic, and expresses that degree of account of the astronomy which he preTruth or Being which belongs to the scribes : '4TL Si ei' -m irapa ra tUt) KO.1 TO mathematical realities of true astronomy, as opposed to the sensibles or aitrffijTa aiadijTa ra ,uera{ 1) 6r)
about twenty-three, months. In the second place, these planets travel in yiyvbfxeva (not dXrjffri) (7XVIJ-aTay i- e - i n forms or orbits

which belong to the world of yiyvbueva, and as they travel they carry with them the yiyvo/j.eva which they contain, Mars for example his snow-caps and canals. The

by rb ov r&xos Kai rj o8
52 9 E] D KiXrai,

nOAITEIAC Z tcaWicrra

/j,ev rpyelaOai

129

Kal ' dupi^koTwra

Be dXr/8iva>v TTOXV ivBelv,

roiv TOIOVTCOV 20

a? TO OV rd^ot

Kal r) ovcra

ev TO3 dXrjdivcp dpidyt,a> Kal iraai, Tot? dXrjOiai, (fiopw; Te 7T/30? aXXr/\a Kal Biavola

Xr)irrd,

tpeperai

oijret, 8' ov-

, elirov, Trj Trepl rov ovpavov areov

Trjs itpo'i

E ivTvypt

inrb

KaXXiaTa

r) av

o'iei;

OiJ8a/u«9, e<pr/.

TroiKiXiq, TrapaBeiyfiaai

XPV~ 2 5

eKelva jjLadrjaews eveKa, 6fiol,(o<; coairep av e'i Ti?

AaiBdXov

rj I TIVO<S aXXov

Bi,a
a^fiaai

Kal rd evov-ra epei. a Brj Xoyq>

Kal

B7)fuovp
eKTreTrovr/fievois

Biaypaix^acTLV.

av TTOV Ti? e/Aireipos >yea>/teTjOta? IBotv rd

/j,ev e%eiv drrepyaaia, 28.

iarpa themselves, it may be presumed that the iroud\fj.a.Ta kv rip ovpavq in reality denote the stars regarded as moving bodies, i.e., strictly speaking, the movements of the heavenly bodies revolving in their orbits (cf. Tim. 39 D and 40 c) ; and the presumption becomes a certainty when we reach the words TGIV a\i)6ivG>v, as—
yeXolov

rocavra

firjv eirio-KOTrelv ravra

30

A1.

sense to 0o/>ds re irpbs # \ \ ? ; \ a tptperai Kal ra evbvTa (pipei., and no other solution preserves in its full and unimpaired significance the necessary contrast between the astronomy of observation and Plato's form of the science. The place which in popular astronomy is occupied by a yiyvbixevov rdxos, e.g. the'planet Mercury, and a yiyvofxiv-q f3pa$vT-qs, e.g. the planet Mars, is in true astronomy filled by ov rdxos and ova a /3/>a5ur^y. Plato's conception of a true science of Astronomy is a remarkable product of his peculiar half-poetical, half-philosophical imaginative faculty, and differs fundamentally from the theory and practice of the science both in antiquity and now. But it must in fairness be allowed that if a science of astronomy could be constructed on Platonic principles, admitting no element of sense-perception, and deal0aU|Ua% and matical abstractions, it would prove a Eur. Hel. 1102 aaTtpuv iroiKiX/iara, it is better prelude to the study of the dxp&better to hold that Plato adopts the word [lards TE Kai affXTJ^drLffros Kal a.va
TTAATQNOS

13° cnrovBfi, &>9 TTJV dXtjdeiav

[529E

iv ai/rot? X7]TJr6fievov lacov r) BnrXacriuv

rj a \ \ i ) 5 TIVO<;
eivai;

er], 530

Tw OVTI Brj d&TpovofiiKov, rjv 8' iyd>, OVTCI OVK o'iei Tavrbv Treiaea-8at et? T O ? TMV dcrrpcov <popds diroftXeTrovTa; KaXXtara 5 ovpavov

rd TOiavra

Br)fj,iovpj(S avTov re Kai rd

rjnepav ^vfifierplav

vopielv

fiev, a>? olov TE

epya crvarrjcraadaL, OVTW ^weardvai

T&5 TOV

iv ai/T&>" TTJV Be VVKTOS Trpot

Kai TOVTCOV 7r/)o? fifjva Kai fj,ijvo<; 7T/3O? iviavrov

Kai T&v aXXcov aaTpav

7rpo? re ravra

' Kai Trpo? aXXrjXa OVK B

UTOTTOV, otei, r/yTjaerai TOV vofiL^ovra yiyvecrOal TC ravra TCO? Kai ovBafifj ovBev TrapaXXaTreiy,

awfid

re e^ovra

10 Kai fyrelv Travrl Tpoirtp TTJV aXrjOeiav avraiv BoKel, ecf>ri, crov vvv

aKovovri.

&
XajBelv;

TlpoftXrjfiaatv

OVTCO Kai darpovofilav

53O A 2 T
conjectured by Brandt (z. Entw. d. plat. Lehr. v. d. Seclenteilen p. 8) that Plato is thinking of Eudoxus; but there is nothing to suggest a specific reference here, as there was in 528 B, c, and as Eudoxus, " the father of scientific astronomical observation in Greece" was preeminently " a practical observer" (Allman Gk. Geometry etc. p. 142), he would hardly be described by Plato in this passage as T$ 6vn adTpovofAiicds. See also Hirmer jEntst. u.Komp. d. plat. Pol. p. 667. 4 Ta TOiavTa: i-e. 6/jard, awfiaroeLdij. TIO TOV oupavov Sr]|j.i,ovp'Y<^: the Demiurgus of the Timaeus. 5 TI^V %\ VVKTOS KTX. : with which astronomical observation is concerned. Plato's tone is very different in the Timaeus (47 Aff.) as Grote points out (Plato i n p. 235 «., where also an amusing parallel is quoted from Malebranche); but it should be remembered that it is with the educational value of astronomy as a preparation for Dialectic that we are here concerned (note ei ytieX\ofi.f.v—TToiriixuv in B, and see App. II). 7 TOV ctXXw curTpuv: 'the other stars' (Schneider), as ravra shews, not 'the stars besides' (as Stallbaum). Ta«Ta: viz. the Sun and Moon, which make day, night, year, and month. 53O B 9 irapaXXctTTEiv—opupeva is a cardinal principle wi^h Plato: see Tim. 28 A, B, 37 D and especially Pol. •269 D, E. Trap&Wafa is used half-technically of any change or deviation in the courses of the heavenly bodies, as for

del dxrav-

Kai opcofieva,

apa,

' Efiol yovv rjv B' eyai,

fienfiev,

rd K

example in the legend of Atreus (Pol 269 A ) : cf. Tim. 22 c. 10

£TIT€IV depends on S.TOTOI' iiyhoe-

rai, aTOTrov being now taken as neuter. A reference to 525 B». will shew that Madvig's ^T-rjaei (or ^rireh Suv), and Richards' fyrouvTa, with other conjectures, are wholly beside the mark. J. and C. (following Stallbaum) say ^tyrtiv "depends on vo/xl^ofTa with the common ellipse of 5e?f": but delv is not commonly omitted. In f^reiv—\apeiv there is a slight suggestion of something like the historical Socrates' distrust of astronomy (Xen. Mem. iv 7. 6). 11 irpopXtjp.a
roiis \670us (Longinus irepl ilif/ovs 8. 4)1 Plato's views on law in the heavens must have undergone considerable modification before he wrote the Laws: see the striking passage 821 B ff., and Tim. 47 Aff. 12 r d 8' tv T<3 ovpavu id
53OC] C ev rd> ovpavw

TTOAITEIAC Z idcrofiev, el fj,eWo/u,ev I OVTOX; darpovofiia<;

/3avovre'i ^prjaifxov ro (jyvaei (ppovifiov ev rfj ^rv-^r/ e£ H TroWcnr\d<Tiov, e(f>r], TO k'pyov 17 a>? vvv daTpovofielrai, 15 Ol/u,ai, Be ye,

elirov,

zeal raXXa

Kara

TOV CLVTOV

•vpoivov irpocrTa^eiv r)/J,a>;, idv rt r)/j.wv w? vofiofferciov ocf>e\o<; rj. 14. dxpycrov A 2 II: dpxys TOV A 1. will dispense with the starry heavens.' There is a touch of fine audacity, not to say impiety, in Plato's phrase. Greater than the starry heavens is the mind of man. Nettleship {Led. and Rent, 11 pp. 271— 377) and Bosanquet (Companion pp. 190—293) are, as it seems to me, unduly anxious throughout the whole of this episode to minimise and explain away Plato's depreciation of the senses and their objects, although by so doing they can make his theories harmonize more nearly with the views of certain modern philosophers, and possibly also wiih the truth. Krohn(/V. St. pp.170—I74)inclines to the opposite error, although, except perhaps on verbal grounds, Plato would not quarrel with his definition of Platonic astronomy as " die Wissenschaft von den Bewegungen intelligiblen Korper." Plato's Astronomy is in fact a kind of idealised Kinematics, with occasional illustrations from the visible movements of the heavenly bodies (rrj rrepl TQV ovpavbv iroiKtXiq. wapa5ely[j.a(Ti xpr\
16 olfiai 8e yt KT\. 526 c n. 53O C—531 c Next will come the science which is sister to Astronomy, viz. Harmonics. For particulars we will refer to the Pythagoreans, taking care, however, to maintain our leading principles intact. We may ignore the good people who try to determine a minimum interval and unit of measurement by the ear; but the Pythagoreans are also wrong, for it is the numerical ratios of audible consonances which they study. They ought to ascend to problems and examine which numbers are consonant, which not, and why. The science of Harmonics is useless for our purpose if otherwise pursued. 53O c ff. With the science of Har-

monics we reach the end of Plato's irpoiraiSda. Plato's conception of Harmonics is in all respects analogous to his view of Astronomy. We have seen that the visible movements of the celestial bodies are only imperfect copies of those mathematical movements which true Astronomy seeks to apprehend. In like manner, the audible movements which produce audible consonances are imperfect reproductions of those mathematical movements from which result mathematical consonances, and it is these true consonances which the ap/j.oMK6S should study. The methods of pure mathematics are to be employed in Harmonics as well as in Astronomy, and observation and experiment are forbidden. If we criticise Plato from the standpoint of acoustical science, we must allow that he falls into the same error as before, but the emphasis, however exaggerated, which he lays on the mathematical and theoretical element in Harmonics, is not without importance in the history of the science; and we must remember that the study of Harmonics is valuable to Plato only as a preparation for Dialectic. The poetical affinities of the Platonic science of Harmonics are worthy of remark, though this chapter refrains from any allusion to them. It is altogether in harmony with Plato's theory to hold that 'the solemn and divine harmonies of music, heard or learned,' appeal to us so powerfully because they are one expression of those'unheard harmonies' which are also expressed in the sister souls of Nature and of Man (Tim. 35Aff.), and although there is much in Browning's Abt Vogler to which Plato would demur, the idea which inspires that noble poem has its philosophical basis in some such theory as Plato here suggests.

' But here is the finger of God, a flash of the will that can, Existent behind all laws, that made them and lo they are! And I know not, if, save in this, such gift be allowed to man, That out of three sounds he frame, not a fourth sound, but a star. 9—2

nAATQNOI

132 XII.

'AXXa.

fia8rj/u.dTa>T;

yap

ri

e^et?

vTrofivrjcrai

OVK e%
20 vrXeico, rjV 8' eya>, elSr] Trape^erat

[53OC

y

ruv

OVTGMTL.

irpoarjKovruv

OV fir)v 'iv, dXXa

r) (f>opd, a>? iywfiat.

I TvdvTa (few? ocrTt? crocfibs efei elirelv

ra fiev o$v

a Be Kal r/filv Trpotjyavfj, 8110, D

I l o i a 8?;;

IIpo? TOI/TO), rjv 8' €70), dvTL<7Tpo
KivBvvevei,

€(f>rjv, a>? 7rpo? darpovofiiav

ivappoviov

(f>opav w r a trayrfvat,, Kal avrcu

25 at

ewiarrjuab

elvai,

rj 7T&)? iroiovfiev;

rjv 8' e'766, eTreiSr) TTOXV I TO epyov, itceivav Kal el TO aXXo 7rpo? TOVTOW

To irolov;

ireTrijyev, a)? 7rpo?

dWrfXcov

a>9 ot' T6 nu^aYopetot

TXav/cwv, ovy%a)povfit;v. O6 avrcov

Sfifiara

(/>acrt

d8e\at, rive? KCU r}fiel<>, w

OvTay;, ecfyrj. OVKOVV, Trevaofieda, 7rw? Xeyovcn E •jj/iiet? 8e Trapa trdvra

Consider it well: each tone of our scale in itself is nought; It is everywhere in the world—loud, soft, and all is said: Give it to me to use ! I mix it with two in my thought; And there! ye have heard and seen: consider and bow the head!" It is perhaps because he believed that 53O D 22 irpds rouTtj): 'praeter the Soul of the Universe no less than astronomicum tfropas s. motus genus" that of Man is attuned to these eternal (Stallbaum). harmonies, as well as for other reasons, 23 16s irpos dap/j.6nos (popd the air moves more or your own: hence I appeal to you : 'what less quickly etc., and this accounts for suitable study can you suggest?' ' I canthe different pitch etc. of notes: see Tim. not,' says Glauco, 'make any suggestion 67 B, 80 A. ff. and Theo Smyrn. p. 50 straight off.' aXka. ydp ('however' as in Hiller, where this—Pythagorean as well T/ieaet. 144 B, Symp. 120 E) goes closely as Platonic—theory of sound is very with the previous sentence; if it were clearly explained. Cf. also von Jan otherwise, Plato would have added 17;' 5' Musici Scriptures Graeci p p . 130 ft*. cyw or the like. The reading dXXa yap 24 aSeXcjxxC n v e s . Cf. [Archytas] in TI (q Vind. F. Hermann etc.) can hardly Mullach Frag. Phil. Graec. I p . 564 irtfl stand; nor is Steinhart's a\\o ydp TI KTX., re 5^ ray T&V ao~Tpuji> TO-XVTCLTOS KOX iTLTOor Richards' dXXa ydp <SXKo> TI (or \av Kal dvaion/ iraptduiKav dfilv didyvwffiv dXXa ydp <^rt> TI) pleasing or probable. Kal iT€pl ya/ieTplas Kal dpi9fj.(jiv Kal ovx I formerly suggested dX\d ydp TI ?%eis inro[j.vrir)<ns, being in fact, r\ Kara. T6WOV musical matters: cf. i n 400 A. The KlfTjais. Of the genus K.lvr\ais Plato enu- words KOX el TI $XXO irp&s TOUTOIS look like merates ten varieties in Laws 893 B ff.; of a general acknowledgment of obligation (popd in particular some specific dSrf are throughout this part of the Republic to the mentioned by Arist. Eth. Nic. X 3 1174s Pythagoreans. See App. I I . 30 ff.

S3i A] ravTa

TTOAITEIAC Z v\d^ofj,ev TO ri/jLerepoi'.

Tlolov;

133 M J ; TTOT avT&v TI a

iinxetpwcriv tjfilp /u,av0dveiv oy? dpeyjrofj,ei', Kai OVK i^rjKov e'/cetcre 30 dei, ol irdvTa 8el dcj>rJKei,v, olov dpTi Trepl T9J<; darpovofiiwi e\.eyofj,ev. 531 ^ OVK oiaff

oTi Kai 7repl apixovlas

erepov | TOLOVTOV iroiovcn;

yap d.Kovo/j,iva<; av avfx^>wvia
axnrep

ol acrTpovo/xoi irovovcnv.

er), Kai ye\ola><; ye, TrvKvwyMr drra

Ta?

dvafie-

Nrj TOVS Qeovs,

6vo[id£ovTe<; Kai TrapafidX-

30 «£iiKov KTX. The MS reading del, 4 irvKvupaTa KTX. drra (nescio oX gives a weightier and better meaning quae) and bvojxd^ovTes shew that ITVKVJIthan of del, which Richards proposes. For fiara is a technical term. The word d-fiKeiv Eusebius (Praep. Ev. XI v 13. 5) irvKvuixa does not appear to occur elsehas dvtyeiv, also a rare word: Stephanus where in this sense, but TTVKV6V was a conjectured i7)Keiv is better, favourite word with writers of the 'musithough rarer, than either: cf. (with cal' school, as may be seen from its Schneider) d^iKijrai in 531 D. The reconstant employment by Aristoxenus. ference in dpri is to 529 A ff. TrvKvbv is thus defined: rd 4K SOO 5UMTTT]5 3 1 A 1 Tcts yap d.Kovo|i£vas KTX. a GvvredtvTa. '4\O.TTOV The intervals reckoned as consonant (atifip ^ f q ^awa) were such as the octave, double ev Ttjj 5i& Tevaapav (Aristox. octave, fifth and fourth: see on iv 430 E. Harm. 24. 10 ff. Marquard) i.e. any comThese the Pythagoreans 'measure by' bination of two intervals which are to(or 'against') 'one another,' by comgether less than the interval remaining paring the lengths of vibrating strings of in the Fourth when the TTVKV6V is subthe same material, thickness and tension. tracted from the Fourth, e.g. two quarter It is thus found that the octave is 2 : I, tone intervals, or even two semitone the double octave 4 : 1, the fifth 3 : 2, intervals (but not more): see Aristox. I.e. and the fourth 4 : 3 . See Diet, of Ant. 50. 15 ff. The definition in Bacchius II p. [93 with Theo Smyrn. pp. 48—51, /sag. 20 von Jan rb £K 860 Siatrr^/xctrtuy 56—61 Hiller, and Aristox. Harm. 20 ff. i\axlffTojv avyKelfxevov £v eKdur^ yevei Marquard. Richards proposes dXis less exact, but not, so far as it goes, XijXois, but the dative is strictly accurate : inconsistent with that of Aristoxenus. cf. Tim. 39 D r £ TOU TCLVTOV /cat Q/XOIOJS Plato's TrvKViinara must be "haec ipsa 16VTO$ dvafj.erp'qdevTOL K^KX^J. TVKVO. vel alia parva et tamen composita 3 wo"TT€p ot do*Tpov6|xoi. The paralintervalla," so called "propter sonorum lel is exact: as the astronomers studied in angusto spatio quasi confertorum frevisible, so the Pythagoreans investigated quentiam" (Schneider). Cf. TTVKV6TI}S in audible opal (Theo I.e.). To Plato, on Laws 812 D, KaTairvKi>ovLicns the other hand, dp/xoplt] d<pavi}^ <pavepr]S etc. in Theo 91 and often in Aristoxenus, KpeltratM/(Heracl. J?r.47 Bywater). 'Heard and see generally Westphal and Rossharmonies are sweet, but those unheard bach Gr. Harm. etc. pp. 105 ff. It is are sweeter.' See above on 530 c. possible that the musical application of 3 vi^ TOVS 6covs KTX. There were these terms was originally a metaphor two rival schools of musical theory in borrowed from the art of weaving: for Greece, viz. "(1) the Pythagorean or "vestes spatha to/a£,obdensitatem,quam mathematical, who identified each interval inde consequebantur, •WVKV&P.O.TO. dictae with a ratio, (2) the 'musical' (/lovainoi), ap. Aesch. Suppl. 235 iri7r\m
fTAATQNOX

134 5 \ovTes

ra ana, olov t;* yeirovoov

[53IA

<$a>vr)v drjpevofievoi, v Kat

k'ri KaraKuve.LV ev fieaa> rcva. r)-)(r)

<rp,iKpoTaTOv eivat, TOVTO

Bid fieTpTjTeov, 01 Be afx.0€yyo/u.evcov, dfi^oTepoi r)v B' iya>, robs 10 TrapexovTw;

XpTjarov's


cora I TOV VOV irpocn^adfjuevoi. \eyew

rj§»;

Su fiev, B

TOW T
Kal fiacravl^ovTa<;, iirl

iva Be fir) fia/cporepa, r) el/coov yiyvrjrat

royv KOXKOTVWV

GTpeftXovvTw

ifKrjKrpui re irXrjyaiv yiyvo-

fievwv /cat KaTrjyopla<; irepu ical ii;apvr)crea>
01 fiev

aka^oveia*;

(pdeyyof/.fraii' A ' l l : (pdeyy6fJLCvov corr. A'-.

5 olov «K •y^tTovaiv KTX. : 'as if they were trying to catch a sound in the neighbourhood.' Cf- Heliod. I 17 irlvei Be ivravda iK yeirb vwv and Blaydes on Ar. Pint. 435 or Stephanus-Hase Thes. s.v. yeiTtiji>, where numerous examples of this highly idiomatic phrase are quoted. J. and C.'s translation " from a neighbour's house" is incorrect and pointless: still worse is Westphal's "als ob sie die Intervallgrosse dem Nachbarton ablauschen wollen." The idiom was understood by Ficinus, who translates it by "viciniore loco." 01 |«'v ao*iv KTX. Some will have it that they overhear a note between (let us say) B and C, and that this is the smallest interval, and should be the unit of measurement: others say ' N o ! it is not different from B-' Plato (who is all for simplicity in music Laws 812 c) here satirises the novaiKoi, who made the quartertone or dieaLS their unit : see

of the /j.ovi.o-|3i]To{ivT€s. We should expect afupiafiriTovaw (so Theo 6) or else i^apvfjatws Kal dAafove/as, in which the tpaffKovres instead of r\>a.viv above. Cobetbehaviour of the strings is described. would emend, but the anacoluthon is not For the anastrophe of Trtpi see Lina de praeposit. usu Plat. pp. 26—30. The difficult in a writer like Plato : see on vi angry musician is like the prosecutor, and 488 c, D and supra 519 AM. blames the strings, which in their turn 8 (jjBeyyoiitvwv: sc. TOT xop5u^, omitrepudiate the charge and swagger away t e d a s in 7/ dia. ira>. like a stubborn slave however savagely the <3TO. KTX. This bitter epigram was screw is turned. For a further discussion applied by Adrastus to Aristoxenus (Procl. of this passage see App. XI. in Tim. 192 B). The cap fits admirably ; for Aristoxenus was afterwards the leader

53i D]

TTOAITEIAC Z

135

TTJ9 elic6vo<} Kal ov r)/j,i TOVTOVS ov? €(f>a/j.ev vvv Br) irepl dpfiovias C Tot? ev rr) aarpovof^la-

iprj&ecrdai.

Xeyetp, ravTov

' TOVS yap ev TavTais rah

aSX

e'/ceti/ou?

yap TTOIOVCTL

avufycovLais rah

15

a/covofievais dpidfioii? fyrovcriv, aXX' OVK et? TrpoftXrjfiaTa av'iaaiv, iTTio-KO-jretv Tuves i;v[i(f>a>vot, dpidfiol Kal Ttj/e? ov, Kal Bia T'I eKarepoi. Aai/jboviov yap, efyr), irpdyfia Xeyeis. Xp^o-t/iioi' fiev ovv, r)v B' iyci), 7rpo? rrjv rov KaXoi) re Kal ayadov

fjbeTahi(OKOfJi,evov a^prjarov.

^IJTIJCTIV, a\\co<; Be

Et'/co? y, e(j}T).

20

X I I I . Ol/j,ai Be ye, r/v S' iya>, Kal rj TOVTWV irdvrav Sv D Bbe\rf\,v6afji.ev fj-edoSos iav ' fiev ivrl rrjv aWrfXwv Koivcoviav a(f>lKal ^vyyeveiav, Kal ^vXKoyiaOy ravra rj ecrrlv aXXr/Xoi'i , (f>epeiv Tt avrwv et? a /3ov\6fie6a T-qv irpayfiareiav, Kal OVK 14.

ep-qatodai A 2 II 2 S q: alfyqaetrBai. A 1 !! 1 .

16. aviaaiv A2H : aviaaiv A 1.

with the study of mathematical %uv.
and not the fiovaiKol, as Glauco supposed.

TTAATQNOS

136

25 dvovrjTa irovelcrdai,, el Be fir), dvovrjTa. Tevo/j,ai.

dXXa trdfiiroXv

ol Tavra 30 (idXa

eyd>, e<j)T}, OVTCO fiav-

77 OVK io-/j,ev, oTt, iravra

TOV VO/JLOV, OV Bel fiaOeiv;

' Beivol BiaXeKTiKol elvai.

ye Tives oXiyoi

BvvaToi

Kal

epyov Xeyeis, u> ^,o)KpaT€<;. ToO Trpooifdov,

rfv B eyd>, r) TLVOS Xeyeis; ecrTiv avTov

[53ID

ov yap

Ov

'AW

7^077, elirov, furj

r e Kal a"rroBel;ao~0ai Xoyov

iroTe Tt <&v (fiafiev Beiv elBevai;

irpooifua

fia, TOV A t ' , e'0r/, el fir) E

wv eyca evTeTv^rjKa.

Tti'e? 6VT«? Bovval

Taxna

TTOV BOKOVGI ye aoi

elaevOai

OuS' av, ecprj, TOVTO ye. | OVKOVV, 532

elirov, to TXavKtov, OVTO? 77S77 avTO<; icrTiv 6 vofios, ov TO BiaXeyeaOai irepaivei; tXeyofiev 30.

bv Kal ovTa VOIJTOV fiifioiT' av r) TT}? oyfreays Bvvafiif, fjv 7rpo? avTa

rjBrj TO, £&a iiri^eipelv

pi] II: ol pi) A, sed oi punctis notavit A 2 .

airofiXeTreiv

xal

3. irepalvei q: Trapawu AIIS.

ISo^av, quod ipsum Glauconis verbis mafilav andvroiv ava<pavt)vai. del Tip Kara rpdirov fiavddvovTt, ava.avr)
including Vind. F, read aKKh Hi, understanding dotcovvi: but dXXa 5?J is scarcely appropriate here (see on II 365 c), and Schneider's explanation gives a satisfactory meaning to ^Sr/. J. and C. take ijHi) with (XT) dvvaroi rives ovres ('persons who are as yet unable' etc.); but the hyperbaton is too difficult, and the meaning (which Plato would rather have expressed by /tijrw Swarol KT\.) unsuitable. Few will approve of Badham's d\\' ol Sr; KT\. or even of Burnet's dXAii SiJ, dirov, /IT} Swarol drives Sovval re KTX. For the sentiment, which is a commonplace of the Socratic school, cf. Xen. Mem. IV 6. 1, Prot. 336 c, Phaed. 76 B, Crat. 390 C ff. al. 32 ov8' av KTX. ' My answer to this question is also no.' 5 3 2 A 3 irepa£vei.= ' performs': cf. Plut. Crass. 33. 3 avapaKXetivas (Tripatvev eKeiva rd fj.e'XT] Kr\., 'Pirn. 29 D rb fitv ovv irpooi/xiov 6av[ia
Laws 723 E. The metaphor is still from music, though D. and V. erroneously translate "of which dialectical reasoning is the consummation." i]v iXiyopev KTX. It follows that the progress of the prisoner after he has begun to look on real objects outside the Cave represents Dialectic: cf. 516A ». and 532 B.

nOAITEIAC Z

532 B] avra aarpa

re Kal TeXevraiov

orav Tt? TC5 BiaXeyecrdai

137

Br) Trpbs avTov TOV rjXiov;

iiriyetpri

OVTW Kal 5

avev Tvaaoiv TSIV aladrjaeaiv

Bia

TOV Xoyov eir avTo 0 eariv e/caa-Tov opfidv, Kal /JLT) aTroaTrj, irplv B av avTo b '4/JTIV ayaOov ' avrrj vo^crei Xd/3rj, e V avTw ylyveTai TCO TOV vorjTov TeXet, axnrep eicelvo<; TOTS eirl T&> TOV oparov. TlavTaTracri fjuev ovv, e^yq. T t ovv; ov BiaXeKTiKTjv ravTqv TT)V iropeiav 10 KaXeis; T t fJ-ijv; ' H Be ye, rjv 8' iyV GKOWV iirl

TO, ecBayXa Kal TO w<> Kal eK

TOV KaTayeiov et? TOV VfKiov eirdvoBo'i, Kal e/cet 7Tpo? /xev TO, %&d Te 7.

1-KaffTov I I : om. A.

Ast: bpiuj. codd.

9.

rod oparov A 2 II:

O/)OTOO A1-

5 a diTTpa with Baiter; but there is no Ms authority for the article, and its presence is unnecessary even between avra ra fya and avrdv T6V irfKiov. ovria Kal KTX. : ' so also whenever by means of dialectic one attempts through discourse of reason' etc. On TOV X670U

is perfectly definite; and TOIV Tt%vGiv as 8ir]\9o/M€v (532 c) cannot mean anything beyond or except the five studies just described. Nor is this the only passage where the ' turning round' of the prisoners while still in the cave and their gradual ascent are identified with the TrpoTraiBeta, or with part of it: see 521 c. Plato and &vev Traow TWV ai(rdri(re7-6 8 pared with the sun.' Cf. 516 A, B. fri kdTiv dya$6v. For the process here deadwa/iia is due to Iamblichus : see cr. scribed see App. III. n. and cf. Bywater in J. Ph. x p. 78. 5 3 2 B g TOT«. 516 B. Nagelsbach also conjectured IT' dSwa/xia. 11 f\ Si yt KTX. Having described dtaXeKTiKri in terms of the cave-simile, The difference between £ri and eir in an Plato now proceeds to describe his irpo- uncial MS is practically nil. With itpbs Si TO. KT\. the positive counterpart of iraiSdam the same way: cf. 515 c, 516 A nn. Bosanquet finds a difficulty in i] aSvvafiia (fiXiireiv) is to be supplied : cf. Ap. 36 B (where Schanz's insertion of oil X^JIS—tVdvoSos, and thinks it just conafter oi TroWoi is inelegant and unnecesceivable that these words describe the sary) and Kiihner Gr. Gr. 11 p. 1072. training in music and gymnastic and not For ITI with a verbal noun cf. IV 434 c n. the irpoiraiSeta (so also Susemihl Gen. 'Divine' tpavTaap^ara is a half-technical Entw. 11 p. 201). But Plato's language

138

FIAATQNOI

[532B

ical (pvra ical TO TOV rjXiov $&>? eVt dSvvafiia fiXeTreiv, ' TTJOO? & 15 TO, ev vSaai avTda/naTa Oela teal cr/aa9 rSiv OVTO&V, aXX' OVK elScoXcov a/cias St' erepou TOLOVTOV <£«TO9 a>? 7T/3O9 ^Xtov icpiveiv dTroaKia^ofieva^, irdaa avrrf r) irpayfxaTeia TWV re'yywv, «? 6ofj,ev, TavTrjv e'%6' TT/V Bvva/Aiv ical iiravayfoyrjv TOV ev ^rvxfl 717509 TTJV TOV dpiarov ev TOIS oval 6eav, wenrep TOTS TOV 20 (Tacj^eaTaTov ev crcofJMTi Trpo? TT)V TOV cpavoTaTov ev Tip awfiaToeiZel' T6 KOi OpCbTU) TO7TCO.

'E7&) /^6l", e'0??, dlToSe^Oflal,

OVTQ).

KaiTOl D

ivavTa-vraa-'i ye JIOL Soicei ^aXe7ra /iei> aTroheyeaOai eivai, aXXov S' a ? Tpoirov ycLkerrra fir) df7T0^ej(ecr6ai,. b'fia)<> Se—ov ydp ev TG> VVV irapovTi fxovov d/covcrTea,, d\Xd ical av6m iroXXdici,1; eiraviTeov— 25 Tavra OivTet e'xeiv a>? vvv XeyeTai, e V avTov 8rj TOV vofiov i(o/x,ev, ical 8ieX6(ofj,ev OVTCOS, watrep TO irpooifxiov SiijXdofiev. Xeye ovv, Tt'9 6 TpoTro<; T?}? TOV SiaXiye&dat, 8vvd[/,ea)s, /cat ' icaTa wola Sr) £ e'lhr) hte wenrep 6Sov dvdiravka 30 av eli) ical T£XOS T?}? Tropeias. OviceT , T)V 8' iyw, u> (piXe TXaiiKcov, 14. ZTI. aSvva.iJ.la Iamblichus (Villoison Anecd. II p. 196): ew' dSvvanlq. AIIS 2 ^: iirl Suva/da (sic) &1. 26. Si4\6u/xev "S,q: i\Butx.iv A l l .

Platonic phrase for reflections of natural S 3 2 D 23 ow •ydp €v Tip vvv KTX. objects produced by natural lights : they We ought not to interpret this as a \>v> are fleia because deias fpya 7ro«j
nOAITEIAC Z

533 B]

139

533 0I65 T I e
on

OVKOVV

(f>r)vet.ev ifnreipqy TOV;

pep Bel TOIOVTOV TL IBetv, la^vpiaTeov. ical OTI 17 TOV BiaXeyecrdai

hivafjuis

BuoyypL77 fiovrj

OVTI (bv vvv Brj Bir/\8ofi,ev, dXXrj Be ovBafifj

K a i TOUT', ecjir), o^iov

Buo")(ypltleo-6ai.

yap; av 5 Bvva-

ToSe yovv, r)v S' iya>,

B ovBels rjfjuv 1 d/j,t,? avTov ye eKacnov Ttkpi 0 eaTLv e/cacnov aWrj Tt? eiri'^eipe'i fj,e6oSo<; o8o5 ^repi -rravros 2. diroXliroi A 1 !! 1 : a7roXe(7roi A 2 II 2 .

4.

5e? ut videtur Ficinus: 5^ codd.,

exceptis * et Mon. C, qui pro ixev 8rj TOLOVTOV praebent Set /xh TOIOCTO.

the appearance of dogmatism and therefore introduces the expressions 0 ye Sri /xoi

tain. Ideh is unpleasing if we read Sr/, and nev 5ij is not free from difficulty here. aiv€Ta.i etc. (cf. rod ye doKouvTos i[j.ol I.e.)For ixiv without 5^ following see V 475 E n. and TpodvpLas (cf. Trpodvfj.oufi.evos Se KT\. 5 3 3 A, B 7 rdSe -yoCv KT\. Socrates VI 506 D). Krohn [PL St. pp. 179 ff.) proceeds to establish what he has just bitterly complains of Socrates for drawing asserted, viz. that only dialectic can reback ; and Whewell (Phil, of Discovery veal the Good to those who are versed in p. 436) observes " W e may venture to say the propaedeutic ' a r t s ' or sciences. In that it does not appear that he had any this at least (he says) every one will agree answer ready." The dialectical method with us, viz.' that it is some other ixiBorecommended by Plato in the Republic is dos' (different from the five propaedeutic doubtless, in its full significance, an un'arts') 'which endeavours in every case realised ideal (cf. nn. on ipxw o\vvwoto apprehend by scientific procedure con6erov VI 5x0 B and TOO avuirode'Tov 511 B), cerning each several self (e.g. airou KO\OO, just as the ultimate object of Dialectic, avTov diKaiov, etc.) 'that which they the Idea of Good, will still recede as we severally are' (the oiala. of each) e.g. 5 approach it. The description which ?<7Tiy KaXbi/, etc. Cf. 531 D oil 7d.f1 irov follows merely recapitulates the account BoKouai ye aoi oi raura (the five propaealready given in Book VI, with a few deutic 'arts') deivol 5ia\eKTiKol ehat. additional characteristics already familiar Socrates continues: while all the other arts in the Socratic school: but the majority (except TO /ia$rifia.TiK&) address themselves of the Platonic dialogues furnish practical TPOS 56£as avBpw-jruv, etc., even the matheillustrations of many essential features in matical 'arts' give no \6yos of their virodiPlato's dialectical method: so that it is
TTAATQNOI

140

io Xa/u.j3dveiv, a U ' ai fiev dXXai

[533 B

iracrac re^vai

7ra>v Kal eVi^f/ita? elciv, rj 7rpo? yeveceK

rj irpos Sofa? dvdpd).

re ical crvv6i(rei<;, rj irpbs

OepaTreiav TWV (pvofAei>a>v re Kal avvrcdefievcov ai Be \oiirai,

Te Kal Ta? ravrrj 15 ov,

virap

airatrai reTpdaTai,

a? TOV OVTOS TL e(f>a/j,ev emXafx^dvecrdai,

Se dBvvarov

auTat? iheiv, e a ; av inrodetreai

TOVTO? dKivrjTovs ewcn, fir) hvvdfievai i, Tt? firj^avr)

20

XIV. Tropeverai,

^pcofievai

Xoyov SiBovai avrwv.

°'^e> TeXevrr] Se Kal TO. fiera^v yevkaQai;

yeaifieTpia^

I eirofxevas, opdofiev &>? oveipcoTTOvcri fiev irepl TO Q w yap

e£ ov fir] ol&ev

rr)v roiaiiTrjv o/xoXoyiav TTOTB e-7riaTrjfj.rjv

Ov&efila, r) S' 09. OVKOVV, r)v S' iyco, r) SiaXeKTiKr) [j,e0o8o<; fiovrj ravrrj rds

virodecreis

dvaipovcra,

67T avrr)v

TTJV "PXVV, iva

12. airaaou I I : airaaa A. Out of the ruins of the former xnroBtam we built a new and better one, which must in its turn be thoroughly tested, Tim}, a n d eiriMfXijTiKi) o r t h e l i k e ( J . a n d tried, and perhaps overthrown, before it C , comparing Gorg. 463 ff., 501, 502, can serve as a stepping-stone to one Soph. 222 E, 265 ff., Pol. 261 ff.). which is higher, truer and better: cf. 12 TerpoufiaTai is one of Plato's archa534 B, c. Now this process of testing, isms : see on 1 330 B. Such forms are revising, discarding, is not, ideally speaknot found in inscriptions after 410 B.C. ing, complete until we examine the rela(Meisterhans3 p. 166). tions of our t/7r60e<ns of dtnorrjs with all 13 7eu|i(Tpias—TavTT). For the syn- yoyjTd, and in such an examination we tax cf. VI 511 B n. apply the same 'hypothetical method' 5 3 3 c 14 ovttpoJTTOucriKTX. Krohn throughout the whole noetic sphere, test(PI. St. pp. 179—181) accuses Plato of a ing and correcting all our biroBiaeis by sudden volte face in regard to mathematione another. In the final stage, which is cal studies. It is true that the same lanof course only an ideal, all our vTrodtaw guage is used of 5o£a in V 476 C (cf. VII become exact counterparts of the Ideas, 520 c), but there are dreams and dreams, and we have reached the apxv or Good. and we may fairly say that if the Trpoirai- Thereafter the results of Dialectic are fitieia is only a dream in comparison with /3aia: see vi 511 B. The earlier steps Dialectic, at least it is one of those dreams in this dialectical ascent may be illustrated which come through the gates of horn. from many, if not most, of the Platonic 16
viz. of &PXV, TeXcvTri and r& /Jiera^, not

'admissions' (as D. and V. translate): cf. iiio\oyovfi.iv(Ji I.e. •20 OUKOVV KTX. 'Well then,' said I, 'the method of dialectic alone proceeds by the destruction of hypotheses to the actual first principle, in order to make its results secure.' Dialectic examines and cancels (dvaipei) one inrodeais after another, till in the end it reaches the Idea of Good. Suppose for example that 60-10x775 is the subject of discussion. Various iiroBio-eis are proposed, tested, and overthrown.

•K6.VTO. fj.d\i(TT av TO, deiKvtifieva fteTaji&Woi,

at/rd 5 aOrd oti fxerafidWei dvaLpovfxtvov daripov virb dar^pou, civ /AT; T^J TTJV vwodtaiv dvtXetv Kal St' iKeivrjs 5e?£ai. The word is often used in connexion with the Eleatic dialectic, of which Plato's 7) &• iiroffitreois dvaXvtns (Alcin. hag. 7), here described, is a development: see RP7§§95 n. a, 105 A—106, no—115. For other views on this passage see App. XV: and for a farther discussion of the method itself and its permanent value in the history of investigation consult App. Ill-

534 A]

nOAITEIAC Z

D @e/3auoar)Tcu, Kal TW I OVTI ev j3op/36pq> /3ap/3apiKw

141 rivl

TO TTJI

V ru X^ ? 6/A/ia Ka.Topa>pvyfj.ivov r/pefia e'X/cet Kal dvdyei dva), crvvepL6oi
dfj,cf>i,o/37jTr]<Ti<;, 0I9 TOCTOVTWV ' irepi

cme-ty-Ls; b'awv fifilv TrpOKenai. Ov yap ovv, e^rj. 'Apecr/cei ovv. fjv B eyd>, (OGTrep TO irporepov, TY/V fiev Trpa>T7)v fxoipav eTriar^firjv 30 534 KaXelv, Bevripav Be Bidvoiav, | Tpirrjv Be iriariv Kal eUaaiav rerdpTr/v, Kal £vuafj.6Tepa fiev ravra B6£av, ^vvafK^orepa 8' eKelva vorfatv, Kal B6%av fxev Trepl yeveaiv, vor/aiv Be irepl ova'iav, Kal o ri ovaia Trpo<; yevecriv, vorfaw 7rpo? Bo^av, Kal 6 ri v6rjcn<; irpot B6i;av, e-m' 5 ol<; ravra dva\oyiav Kal Bialpeaiv Bi^fj eKarepov, Bo^aarov re Kal IS

29. ^iprj 2 : £0??" a \ \ ' 8 &.v fxbvov 5TJ\OI irpbs T-qv 'Qiv aa
5 3 3 D 22 poppopu. The image is taken from Orphic theology: cf. 11 363 D «. 27 '4v yeTOirpdo-8«v. VI 511 D, E. '4
these words in all MSS except S is discussed in App. XVI. dpco-Kei ovv. See cr. n. Though yovv is in A and S, a majority of MSS read odv, which is alone suitable. The same error occurs in one or more MSS in V 455 E and vi 506 c (Schneider). 5 3 4 A 4 6 TI VOIJCTLS—tlKcurCav. That is to say, in the Simile of the Line (see Fig. ion p. 65), (1) CB : AC :: EB : DC and (2) CB : AC :: CE : AD. We have already seen that CE : EB :: AD : DC (VI 509 Dre.); .". componendo CE + EB : EB :: AD + DC : DC i.e. CB : EB :: AC : DC ; .'. alternando CB : AC •.: EB : DC. This proves (1), and (2) is proved as follows. Since CE : EB ::AD : DC, ;. invertendo EB : CE :: DC :AD; hence componendo EB+CE : CE ::DC+AD : AD i.e. CB : CE :: AC : AD ; .: alternando CB : AC :: CE : AD. I owe this proof to the kindness of a mathematical friend. 5 TI^V 8* e<|>' ots KT\. Liebhold (who also conjectured KOX £TI V6T}(TLS for Kal S TL vbt]in%) makes the extraordinary

nAATQNOI

142

VOTJTOV, e TXavKcov,

[534 A

Xva fj-i) rjfj,as -jroXXaTrXaaiayv Xoyuiv

i/MTrXijar} r) ouwv 01 TrapeXTjXvd6Te<;. ' 'AX\d firjv e/jioiy', kt), rd ye g aXXa, icad' oaov Bxivafjuai eTreadai, gvvBoKei. *H Kal BiaXeKTiicbv 10 KaXels TOV Xoyov kicdcrTov Xafiftdvovra TT}<; ovcLas; Kal TOV py eyovra, Kad' oaov av /JLTJ eyrj Xoyov avTW re Kal aXXq) BiBovat,, Kara TOOOVTOV vovv wepl TOVTOV ov (fnjereis e^eiv; air)v; OVKOVV BiopiaaaOai

15 ayadov

Kal irepl

TOV dyaOov

-rca X07&) airo

IIco? yap av, y S" 6'?,

waavrox;-

o? av fir) e^y

TWV dXXoov -jravrcov dfaXwv

TTJV TOV

IBeav Kal ' wenrep ev ^d-^r] Bid irdvTwv eXeyxa)i> Bie^uitv, firj C 8.

6'<7we S Q '• OITOV

All.

5 3 4 B 9 i] Kdi SiaXeKTiKOV KTX. suggestion r-qv 8' icj> oh ravr' av 8UxV dya\oytav Kal diatpeaiv eKartpov (Phdol. Cf. 531 E n. As far as words go, this 1876 p. 372). The text is of course quite definition of Dialectic might almost have sound and = T7?v bk etp' ots come from the historical Socrates, alTCLVT& < ivriv > avaXoyiav KT\. : cf. VI though of course Xoyov \a/j,§aveiv, oiicria 511 E. I cannot agree with Shorey when and \6yov Siddvai meant less to him than he says (Idea of Good etc. p. 235) that to Plato. Plato "avoids drawing out the proportion 12 ov <j>i^{r£LS = ' negabis.' ov is not ei'5?; : objects of Siavoia = (TKeuaard etc. : here 'nonne.' The interrogation is carried eii<6ves, because he is aware that the on from the last clause. second member is a blank and the fourth 14 8iopCe\iov perhaps sugis largely fantastic." Both of these assergests the b'tatpto'LS, which was an essential tions are in my opinion quite wrong, and part of Plato's dialectical method: see if they were true, Plato would have reApp. I I I . It is noteworthy however frained from drawing out the proportions that the Republic lays far more stress on between the faculties themselves for exavvayuiyr) than on StalpEffis: cf. 537 C, actly the same reasons. See App. I. As Zeller4 11 1. p. 617 n. and App. III. it is, we should take Plato at his word. S 3 4 c 15 uo-irep iv fiaxi) K T ^- : a s He may well decline to enter on the it were in a battle, exhausting every tedious and unprofitable task of expoundelenchus, striving to test his view not ing and illustrating in detail the proporby that which seems, but by that which tions which may be conjectured to obtain is' etc. For 5iot irdvruv—5ie£nip cf. between the different objects of our intelThuc. Ill 45. 3 Sit^tk-qXtidaal ye 5i4 lectual powers. It would for example vacrGiv TWV fij^iiSi' and Parm. 136 E Sia lead to no useful result if we tried to trdvrojv dte^dSov. We apply the Aeyxot establish a proportion between a particular elSos, one of the five /J.a07]f/.ara, a ourselves: cf. e^fXey^u/j.ev in X 610 A. The ordinary interpretation supposes that particular object of Trlans, and a partithe ?Xe7x<" are applied by others ('runcular object of eluacrla. Such attempts ning the gauntlet of all questionings' J. would certainly involve us in an endless and C.); but in that case we must take amount of talk, and would hardly result in anything but a series of barren and yx pedantic formulae and subdivisions. e\4yxovs, which is difficult, because A^yXfv is most naturally interpreted by 8 "rj ocrwv. See cr. n. offuv is read cMyxw just before, and cXtyxw cerby a large majority of MSS, and the con- tainly means tests or elenchi which are fusion of 0 and w is common: see Introd. applied to the theory which the dialec§ 5. The construction (as Schneider tician is himself maintaining. Plato means points out) is -q oadiv \6ywv 01 irapeKTj- that the dialectician tests his view of good 7IV86T€S \6yoc TJ/JJCLS iv^trX'qffat': cf. (with not by 'seeming' i.e. by what 'seems' Schneider) irapa S6£av TOU VVV SOKOV- (good, bad etc.) to the many, but by the litvou VI 490 A. Madvig's 8
535

TTOAITEIAC Z

A]

Kara

oo^av,

TOVTOIS

dXXa

/car' oiiaiav

143

irpo6vfiov/j,evo<; eXey)(eiv,

aiTTWTL TC5 Xoyu> SiaTTopevrjTat,

tyrjGei's eiSevai

TOP OVTOJ? e-^ovra

ovre

ovre dWo

iv Tracri

axiTO TO

ayadov

ayadov

ovSev,
irr) eicxoXov rcvbs idTrTeTai, Bo^rj, OVK iirio-Tij/My i^dirTetrOaL, TOV vvv /3LOV oveipoTroXovvra D 6ai, ei? " ALBOV N?) TOV Ala, row

Kal

Kal virvcoTTovra, irplv ivddB' e^eypea-

' rrpoTepov diKo/j,evov reXeax;

rj B 09, 6Bpa ye irdvra

Tavra

20

eTriKaraBapddveiv; (pijcco.

'AXXa firjv

ye cravTov 7ra(Sa?, 01)5 TW Xoytp Tpe
7TOT6 epyw Tpe? iya>/j.ai, aXoyov; ypa/j,/jid<;, ctp-^ovra'i iv rfj TroXet, Kvpiov; yap ovv, etpr).

ovras

TMV jxeyiaTwv

Nofj,oOeTrjo-ei<; 8r) auTOi? ravTTjs fidXicna

Seia? dvTt,Xafi/3dvecr6ai,

ii; ?*? epardv

E (TTti/xovearaTa olol T eaovrai;

re Kal

Nofio6ETT]aw,

usairep

elvat.

Ov 25

Trjs Trai-

diroKpiveardai

eTn-

I ecf>r], fieTa ye

aov.

^K-p ovv BoKei aoo, e(pT]v iya>, wo-Trep dpiy/cbs TOZS fjLadrjfxaaiv rj BiaXeKTtKrj rjfj.lv eTrdva) KelaBai, dv(DTepu> 6p0a)
iiriTiOeadai,

Kal ovKer' dfOC e^eiv

dXXo TOVTOV jxdQrjixa 30 TJST) TeXo<; ra TWV

535 21

iiriKaraSapffdveiy

2

1

A I I : eTriKaraSapSave'lv (sic) A .

and so forth. The Idea of Good has connexions and relations with all the other Ideas (cf. VI 510 B, 511 E nn.)\ and our knowledge of these may therefore be used to test the accuracy of our conception of Good. Zeller^n i . p . 620K. rightly compares the present passage with Partn. 135 c—136 E: see App. I I I . It is perhaps unnecessary to notice Liebhold's foolish conjecture vbt]
seems unnecessarily far-fetched and frigid, even if we make every allowance for Plato's love of a mathematical jest (cf. Pol. 266 B), as well as for the interest which the subject of irrationals seems to have excited among the mathematicians of his day (see Theaet. 147 D ff. and Cantor I.e. pp. 182, 191, 203). Lucilius (11 20) has the line " vix vivo homini ac monogrammo" ("a dead-alive sketch of an anatomy" Tyrrell Lat. Poetry p. 175), 5 3 4 D 24 OVK ai> cacrais KTX. : and Cicero mocks at Epicurus' gods as ' you will not suffer to be mere irrational "monogrammos" (N.D. 11 59: cf. I 123 quantities, if they are to rule in the city homunculi similem deum — liniamentis and control the higher issues.' 5X0701 dumtaxat extremis, non habitu solido— ypa/j./jmi are irrational magnitudes (cf. praeditum etc., and other passages in Arist. ire pi arbiuav ypafi/u.Sii' o.68b 18), Usener Epicurea p. 234). Perhaps Plato which Greek mathematicians treated means to suggest that his "airy burgo"geometrically through a symbolism of masters," as Milton calls them, would in irrational lines," as in Euclid Bk. X (Gow such a case be only as it were mere silhouGk Math. p. 78). They are 1^X0701 or ettes ("Schattenrisse" Bertram Bilderspr. &ppi)Toi. because " nicht aussprechbar " PL p. 46) of rulers moving blindly to and (Cantor Gesch. d. Math. p. 154 n.), fro in a sort of dreamland (cf. dvetpoTowhereas rational lines are prjral, ' ex\OVVTO. 534 c and 533 c «.). For other pressible ' (cf. Blass de PI. Math. p. 18). views see App. XVII. In its application to Glauco's 'children,' 25 Ttov |X€Y^
T1AATQN0I

144 XV.

Aiavofir)

Toivvv, yv S' iyd), TO Xoitrov aoi, riaiv Tavra TO.

Saxrofiev Kai rlva

Tpoirov.

ArjXov, e<j)rj. yie/J,vr)crai o$v

rr}V Trporepav i/c\.oyr)v T£)V dp^ovrcov, S »f S' 09, ov; olov

Selv

[535 A

To. fxev aXka

rolvvv,

€K\e/CTeas elvaf

otbv? i£e\e$;a/j,ev;

IIw? yap,

f/v 8 iyco, e'/ceiW? r a y v<7ei$

TOW? TS yap

dvSpeioTaTov<; nrpoaLpeTeov ical Kara

f3ef3aioTaTovi

Svvafiiv

TOVS

7T/3O? Be rotiTOK ^rjTTjreov ' fir) fiovov yevvalovs

ical TOVI

evetSeaTaTovf

Te ical j3\o(Jvpov<; B

r a r\Qt), d~Kka aal a TtjSe rfj -rraiheia rfj'i (pvcreci)<; Trp6a
Yiola

BTJ BiaareWei;

Trpos r a /xaOyfiara

Api/j,vT7}Ta,

virdpyeiv

w jia/cdpie,

ical fir) ^a\e7rw?

eyv, Set pavdaveiv

TTOXV yap roi fjbSWov ctiroheiKt.uxTi ^rv^al

ev io")(ypol$ /Madrf/xaciv

r) ev yv/jLvacrioa-

6 7roj/o?, iBio<;, dXX ov

oliceioTepos yap

aurais

6. otov II: olov A. 5 3 5 A—536 B It only remains to apportion these studies and prescribe how they arc to be pursued. Our pupils 7nust possess not only the qualities of stedfastness and courage etc., but also those other natural qualifications which our peculiar course of training demands. These are now enumerated by Socrates. 5 3 5 A 7 5i.avop.ii KTX. Herwerden needlessly and wantonly inserts aKtwria

cf. It 37s A ff. and VI 503 c with Appendix VI to Book VI. eveideVT&rom has not hitherto been mentioned as a qualification of Plato's rulers: for vi 494c cannot be interpreted in such a sense. The word is however certainly genuine: cf. dprijueXeis in 536 B. 5 3 5 B 8 •y evva ' ot) s—TO. ^8t|: ' of noble and masculine characters.' Cf. Theaet. 149 A /iafas jiidXa yevvalas re Kai §\oafter T6 \OLTV6V. avpas, Nicostrat. Frag. 35 ed. Kock v\ 4 Tijv irpoTcpav 6KXOYT}V. I l l 412 ]i ff. Ti)V 'A(ppo5lTi)v, w £6>i7, §\oavpdv ye TTJK 5 <JK€Lvas rds ()>iJir€is KTX. ' I would tpvx^l" ^Xe"> a n ^ Aelian Var. Hist. \i. have you suppose that it must be those 21 transition is natural enough. Mr L. D. avrrjv ^rjrwixiv helv elvat VI 486 D, where Barnett has since supplied me with an see note; but the fact is that Sew is not interesting confirmation from Pollux IV altogether pleonastic in the present pas136 (on tragic masks) 6 de o&\os, |ap06s, sage. Without Seiv we should translate vir^poyKos. at rplxes Tip oyKip TrpoffireirT}' ' that it is those natures' etc. and not ya.oi.v, dippties avariravrai, /3Xo
53<5A]

nOAITEIAC Z

145

(DV fiera TOV crco/xaTO?. 'AX?/#77, e<pr}. Kal fivr\\xova hi) Kal C dpparov Kai I irdvTrj <$>LXOTTOVOV fyrrjreov. fj T'WI Tpoirco o'iei rd re 15 TOV (T(o/j,aTovr]<;. To yovv vvv d/u,dpTrj/j,a, fjv 8' i, Kai rj drtfiia iXo(ro e'Set airTeaOab, dX\d 71/7/0-101/?. 20 D lift)?; e<j>i). TlpwTov fxiv, elirov, tfitXoTroviq ' ov %a)Xbv Bel elvav TOV d^rofievov, TO. fj,ev r)/j,lo-ea <$>LX6TTOVOV, TCL S' rjfjiiaea airovov eaTi Se TOVTO, OTav Tt? (piXoyvftvaffTr)1; fiev Kai (piXodijpos y Kai irdvTa TO, Sia TOV o-a)yu-aTo? (piXoTrovfj, (f>iXofx.a6r)<; Se /u,ij, /j,7)Se (piXijKoos fMjSe tyTr/TiKOS, dXX' iv irdfTL TOVTOIS [UO-OTTOVT} • ^a>A.o? Se Kai 6 Tavav- 25 Tia TOVTOV /j,eTa/3e/3XT]Ka><; Trjv fyCXoTroviav. 'AXydeo-TaTa, erj, Xeyeis. OVKOVV Kai 77730? d"Xrj6eiav, r/v S' 6701, Tavrbv TOVTO E dvdwqpov ^ifvj(r\v 0}jcro/j.ev, ' fj av TO /u,ev eicova-iov -^reOSo? ^crrj Kal ^aXe7rri. K a l Trpo? awtypoovvqv, r)v S' iyco, Kal dvBpelav Kal /AeyaXoTrpeireiav Kal irdvTa TO, T>)9 dpeTr/s 28, 29. /uarj—(pipy A 2 II: ixiael—tpipei A 1 . 15 appaTov. The word itpparoi, which occurs again in Crat. 407 D, is apparently, like fi\oavp6s, an expressive vulgarism de foro arrepHim. There is considerable variety here in the inferior MSS, but the evidence of the Scholiast places the reading beyond doubt, tipparos is explained by Timaeus (s. v.) as laxvpos,
rar' &£tai> avrf/s airTovTcu Dummler sees an allusion to Antisthenes [Antisth. p. 34), but see on 535 D, E. 5 3 5 D 22 dirovov: not [ALffbirovov, although /xiiroirovrj appears below. Plato loves variety as well as uniformity, and Herwerden should not have proposed to w r i t e IXUTOTTOVOV. 23 4>i.\60T]pos. Diiinmler thinks Plato perhaps means Xenophon, who loved the chase; but it is unlikely that any personal reference is intended either here or in 535 c. See also on 535 E. 25 6 — <|>i.\oTrov£av : 'whose love of work has taken the opposite direction.' 5 3 5 E 29 auTij TC Kal KT\. See on auros re Kal—TrapaxaXei IV 427 D. TO 8' aKou'o-iov. See 11 382 A—c. 31 0T|pCov i5«u>v. Dummler again recognises the unhappy Antisthenes, remembering, no doubt, the 'city of pigs.' See however on II 372 D. 5 3 6 A 2 (MYaXo-Trpe'ireiav : 'highmindedness,' not (as Jowett) ' magnificence.' See vi 486 A n. IO

nAATQNOS

146

ov% r/Kia'Ta Bel vXaTTetv rov orav

yap

Tt? fit} iiriarr]Tai

5 7roXt?, XavOavovcri •tvywen,

ra

[S36A

v66ov

roiavra

ffKoirelv

^coXot? Te Kal vodois

OUT&)? e%6tKal -roaavTqv

'H/Aiv Brj, fjv B' eya>, irdvra

TO roiavra

re Kal aprMppovas

Trpbs 0 TI av

K.al fidXa, e
eVt TOcravTrjv //,d6rjcnv B

daKijcriv KOfiiaavTes 7rai,Bevo)fj,ev, ij re BLKT} r)fuv ov

avrrj, TTJV re TTOKIV Kal irokiTeiav eVi. ravTa

rdvavria

iravTa

eVt TrXeto) yeXcora KaravrXijaofiev. iradelv.

/ecu lBuon)i; xal

xpdifievoi,

TOVTGOV, oi fiev i\oK, ol Be apyovcri.

I &)? eav fiev aprifieXeis

Tidvv

re teal TOV yvtftrtov.

fiev ovv, elirov To irolov;

yeXoiov er].

(jwaofxev, aWoiovs

ical irpd^ofxev Ala-^pon

pevr

S' e'7&)76 Kal iv

ra

8e

Kal ^«,X,oo"o0/a? av e'trj, 7) S' 6'?. irapovri eoiica

y

E7reXa06fir)v, t)V ' S' eyco, OTL

3. M A 2 n : S*) A1. 4 Tci roiavTa ("das dazu gehorige " Schneider) is quite general, and means how so-and-so is in respect of the virtues just enumerated: cf. VIII 549 D. The Oxford editors wrongly understand TO. TOiaOra as TO. rijs dpeTrjs ^tfrrf. 5 XavBdvouo-i KT\. : ' they unconsciously use cripples and bastards for any of these services that happen, as friends in the one case, and in the other rulers.' Schneider explains TOOTUV as '' horum negotiorum, hoc est, aliquam ex his, quae dictae sunt, virtutibus requirentium." This is perhaps safer than to understand it merely of the services rendered by friends and rulers. In either case cf. for

nionem hominum atque existimationem philosophiae, quam sequi errorem istum oporteat, spectare et utramque contra, quam dictum optandumque sit, casuram esse significet" (Schneider). 13 •y^ 0 ' 0 1 ' takes up y4\wra just before, hence Kal. My extreme rpodv/j.la, says Socrates in effect, wasfittedto provoke a smile (cf. VI 506 D). iv rep iropovn. The reference is to 535 c and vi 495 c—496 A. After rapbvTL Burnet adds < T I > , needlessly: see on i n 388 D. 5 3 6 B — 5 3 7 C After apologising for his excessive zeal in defence of Philosophy, Socrates lays down his ordiTOVTUV VIII 543 c it. J. and C. have nances. We must select our pupils while rightly noted that "the subject of Tiix^in they are young, and put before them in is the same with that of XavSavovai " : but their boyhood all the propaedeutic studies, they are mistaken in referring roirtnv to taking care to avoid compulsion. At the ra. TTjs apcriis fifii, and in connecting same ti?ne they will be brought on the field irpbs with %wXo?s re KOX vbdois. It is of battle and receive their baptism of fire, certain that XP^^"01- is understood with from eighteen to twenty, gymnastic exer•rfx<>><"> andi if so, irpos can belong only cises claim their zmdivided attention. At to xp&)j.evoi. D. and V. are consistently twenty, those who have proved themselves wrong in the translation of this somewhat the best will enter on a systematic comperplexing little clause. parative study of mathematics etc., lasting 5 3 6 B 8 dpTi|u\cis KTX. For apnten years. fitKeti cf. 535 A. daKTiaiv is of course the 5 3 6 c 14 cira££o|i.Ev. Literature is physical discipline : note the chiasmus. not life, but 'noble play'—irayKiX^v— 9 rj TE 8CKT) KTX.. Cf. vi 487 A where iraibiav—TOV kv \6701s bvva^vov iralfav ovS' dv 6 M.Q/J.OS, ^fjy T ° 7 e TOIOVTOV (Phaedr. 276 E. Cf. also X 599 An.). See Ixifi^atTo similarly concludes the earlier Hirzel der Dialog I p. 180, where this enumeration of qualities necessary to the thoroughly Platonic view is admirably philosophic ruler. expounded. There is a touch of pathos 11 Kal Trpd£o|MV. Kal (which some in Plato's application of it to his own inferior MSS omit) is "paullo insolentius dialogues, recalling to my mind, I know positum, sed ita ut ravavria irdura partim not exactly why, the saying of Isaac ad civitatis conditionem—partim ad opiNewton about gathering pebbles by the

537 A]

TTOAITEIAC Z

Ko.1 fiaXXov

evTeivdfievos

eljrov.

Xiycov yap

147 iipa

ejSXetya

(pi,Xoao(J3iav ical Ihcov 7rpo7reTT'r]XaKi,a/j,evrji> dva^Lco?

7rpo? 15

ayavaKTijcras

fi,oi, 00K0) icon axTTrep 6v/jL(odel<; rot? cttTtoi? cnrovBaioTepov elirelv a Ov fia TOV At', e<j}ri, OVKOVV GJ9 7 ' e/u-ol aKpoarfj.

elirov.

ifioi, r)v 8 eya>, prJTopi.

•kpo-repa eicXoyfi 7rpecr/3vTas i^eXeyofiev,

ev 8e Tavrrj OVK eyya>pr)o~ei • 20

D ^.oXwvi I yap ov Treiareov, a>9 yrfpacKdav Tt? ivoXXa SwaTO? vew, CLKK T)TTOV i) 7peyjc.iv• vewv he TravTes oi peyaXoi TTOVOI. XVI.

'AXX' &>?

roBe he (J-r) eTuXav&ava>/j,eda, OTL ev fiev Trj y.av6a-

ical 01 TTOXXOL

'Avdy/crj, ecj)T]. T a /u,ev TOIVVV Xoyiafiwv

re ical yefo/xerpiwv

ical •waa-tqs

T ^ ? 7rpOTraiSela
E 8(Sa^r}9 TTOtovfAevovs. T t Stj; hovXeia<; TOV eXevdepov

"On,

r\v 8' eyoo, oiSev fiddijfia

XPV f^ctv8dveiv.

irovoi f3ia irovovjjievoi j^elpov

o! fxev yap

25

'AXTJOT), eT).

537 elnov, d> apiaTe, TOVS Traib*a<; ev Tot? /jbaO^aaiv, Tpie, iva ical fiaXXov

' fierd

TOV aoofiaTo<;

ov8ev TO aco/J-a direpyd^ovTai,,

he j3iaiov oiihev efifiouov fidOrjfjui.

21.

iraiaiv

ov% co? eirdvayKe1; yuaQelv TO o-yr\ixa Tr;9

xpr] irpofiahXeiv,

olo<; T yf

\|ruy^

Mr) TOIVVV ft La, 30 dX\d

ira'OfyvTa^

KaOopav £<£' o eicacrTos -wkfyvicev.

2

VtlGTiov A ' S ^ : TTltJTiov A ' l l .

shore, as well as Heraclitus' aliov ircus old man can sooner run than learn." Woiv Si K T \ . Cf. Eur. / . T. 122 ion iraifcuy TTiaaeiwv (Fr. 79 By water). 15 |idXXov «vT«i.vdj«vos- Plato's apofj.6xdos yap ovdels rots v£ois (rKrjipt logy is by no means intended to appease and Theaet. 146 H, Symp. 175 E. 25 iraitrlv oucri KTX. This prelimithe 'bald little tinker' (vi 495 E) and his crew; for he still holds them responsible nary survey is clearly meant to take place for the insults levelled at philosophy (ro<s in the years during which 'Music' and airiots). He is merely apologising, not Gymnastic are chiefly cultivated. See without a characteristic touch of irony, Nettleship Lect. and Rem. 11 p. 290. 26 oii\ t{.v avaynaiov (wepl iixj/ovs select class who naturally love labour and 16. 4). truth. They alone are nature's freemen and must be treated as such in their 20 irpecrPuTas «J«X€-yo(i.«v. i n 412 c. It is quite clear that the Trporepu eKKoyq education, but the compulsory method may be necessary, Plato would say, in is not supplemented but superseded by order to educate others, so far as others the provisions now laid down. Cf. VIII can be educated at all. With the general 543 011. sense cf. Phaedr. 240 c and Theogn. 472 5 3 6 D 21 yrjpacKwv KT\. yrjpdffKW 8' aid TroWa di5acK6/j.cvos Solon Fr. 18 irdv yap avayKaXov XPVf^ avi-qphv %
2

rTAATQNOI

148

o Xeyeis, e(f>r), Xoyov.

[537 A

OVKOVV /AVT)fioveveK, T/V 8' iy<6, OTI Kal

et? TOV TroXe/iov e(f>a/u,ev TOti? iralBa<; elvai

a/creou iirl

S Beaipovs, Kal edv irov dacfraXes y, irpocraKreov

TU>V 'lirirmv

6771/? icai yevcneov

aifiaros,

wcnrep TOVS a/cvXaicas;

TOVTOK,

rjv 8' iya>, Tot? T6 TTOVOK Kal jj,adijfiao~i Kal 0o/3oi9 0? av

Mefj,vr]fiat,, ecj>r). 'Ei> irdat, ty

ivrpeyearaTO^

del (jiaivrjrai, et? dpiOfiov

e$7], rfkucia;

'HvUa,

10 Tat,.

OUTO9 yap

15 fiei^ovi

yvfivacrlcov fiedlev-

KOTTOL yap Kal virvoi fjLaOrjfxaai TroXe/itoc

Kal dfxa fxia /cal avrTj TWV fiaodvaiv TOV ypovov,

iyicpbTeov. ' Ev rivi, B

6 y^povos, edv re Svo edv re Tpua eTrj yiyvr]Tai,

dSvvaTo
riva

r\v S' eyw, TCOV dvay/ca[wv

OVK iXayiarrj,

avelrat,. Urns ydp OVK; 6^)77.

rt? eKaaros iv MeTa Srj TOVTOV

riv 8' iyw, eK TWC eiKoaieroov 01 TrpoKpi6evre<; Tt/ia? T6

T&v aWojv

TratSeia yevifxeva

oiaovTai,

Ta re ' -yy^rjv fjiadijf^aTa Traiciv iv Trj C

TOUTOI? crvva/CTeov et? avvo^nv

Xoov rcov fjbaOrjfjLaTcov Kal rfj<; TOV 6VTO?

OLKeioTrjTO'i dXXi]-

tyvaewi.

r) Toiavrr) ixd6r}o-b<; /3e/3aio? iv oh av iyyevrjTai.

Movrj yovv, elirev, K a t fxeyiaTr] ye,

3. 5 ATI: « A2. 14. elKocneruv Schneider secundum dKotnerwv (sic) Vind. F.: eimai irwv A l l : eiKomv irCiv S ?• 16. 7rai5e(9 S : 7rai5ei? («i:) A : : 7rai5ty corr. A2: ircuSta vel iraiSiq. II ^.

to mean 'in their play'; whereas 536 E 6 3 7 A 4 ?4>a(i€V. V 467 C—E. 8 evTpex6rraTos : ' most agile " in' does not distinguish between 'study' and ("der riihrigste" Schneider). The word 'play' (see note ad loc). Tcudtq. 'boyis rare, and apparently not elsewhere hood ' has also some MS support, and the found in writers of the best period. It existence of the word in Greek is fully occurs in Longinus irepl iixpovs 44. 1 Spi^elat proved by Schneider in his elaborate T€ KOX ivrpexm ((ptiapfj.6aa€Le (sc. %vrea) Kal efrp^ot l6 TOVTOLS OTDvaKT^OV K T \ . TOlirolS d7\aa yvia. (sc. rots irpoKpLdtlffi) goes with GvvaKrkov. S37 B 10 OIJTOS—6 xpovos K T \ . The propaedeutic studies now begin to The compulsory military or militia serbe pursued no longer x^^V> but systemavice of Athenian youth during their eightically and comparatively, so as to reveal teenth and nineteenth years is probably the 'kinship of the studies with one in Plato's mind: see Gilbert Gk. Const. another and with the nature of Being': Ant. E. T. pp. 311—313. cf. 531 D 11., and (for the meaning of 14 TrpoKpi8eVTes. See on 537 u. oUeiiTrjs) 526 C n. Platt would omit 5 3 7 C 15 ev TTJ TTCUSELO.. It is diffi- rujif fj,adr]fj,6.Ttov as a gloss on dXX^Xwf, cult to decide whether Plato in this inbut without these words the Greek might stance wrote TrcudiJ, TraiSip or Tri
538 A]

nOAITEIAC Z

149

rjv 6 eyco, Treipa BiaXeKriKr)^ vo~eay
otaXe/CTt/co?, o Be fir) ov. Swoio/tai, r) 8' 09. Tavra roivvv, r)v S' 20 D iyco, Berjcrei ere i-jriaKoirovvra' o'i av fidXicrra roiovroi e'v airofc docrt, Kal fiovt.fj.oi fiev iv fiaffrj/iaai, fiovi/ioi S' iv TroXefup Kal T019 aXXoi? vo/ufjois, rovrovs av, eireiBav TO TpiaKovra err) eKfSabvtoaiv, e'/c rS>v irpoKpiruv TrpoKpivdfjLevov 619 fiei^ov; re TLfias KaBtardvai Kal GKOirelv rij rov BiaXeyecrdat, Bvvdfiei fSacravi^ovra, Tt9 o/ifidrtov Kal 25 77)9 aXXrjs alaOrjcrewi BwaTos fieOiefievos iir avrb TO OV fier dX7j6eia^ levai. Kal ivravda Br) iroXXr) eraipe. E Tt fidXicrra ; r) 8' 09.

OIIK ivvoeis, ' r)v 8" eyco, ro vvv irepl TO hia-

Xeyeadai KaKov yiyvofievov oaov ylyverai; To irolov; e(j)rj. Uapavofiias TTOV, eij. Olov, r)v S' iyoo, el TK vTTOfSoXifj.ato'i Tpaei,r) 538 eV 7roXXot9 /^.ev ^prjfiaai, 7r0XA.ro Be Kal fj.eydXrp ye\vei Kal TTOXXOIS, avr)p Be yevofievos aladoiro, on ov rovrwi' earl r&v KOVTWV yovecov, TOL19 Be ra> ovri yevv-qcravra^ fir) evpoi, rovrov 23. Toirovsq1:

TOI'ITOIS A IIS ?2-

29- Kaitbv I I : KaXbv A .

19 6 plv yd,p O-VVOTTTIKOS K T \ . Cf. 531 D n.: a l s o Phaedr. 2 6 5 D ff. (is ixlav — iStav avvop&vra dyeiv rd 5ie(Tirap[/.£i>a, Laws X I I 9 6 5 E { a v p )

Phaedr. 273 E, Soph. 253 D ff. and other passages cited by Zeller4 n 1. p. 616 n. 3. See also App. HI. 21 Iv avTois. auTois is masculine (Schneider), not neuter (as D. and V. translate). 5 3 7 D—S4O c At this stage the best proficients will be advanced to higher honours, and tested by Dialectic. Great care must be taken in introducing them to this study; for where the character is immature and weak, dialectical debate too frequently engenders lawlessness, by overthrowing inherited beliefs. We shall therefore forbid such disputations to the young. After five years devoted solely to Dialectic, the next fifteen will be spent in acquiring experience of government and practical affairs. At the age of fifty those who have triumphantly passed through every trial, will thencefonvard contemplate the Good, descending when their turn comes into the Cave to order human institutions after its likeness. All these regu-

30. i/j,Triir\avrai A 2 :

lations apply of course to women as well as to me?i. S 3 7 D 23

IK TIOV irpoKpCnov. irph-

Kpiroi was a familiar term in the organisation of Greek polities: see Arist. Ath. Pol. 8. 1 with Sandys ad loc, and cf. also PI. Laws 753 c f. 25 6|j.(xdTcov—|j.e8i.€')jievos. See VI 511 B n. 5 3 7 E 29 irapavojiCas K T \ . Like

Phidippides in Ar. Clouds 1399 ^

"!

i]8v Katvois •wpdyij.a.inv Kal de^ioZs bfiiXetv | Kal TUIP Kade(TT<Joro}f vbfxijjv vireptppovtlv dtivaudai KT\. Schneider retains efXTi-

TrXarcu (see cr. «.), making the subject rb SiaXiyecrBai, but the present tense ('they become filled with lawlessness') favours the plural. Or does Plato mean that the dialectic of his day was degenerating? I think not; for that is scarcely a reason for exercising special care in connexion with his own (evravda 67) 7roXXT)S u\aK?)s Ipyov). avrovs is not decisive, though it points to the plural, which is also supported by 539 A wapavoixos ST]— 6 £ I 538

A

2

TWV <j>a
yoviav:

'his self-styled parents.' For the omission

RAATQNOI

150 fiavrevaaadat,,

[538A

7rw? av BiareOeir) 71736? T6 rov<; /coXaicas ical vpb<;

5 TOU? vTro/3aXofiivov xpovat, 3> OVK rjBei ra Trepl T»)<J vrroftoXr)*;, ical iv a> av fjBei; r) fiovXei ifiov fiavrevofiivov

a/covaai;

T&ovXofiai, er]. XVII. varepa

Mavrevo/iai,

ical TTJV ' fiqrepa

roivvv, ical row

elirov, fiaXXov avrov

10 KoXaicevovTa*;, /eal TJTTOV fiev av irepuBelv •jrapdvofjbov TI Bpaaai, rj elirelv

rovrov<;

Xiadofxevos

dvelvat

av

roivvv

TO rtfiav

av TOV

evheeis TWOS, TJJTOV he

ei? avToix;,

fj-eyaXa eiceLvoK rj TOIS icoXa^iv, iv EtVo?, ecfirj.

rifxav

aXXovs oi/ceiow? BoicovvTa<; rj TOU? B ?JTTOV Be direiOelv TO,

w xpovqi

TO aXrjOes fir) el&eirj.

TO b'v, ^avrevofiai re

av

KOX
irepl fiev Be T0115

15 KoXaicas i-7rtrelvai ical TreLOeadal re a u r o t ? Bia(f>epovTa><; rj irporepov 1

ical £r)v av rjBr) icar

iicei,vov<;, gvvovra

avrol<; dirapaKaXv'Kruj';, C

7raTpo? Be iiceivov ical roiv aXXcov iroi,ovfievcov oLKeicov, et, fir) iravv e'ir) v
TidvT , e^i), Xe>yeK old wep av


rmv Xoyrov avrrj (f>epet, rj

dXXa, TTT} 7rpo? TOV<; aTrrofievovi

20 elicdiv; Tj7§e.

eart rrov rj/xiv Boy/xara etc iraiBwv irepl Biicai(ov ical

13. al, which Herwerden pro- see Schneider on IV 430 E and Engelposes, is weaker and less emphatic. hardt Anac. PL Spec, m p, 40, where numerous examples of the nominations j «iroPaXo|j.6vous is the reading of A and Cesenas M ; whereas all, or nearly pendens are given. Plato begins as if he all, the other MSS have virofSaWoiitvovs. were going to write 5OK« /JLOI. instead of " A c nescio an qui snppositum sibi alifiavrevofiai.: compare Ap. 11 C 5ia(r/coir& quando filium pro suo habere et venditare ovv TOVTOV—KOX dia.Xeydi/.ei'os afiTtp, Ho^ pergunt, inro(3a\\6fj.ei
S39A]

TTOAITEIAC Z

151

KaXwv, ev ot? €KTedpd/j,fj,e6a wcrrrep virb yovevai,, ireidap^ovvTe^ re D Kal Tifi&vTe? avrd. "Ecrrt yap. OVKOVV Kal ' aXXo. evavTia TOVTOOV e7riTT)o'ev//,aTa rj8ovaTt)jxa eprjTai, Tt, eaTt, TO KOXOV, Kal diroKpcvafievov b TOV vofioderov ijKovev i^eXeyxjj 6 X0709 Kal iroXXaKK Kal iroXXa-)(ri iXey)(ccv elf E &6!;av KaTaftdXr), co<; TOVTO ' ovSev fJ,aX\ov KaXbv rj alcr^pov, Kal irepl BiKauov axraurtu? Kal dyaOov Kal a fidXiaTa rjyev ev Tifj,r), 30 fxeTa TOVTO TI olei iroirjcreiv avTov 7rpo? avTa Tififjs Te Tvepi Kal iret,8ap~fcLa<;; 'AvdyKtj, ecfirj, fj,i]Te Tifiav eTi Ofiolwi /JLIJTB ireiOeadai. "OTav ovv, rjv 8' eyw, /ArJTe TavTa r/yrJTat, Tifjaa Kal otKela wairep 539 irpo TOV, ra Te dXrjdrj firj evpl&Kr), ecrri 7rpo? OTTOIOV /3LOV | dXXov rj TOV KoXaKevovTa EIKOTQ)^ Trpoaj^wprjcreTai,; OXIK eaTiv, e'(j)ij. UapdVO/JLOS 8tj, olfiau, 86^ei yeyovevai eic vo/j.i/xov. 'AvdyKT). OVKOVV, 6<j)T]v, elKot TO ird8o<; TWV OVTQ) Xoya)i> awTOfievayv Kal, b dpTi eXeyov, 7ToXX?75 avyyvu>ixt}<; afyov; K a t iXeov 7', etfyq. OVKOVV iva /xr) 5 ylyvrjTat 6 e'Xeo? OVTO<; irepl TOV? TpcaKOVTOvTas aoi, evXa@ov/j.evq> 29.

28. iJKovev A ' l l : fitcovaev corr. A2^i^-iyXO Kamfiakri S : KaraXafiri A : Kara/SdMi? (sic) II q.

A 1 ! ! : Qe\iy£ri

corr. A 2 .

think it possible enough that the higher 5 3 8 E 33 |«JTe—Tf- See on IV 430 B. education will lead his rulers to criticise 5 3 9 A 2 TOV KoXaKevovTo. is exthe 86-y/xara of the earlier 'musical' trainplained by the Oxford editors as 'the life ing. "But if this criticism is only the that is flattering him,' with reference to negative side of the deepening grasp with 538 D. It is rather, I think, ' the flatterwhich a mature and stedfast mind lays ing life' i.e. the life of the K6XO| (cf. 6 hold on reality, no harm, he urges, will cnroXavimKbs §ios and the like in Arist. be done" (Bosanquet I.e.). We may even Elh. Nic. I 2. 109515 17 ff.). In other go farther and say that Dialectic and its words the epithet which properly belongs ancillary studies are expressly intended to to the person who lives the life is transplace the Guardians in the same position ferred to the life which he lives. Aristotle as the original legislator (VI 497 D) and reminds us that 6 drinayorylis Kal 6 refers not to the puPhaed. 90 B ff. pils, but to Glauco as legislator, who

152

TTAATQNOI

[S39A

l rpoirm TCOV Xoycov d-Kreov; Kai. fidX\ r) B 09. Ap ovv ov fila fiev evXa/3eia avrrj avyyr), TO ' fir) veov<; ovras aiiTcov yevea8ai; g olfxai yap ere ov XeXrjdevai., O'TL oi fieipaidcncoi, OTCLV TO -irpSsTov 10 Xoycov yevcovTai, a>? TraiBia CLVTOIS KaTa^pwvTai, del et? dvTiXoyiav i, Kai /Aifiovfievot, TOU? i%eXey)(pvTa6Bpa Kai ' Tayy ifnrtTrTovcnv et? TO fiTjBev rjyelcrOai wvvep C irpoTepov Kai eK TOVTUIV Br) avTol Te Kai TO b'Xov <^t\ocro0ta? irepi €t? TOV? aXXovs Bia/3effXi]vTai. 'AXrjOecrTaTa, e<pr). 'O Be ty 7rpecr/3vTepo?, r\v B' iyti), T?J? fiev TocavTr)<; jjiavias OVK av eQkXot v, TOV Be BiaXeyea6ai eOeXovTa Kai crKOTrelv TdXrjOes paXXov 17 TO 7ratSta? %dpw irai^ovTa Kai dvTiXeyovTa, /col Te /j.eTpiooTepo'i I eaTai Kai TO iirt,TrjBev/j,a Tifit,a>Tepov avrl D aTifioTepov Troirjcrei. Op&a><;, efyt). OVKOVV Kai r a 7rpoeipr)[iiva TOVTOV e7r' evXa/3e!,q trdvTa irpoeLp7)Tai, TO T « ? (pvcrei<; Koo-fiiovs elvai Kai aTaalfiov<; ot? Td fAeTaBcvcret, TCOV Xoyav, Kai fir) to? vvv 0 25 Tv^aiv Kai ovhev Trpoa-qKcav ep^eTai 67f' avro; JIdvv fiev ovv, e(j)r). X V I I I . 'Ap/cet Br) i-7rl Xoyuiv fieTaXrj-^reu fielvai ivSeXe^w1; Kai firjBev aXXo "wpdrTovTi, dXX' dvTio~Tp6a)t; yvfiva^ofievw Trepl TO aS)(ia yvtivaaiois, STTJ BtTrXdaia r) TOTE; '"Ef, e^>r),r)Yi TeTrapa Xeyeis; 'AyU.eX.et, elirov, irevTe 6e$' fieTa, yap TOVTO 14. iXiy^oicriy A 2 II: fortasse iXeyx^av

A1.

28- ? T ? ) A 2 ^ : in A ^

'meddles with Dialectic' by introducing the Parmenides are a preliminary exercise the Guardians to it. This appears clearly (yv^vaula. 135 D) to be undertaken before both from ei\aj3eia and from ivravda dri we attempt to define Ka\6v re ri Kai SIKCUOH 7roAX?7S
540 c]

nOAITEIAC Z ecrovrai


Kacrreoi ap%eiv rd re irepl TOV TroXe/Aov tcaX oaai vecov apj^ai, Iva /U.T7S' e'/ATreipla vcrTepaxxi TS)V aXXcov

Kal en Kal ev TOVTOLS

ftaaa-

540 viOTeoi, el ifjifjuevovatv eXKOfjuevoi irav\Ta-)(oae fj TI /ecu TzapaKivrjcrova-i. Xpovov

Be, r) 8' 09, irocrov TOVTOV TL8T)<; ;

YlevTetcaiheica err), r)v 8'

e
dvaK\ivavTa<s

TTJV T>)? iJrtn^T}? avyrjv 5

et? avTO dTTojShe-tyaL TO Traao <$>&<; Trape^ov, Kal Ihovras TO dyaOov avTO, irapaBeLyfiaTi xpu/ievovs eiceLva), Kal iroXuv Kal IBiwras Kal B eavToii? ' Koafielv TOV eTriXoiirov j3i,ov ev fiepei eKaarovs, TO fiev iroXv 7rpo5 s 10 eveKa, ov% to? KaXov TL, aXX <w? avayKalov TrpaTTOVTas, /cat our&)? d'XXov; del iraiBevaavra^

TOIOVTOVS, dvTiKaTaXnrovras

(pvXaKav, et? fiaKiipaiv vqaovi

rrjt; 7roXew?

diruovTa's oliceiv fivr)/j,ela B' avrois

C Kal Overlap TTJV TTOXLV Bijfioaia I iroielv, idv Kal r) YlvBLa 9.

2

1

tpi\offo(pig. corr. A' : (pLkoaocpiav A cum ceteris.

i;vvavaipf),

14.

A : l-vmlpri (sic) I I .

time allotted to the TrpoiraiSeia, and sus- to be at least 50 years of age: vofiot di pects that we have here ' a silent confession } /] p^ i5 p(3 that there is not so very much to say about ve&Tepov iru>v irevTT]K0VTa. (Heraclides Fr. the Ideas after all.' (PI. St. p. 187). Hist. Gr. 11 p. 222), but advanced age Five years devoted 4v8e\exws Kal %VVT6VWS was rarely a condition of holding office in to Dialectic exclusively is a good deal; Greek states. See Whibley Gk. Olig. and we may be sure that Plato does not pp. 148 f. intend his Guardians to neglect the sub5 T-qv rrjs il/vx'IS CUJYIJV : ' the radiant ject between 35 and 50, although practical light of the soul.' aiyfj is highly poetic duties occupy most of their time. Morein this sense: cf. Soph. Ajax 70. There over at 50, Dialectic is resumed, and it is is more than a touch of mysticism in this not till then that the Idea of Good is fully and similar passages throughout Books vi apprehended, so that the five years from and VII (cf. especially vi 490 A, B), but 30 to 35 were certainly not thought by it is exaggerated by Krohn (PI. St. p. 187), Plato to exhaust the subject. We must who boldly declares that " the only person also beware of supposing that there is any who correctly understood the later phase break of continuity in the education of of the Republic was Plotinus," and that the Guardians. The study of each pro"the so-called Platonic Dialectic is aMisspaedeutic 'art' by itself prepares us for verstandniss." seeing all the 'arts' in their mutual re7 irapa8£iY|j.aTi KTX. See VI 484 c, lations and interdependence, and the 501 A—c nn. comparative survey of the "arts' in turn 54O B 10 €Ka
15 ft>? Balfioaiv,

el Be /J,rj, o>? evhai^oai

ecprj, TOI
Kal

ra<; dpxovcras

b'aat, av avroov 20 ('era 7 6 irdvTa

licaval

elprjicevat, fiaXXov

rj et?, ev iroXei 25 r/ytjcrdfievoi, -rXeiarov

Ti^ovv;J

Trepi rrj<; vroXew? re Kal 7roXtTe/a? fir)

TravTairairiv

orav

Koivwvqaovaiv,

aXXa

^aXeira

yevofievob

rmv elvai

fiev

TO BiKaiov,

Svvara

Be 7rr), Kal

rificov

om

rj

Ka

Kal ovBevo<; d^i,a
Kal

av%ovTe<; avTo

BiaaKevcoprja-aivTat, fjv 8' eyd, A2 q :

vvv

Kal rets divo TOVTOV

"Oaoi 21.

fiev,

ol &>? aXrj6(0<; iX6
dveXevdepovs

ixev dv,

'Op0co<;, e
a>? BirjXdofjLev.

Tronjadfievoi

dvayKaioraTov

dire'ip-

/xrjBev ydp

a eiprj/ca fj Trepi, yuvaiKtov,

TtW (piio'eis eyylyvmvTat,.

r)fia
UayKaXovs,

avSpiavTOTroio?

ye, fjv 8' iyco, a> VXavKcov.

r o t s dvBpdai

e'4>r]v • ^vy^wpelre

r e zeal deiois.

u> Soj/cpare?, wo-rrep

Tt olov fxe Trepi dvBp&v

aXXy

[S4O C

TTAATfiNOI

154

TOVTW

Tt/xds,

TTJV eavroiv

TrpecrftvTepoi A'll:

' fxeyoarov

Brj inrrjpeTOVVTe'i TTOXLV ;

Tvy^dvuxJi,

Be ical E Te Kal

I I w ? ; e^rj.

BeiceT&v ev T17 II : leu'

£TWV A .

wpoaavaiprj in V 461 E, where the temptation is absent and the MSS right. Burnet says that A" has ^vvavaipyj, I know not on what authority: I found no trace in the MS of anything except %vvcuprj. 15 euSaCpoo-i. If not daifio, then

which Heraclitus passed on the Ephesians for expelling Hermodorus" (Bywater's Heracl. Fr. 114), but the parallel is not very close. Plato's Kadap/iSs is sufficiently explained by the precepts which he himself lays down in vi 501 A : see also Pol. e'u-daifj.oa'LV. 293 D and especially Laws 735 B—736 C, 16 aienrep dvSpiavToiroids* Jowett where he gives an interesting survey of seems to find an allusion to the fact that the various Kadap/xol applicable to comSocrates had been a sculptor; but the monwealths, and 752 B ff. Whether the same words might have been used if he Kaffapfios of the Republic is itself either had not: cf. (with J. and C.) II 361 D. possible or adequate is another matter: 20 «s 8ii]X6o[i.€v. v 451 c ff. Grote pronounces it an djxh (Mato III 54O D— 5 4 1 B Finally, we repeat, our p. 218 «.). An age which had witnessed perfect city is not an idle aspiration, but the StoiKicrfids of Mantinea (Xen. Hell. V capable of being realised, when true philo- 2.7) might well have regarded it as feasible. sophers become kings and educate the young ' Possible, but difficult' is perhaps the safest themselves, after banishing every one above verdict. The purgation, even if successthe age of ten. Our account of the perfect fully applied, might not be sufficient to city and man is now completed. start the city well, but it would be a useful 54O D 7.2 ti\d.s. V 450 D n. auxiliary to that " express initiative force, XdXeird KT\. See VI 502 C n. exceptional and belonging to some peculiar 23 rj irXeCovs rj ets. See on IV 445 D. crisis," which (according to Grote I.e.) 54O E 27 avayKaioTdTov. They will would float the enterprise. Bosanquet admit no compulsion save that of Right; raises the question how far the icadappfc Non civium ardor prava iubentium Non is seriously meant. To me it appears to vultus instantis tyranni Mente quatit solida. be neither more nor less serious than Contrast VI 492 B—493 D. Plato's treatment of the general question 29 bcroL JJLJV av KTX. Newman (Aris- as to the possibility of his ideal city: see totle's Politics 1 p. 413 n.) thinks this pro- on vi 502 c and Hirmer Entstehung u. posal is " a softened version of the sentence Kotnp. d. pi. Pol. p. 638.

541

B]

TTOAITEIAC Z

541 iro\ei, Travras i/CTre/jLyfrcocnv elf roiif irapaXaftovres

| dypovs,

TOU? Se 7raiSa? avrotv 30

6/CTO? TWD VVV r)6Q>v, a Kal ol yovrjs

TO.L ev TOIS o-eTepoi<$ rpo-irous Kal vofioif, ovatv Tore, Kal OVTCO rd^io-rd iXeyo/xev, KaTaaracrav

r e Kal pdara

e^ova, ot'ot? BieXy

TTOXLV T6 Kal iro\iTeiav,

B iyryevrjTai, TrXelcrra ovrjaeiv;

Tlo\v

7', etprj' ' Kal
eiirep 7roT6 yiyvoiTO, So/cet? fiou, a> %(6icpaTe<;, ev elpr/Kevai. ahriv 'rjB'r}, elirov iyw,

ej^ovaiv

f)fjuv ol \6yoi

r)crofiev Selv avrov

elvai.

T6A0C

yevoiro, OVKOVV

irepl TC rfj<; Trd/Vew?

TavT7)<; Kal TOV ofiolov ravTT] dv8po<;; Srj\o<; yap olov

fjv

avT-qv re ev8at,/j.ov>]creiv Kal TO edvos, iv co av 5

TTOV Kal oi>ro<;,

Arj\o?, k'(f)r)' Kal oirep

ipa)Ta<;, 10

Z.

teach the young children, it would be unnecessary and wrong to send them into the country. Jowett seems to forget for the moment that Plato is not here speaking of his own city, but of an actual city which he wishes to transform into his KaWLwoXts. 4 Kai OSTCO KTX. The infinitives still depend on (vyxuPe^Tf5 IX^yoiAtv. Liebhold's \iyofiev is harmless, but unnecessary : cf. 6ie\rj\6dafiei/ rbre above. 5 4 1 B 7 tl'irep TTOT€ -ytyvoiTO. Cf. vi 502 c n. 10 oircp epu-ras refers to Socrates'
«Kir^(i\|/vTai.

Stepha-

nus (with some inferior MS authority) reads the future, which Liebhold also would restore; but 6Vac is carried on. Cf. II 359 B n. 5 4 1 A 31 flp&l/wvTai K T \ . J. and C. accuse Plato of barely considering "how the provision, which he here abruptly introduces, is to be reconciled with what precedes. For how are the children to be taught music and gymnastic when all their elders have been sent away? From what other State are the new teachers to be brought?" Plato is perfectly consistent. The new teachers are ol us aXriBws
APPENDICES TO BOOK VII. I. ON THE SIMILES OF THE LINE AND THE CAVE. The famous similitudes in Books VI and VII have claimed the attention of every writer who has seriously attempted to expound the philosophy of Plato. It must suffice to refer generally to UeberwegHeinze Grundriss% etc. pp. 167—174: and in particular to Whewell, Philosophy of Discovery, pp. 429—448; Sidgwick, Journal of Philology, 11 pp. 96 ff.; Jackson ib. x pp. 132 ff. ; and Shorey On the Idea of Good in Plato's Republic (Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 11 pp. 188—239). The aim of the present Appendix is not polemical, but explanatory, and its scope is limited to an exposition of the difficulties of the subject in a more consecutive and reasoned manner than was possible in the notes. An interpreter ought in the first instance to confine himself to such express statements, hints, and indications as are furnished by Plato himself in the Republic. The evidence of other Platonic dialogues and of Aristotle is certainly admissible, and may prove extremely useful in supplementing and confirming our results; but it ought not to be appealed to until the testimony of the Republic has been heard. I will try to conform to these canons of interpretation. The line is divided into two unequal parts, each of which is subopara sire dc^aarti ('moves

fa etc.

vo-qra

Lower vo-qri. FIG. i.

Higher

THE LINE.

divided according to the proportions of the original section. Thus (Fig. i.) AD: DC:: AC: CB, and CE:EB::AC: CB. CB represents the vo-qrov : and AC is called sometimes bparov, sometimes So^aa-rov. AD Stands for eiKoves, i.e. Trpwrov fiev Tas o-Kias, ?7reiTa TO. IV T01S vSacri ^avTaayAara Kai iv TOIS ocra TTVKVO. re Kai. Xela Kai <£ava

APPENDICES Kai TTO.V TO TOIOIJTOV : DC

TO BOOK VII.

f o r T01 TT€pl ljfj.5.i

157

£<2<X KOU TTOLV TO VTeVTOV KOU TO

0-Kc.vao-Tov oA.ov yeVos (509 D—$10 Ann.). It is clear, therefore, that if Plato means what he says, the objects represented by AD are distinct from those represented by DC, though they are each of them opard (8o£a£o~Tepov clvai TO VTTO TYJS TOV ZuxkiyKrOai hrio-Trifx-^% TOV OVTOS TE « a l VOTJTOV 6(.(apovfnvov rj TO

virb TWV T^XVWV KaXov/jLivmv. Here again, if Plato's words are to be

taken strictly, the objects represented by CE are distinct from those represented by EB. This conclusion is confirmed by 516 A compared with 532 A ff, where the objects of the lower intellectual method are compared with shadows of so-called real things {AD), whereas the higher vorjTa correspond to £UJO. etc. (DC) : cf. 511 E i ols ecn-tv and 534 A. So far, it will scarcely, I think, be denied that Plato's language points to a fourfold division, in which there are two main segments, each with two subsections. This view, which had hitherto been generally approved, was attacked by Jackson on the ground that "the introduction of the first segment is unmeaning and worse than unmeaning, on the assumption that 'the universe is compared to a quadripartite line'" (set Journal of Philology x pp. 132—150). Let us therefore examine the evidence of .the Republic on the subsection AD. AD is part of A C, and A C is called by Plato sometimes So^aoroV and sometimes opon-oV: see 510 A and the other passages cited in my note ad loc. What then is the meaning of So^aoro'v? The word is certainly not synonymous with oparov, and we are surely bound to interpret its meaning here by the meaning which Plato has already given to it in the Republic. Now according to the explanation of Sofa in v 476 B—480 A, So^ao-Tov includes not only the objects of sight and the other senses, but also, for example, TO, TWV TTOXAWI/ TTOWO. vo^jxa «a\ov Te Trepi KOU TWV aWu>v (479 D, with note ad loc). It would appear therefore that AC embraces not only opaTa, but other Sofcurra also, and that among these So^ao-rci are contained inter alia popular canons or opinions on the subject of what is beautiful, ugly, right, wrong etc., as explained in 479 D. If Plato intended us to restrict AC to o'ccu-a, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have used the term opard throughout, instead of employing a word which he has already denned as including not only visibles, but other opinables as well. That visible et/coVes of opard are of little or no metaphysical importance, is doubtless true; but there are other Sofao-T
158

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

opinions are copied from TO. I W 7TOXXCOV TTOWO. VO'/AI/XO. KaXov re irept Kai

rwv aXXuv, or from any other opinions and ' appearances' whatsoever: see vi 492 A—493 E, in 401 B ff., 402 B ff. and x 595 B—602 B. Much the same view is held by Nettleship {Led. and Rent. 11 pp. 242—246) and others, although they have not, I think, sufficiently insisted on the fact that Plato stamps this interpretation as legitimate and correct by calling AC 8o£ao-roV, and including among So£aora (in Book v) not only opard but also ra TWV 7i"oAAd)v iroXXa vo/jn/xa KCLXOV T( Trept KCU TIUV aXXtov. If we now look for confirmations in other dialogues, the Sophist \% ready at hand with its elaborate amount of dKaa-riKt] and ^airaorutq (233 E—236 c, 264 cff.). T h e objects with which these two arts are concerned cannot be placed in any segment of the line except AD, In the Sophist Plato distinguishes between Geia. -iroirjTiKrj and a.v6pu>Trivr\ •KOvtyriKr) (6rj(Tta TO. fi.ev cpvcrtL Xeydfieva iroiticrOai 6tia T£XVV, Ta §' €K TOUTUHI VTT' avOpwTraiv ^vvi(Trdf>.eva avOpwn-ivy, Kal Kara TOVTOV ST) TOV Xdyoi' 8vo TroirjTLKfji; yevr], TO fi.iv avOpunrivov tlvo.1, TO 8« 9tlov 265 E ) , a n d between Oua elSwXowoiiKi] a n d avdpwirivr) eiSa>Xo7ro«K7y ( 2 6 6 B ff. : see o n VII 532 c).

Now the works of avdpumLv-r) (as well as Beta) TTOIYITLKIJ are expressly recognized in DC, which includes oKtvao-To. as well as XoirouK-q, being a subdivision of So£o/ii/u-^o-'s- Compare also, for Poetry, Music, and the imitative arts in general, Laws 669 D ff. It may be noted that this is not the only part of the Republic in which we meet with doctrines and ideas which are more fully developed in the Sophist and other dialogues which are now commonly considered to be relatively late : see on v 476 A. On these grounds I am unable to look upon the first section of the line as in any way otiose or destitute of importance. It would be strange if in an enumeration of the objects of knowledge and opinion Plato should have left no room for the whole domain of 'imitation,' with which, in the Republic and elsewhere, he is continually concerned. In the analogous classification of Phil. 55 D—58 A //.OWIIO? is similarly placed in the lowest of the four divisions: cf. Bosanquet Companion p. 262. The second division of the line need not detain us long. In so far as it is opaTo'v, it includes the originals, whether natural or artificial, of the oparai «IKOV€S in AD. Regarded in its wider meaning, it embraces all the other 8o£aora of which AD presents us with So^aorai UKOVK, and doubtless also more; for we need not suppose that everything in DC has its counterpart in AD. The corresponding state of mind is Tucrrts, or 'belief: cf. Tim. 26 c o ri irtp Trpos yivecriv ovtria, TOVTO irpb's TTta-Tiv dX-qBeia and Gorg. 454 D ff, from which and other passages it is clear that moris (in the widest sense) is the normal attitude of the ct7ratS€VTos towards his Soiaard in general as well as his alcrdrfd in particular. The difference between n-tcrns and elicao-ia., both of which are here regarded as varieties of Sofa, is a varying quantity; for a-urns may be right or wrong. I think the particular contrast which Plato

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

159

has in view is best illustrated by such a case as he himself describes in x 601 D—602 B, where the maker of a <JKIVO% is said to have TTIOTIS

opOrj, tjvvuiv T(o etSoVt /cat dWyKafo'/ucvos aVovEiv irapa rov EISOTOS, whereas the imitator OVTC eto-eTat ovn 6p6a 8o£do-€t, so that his state of mind can only be eiKao-ta. In view of this passage in Book x, we may also (with Bosanquet, Companion, p. 262) compare Phil. 56 B ff. The arts of carpentry, ship-building, house-building etc., as well as 'popular' dpt.9fjirjTiK7], fn.tTprjTtK-)j etc. (56 E—57 D : cf. vii 526 An.) are placed in

the second lowest category of the Phikbus. They are all of them concerned with objects belonging to the second division of the line, and we may therefore take it that the intellectual condition of those who profess and practise these arts is also, according to Plato, Worts. It is about the third division of Plato's line that the greatest disputes have raged. We have already seen that Plato verbally distinguishes between the contents of CE and those of EB. It is difficult to conceive why he should have done so unless he meant them to be really distinct; for the resources of his language were certainly equal to expressing his real view, whatever it was. There is moreover an exact correspondence between the objects of the different psychical affections or states (traO^fnara iv rfj ipvxfj) and the states themselves; and StdVota, which Plato regularly uses in connexion with CE (510 D, 5 I I A, 511c, 511 D, 5 I I E, 526 A, 529 D, 533 D, 533 E, 534 A), is expressly distinguished from roVris or vovs in 511 D. We are, therefore, prepared to find a similar distinction between the objects of the two mental states. What is the positive evidence on the subject ? That the lower voiyrd are the subjects of Plato's propaedeutic studies, viz. mathematical numbers, mathematical plane surfaces, mathematical fidOos, mathematical cf>opalfidOovs,and 'consonant' mathematical numbers, appears from 510c-—-E, 511 A, B, 511 C (-rexiw), 525 C—526 A,^27 B, 532 C (T«XJW) 533 D (TVVtplOoi'S Kai ofjUTrepiayioyois ^p(jofX€v7j at? oir]\Boix£v TC^vai? 1 as €7rto"r^^tas /JLCV TroAAaKts ufjiev Sta TO tOos, Seovrat Bi OKJ/xaros aAAou, Ivapyecrripov fj.kv rj j'S, dfi-vSpoTtpov Sc ^ £iri(TT7]fi.r]s. Stdvotai/ Se avrjjv ev ye T<3 irpocrdev irov

wpia-d.ij.t6a, and 534 A. They are act ovra (see 527 B and cf. 529 c, D nn.\ but nevertheless voWd, i.e. there are many mathematical units etc. ( 5 2 6 A « . ) , many mathematical triangles, squares 1 etc., many mathematical cubes etc., many specimens (if the word may be allowed) of each mathematical 4>opd, many of each particular set of fu/u.<jWot apiOfioi Finally these ixaOrj^ariKa occupy an intermediate position between ala-OrjTa (So£aord) and Ideas. We learn this (1) from their position in the line, (2) from the statement that the mathematical intelligence or Stdvota, which cognizes them, is fjuera^v TI SO'^TJS Te /cat vov 511 D, (3) from the constantly repeated observation that such studies 'tend to drag us towards Being' (i.e. towards EB) etc. 523 A, 525 A, 527 B : cf. also 525 c, 526 B, (4) from the fact that while aurOi^rd are perishable 1 A hasty perusal of 510 D might lead us to suppose that there is but one ' mathematical' square, and even to identify it with the Idea; but see the notes ad loc.

160

APPENDICES

TO BOOK VII.

and iroWd, naOyj/jiaTiKa. are TTOWO. (526 A) and del ovra (527 B)j whereas the Idea is act oV and eV. Aristotle's evidence is in complete accord with these statements of Plato himself in the Republic. T h e relevant passages are cited by Bonitz on Met. A 6. 987 11 14 ff. I n Bi irapa TO. al
IAa.6rjjAa.TiKa Tutv irpayfAaTIDV etvat c^crt (sc. nA.aVcoi') /A(Ta(v, Sia(pepovTa TWV fiev al(r6r]T(jiv T<3 at'Sta zeal aKivrfTa elvai, TCOV S' eiScov T(3 ra ^.ev TTOAA.' a n a OfAoia etvat, TO 8e €tSos avrb iv tt«x
rerum genera posuisse Platonem, sensibilia mathematica ideas, constanter multis locis refert Aristoteles, cf. 9. 992 b 14, B 1. 995 b 16, 2. 99713 12, 6. ioo2 b 12 sqq., Z 2. 102813 19, K 1. 105911 4 sqq., A 1. io69 a 34. Et a sensibilibus quidem rebus differre mathematicas aeterna et immutabili natura (a/aV?jTa b i 6 . . . ) , ab ideis autem eo, quod mathematicae quidem res eiusdem formae indefinitae numero sunt, idea vero quaelibet simpliciter est una, cf. B 6. 1. 1.: TO. fxiv fAo.6rjfAa.TLKa TWV Sevpo (i.e. TWV airr6r]T<2v) dAXw ft€v TIVL $taepei, TCO 8e TOW UTTO. 6fAoei&ij eivat

ovOlv Sio^c'pet. Ita quum sua natura in medio posita sint mathematica inter sensibilia et ideas (fAtra^v b 16), saepe ea Platonico sensu significat hoc ipso vocabulo TO. fACTa£v, cf. 9. 9 9 i b 29, 99213 16, B 2. g97 b 2, 13, 998s1 7, 6. ioo2 b 13, 21, K 1. 1.1., M 2. 1077 s 1 1 " (Bonitz). It maybe desirable to quote one of the numerous criticisms which Aristotle makes on Plato's view of p ^ a n x a , because it appears to allude directly to the educational curriculum of the Republic: m Se a TIS irapa TO. ei8)j xai Ta aia6r)Ta r a fjLera£v 6rjaerai, TroA.A.a.s aVopt'as e£ei. SrjX.ov yap cos djucu'ais ypafAjxai TE Trap' avTa? KOI Tag ais TO Kara TOI/ ovpavov (cf. 529 c, D ««.)—d/xot'eos 8c Kat Trcpt 3>v r) OTTTIKT) irpay[AaTtvnai KOX r'/ iv TOIS Lia6rjfAacriv apfAoviKr) (531 C ft.) KTA. (Afet B 2.

997 b 12 ff., cf. M 2. 107613 11—107713 14). These words are, in my judgment, an altogether just and relevant criticism on Plato from the standpoint of a man of science, and one with which Plato himself, when he wrote the Republic, would not have quarrelled. In spite of this body of evidence, Shorey speaks of " futilissima ilia hariolatio de numeris mathematicis inter numeros sensiles et numeros ideales positis" (de PL id. doctr. p. 33), refuses to attribute the doctrine to Plato, and is surprised that Zeller should have been led astray. The entire theory, according to the American critic, arose from a mistaken interpretation of 523 D—526 E, where avrot ot 6.pi6fAoC (525 D), he declares, are "nihil aliud quam ideae numerorum, sicut aim> TO piyo. est ipsius magnitudinis idea" (I.e.). I have stated my view of avTwv w dpi6/A<2v in the notes on 525 D. Here it need only be said that if avriov TCOV api#/u.(ov, about which mathematicians converse, means Ideas of numbers, then aik6 TO IV (525 D), i.e. the iv about which mathematicians converse (526 A), is the Idea of 'one.' But Plato speaks of a multiplicity of mathematical units: TIWI TTOIW dpi6u.u>v SiaAeVcrfc, iv ots TO (.v otov Vfi.ti% a^LOVTe earTiv, UJOV T« (.Kacnov

cr/AiKpov Stacpipov (526 A).

7rav 7ravTi Kat onoe

Are we then to suppose that there are many

Ideas of ' one' ? It may be added that in his later treatise on ' The

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

161

Idea of Good in Plato's Republic,' Shorey still adheres to his old view. The explanation which I am advocating has the support of Zeller4 11 i. pp. 679 ff., Trendelenburg Plat, de id. et num. doctr. pp. 70—80, Bonitz I.e. and a majority of scholars. To me it appears fully demonstrated by the evidence of the Republic alone; and Aristotle's testimony is a welcome confirmation from a source which is only second in value to Plato's own writings. The ontological theories of the Philebus and Timaeus are, I believe, in harmony with the position here assigned to jua^/xcu-iKa. In the Republic, TO. /xa&jjU.cmKa are the link between ala-6-tjTd. and eiS?;, regarded as objects respectively of sensible apprehension and knowledge ; in the Philebus and especially the Timaeus, they are the cosmological /j.eTa£v TL. The atrta TTJ<; jxi^e.u><s of the Philebus (23 c ff.) is the Idea, and -n-epas in that dialogue is TO /jLaOrj/xaTiKa. Professor G. Schneider has pointed out that Plato "machte fur alle Erscheinungen der Welt und des Geistes das Mathematische zum Gesetze fiir die Verwirklichung des Guten," and the Timaeus is an elaborate commentary on his remark. We see the soul and body of the Universe and Man built up by means of the fiera£v or fnadrj/jLarLKo. of the Republic, dpiO/xrjTiKrj supplying numbers (32 B et al.), Plane Geometry tTrtWSa (5308'.), Stereometry ~/3d6r) (54 E ff.), Astronomy <j>opal /3ai9ous (36 c ff., 39 A ff., 40 c ff.), and Harmonics the £vfjMJ>u>voL dpid/Aoi (35Bff.), according to which the Souls of the world and m a n are framed. T h e dcriovTa KOU i^iovra, roiv ovnav aei /j,L/x.-i]fxaTa, TV7r(i)9evT<x a.7r avrwv rpoirov TWO. ovc^fipao'TOv Ktxi OavfxatjTov (50 c), which

enter into the iKpayelov and leave it according as mortal things arise and perish, are nothing but mathematical forms—the contents of CE. It is impossible to pursue the subject farther here; but reference may be made to F. Schmitt's Dissertation on die Verschiedenheit d. Ideenlehre in PI. Rep. u. Phil. (Giessen 1891) and G. Schneider's admirable work on Das Princip d. Maasses in d. PI. Philos. (Gera 1878), where this interpretation of the Philebus and Timaeus is expounded and justified in detail. There remains the further question whether these ixaOrj/xaTiKa have, like the Ideas themselves, a real and substantial existence, apart from, as well as in, sensible particulars. Plato speaks of the object of geometrical Study as dei ov, ov TTOTZ TI yiyv6jx.€vov KOX di

(527 B n. : cf. 529 c, T>nn.), and in the Timaeus (I.e.) they are KCU
x62

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

points without magnitude; no lines without breadth, nor perfectly straight; no circles with all their radii exactly equal, nor squares with all their angles perfectly right." The "really existent" lines, angles, and figures are those which we apprehend through the senses, and "the definitions, as they are called, must be regarded as some of our first and most obvious generalisations concerning those natural objects " {Logic, Book II ch. 5 § i). To Plato, on the other hand, the "really existent" straight lines are just those of which the definition speaks : whereas visible lines and magnitudes do not exist, but only 'become.' It is the true fiaOrjuaTLKa. described in his definitions of mathematical science which the ytw/xeTpiKos investigates, and if they do not correspond with the forms which we see, so much the worse for Nature ! The fault lies not with them nor with the Siy/xtoupyds, but with the conditions of finite existence : ^fxiy^ivq

yap rj rovSe TOO Kou/xov yivf.cn's i£ dvdyK-q<s re ml

vov o"i)(7Ta(re(i)s iytwrfOrf (Tim. 48 A). If the interpretation which I have given is correct, we can at once see why Plato m a k e s t h e study of ixaBrnj.wn.Ko. his TrpotraihzLa.

™ fiaB-r]-

fjMTiKa are, objectively and de facto, according to Plato, the 'golden chain' between Ideas and particulars, and he who would ascend to Ideas must climb by the ladder which the Architect of the Universe—Qfxi
APPENDICES

TO BOOK VII.

163

speculative flights of Plato. We may compare not only the lines of Milton {Paradise lost, vn 221 ff.) " Him all his train Followed in bright procession, to behold Creation, and the wonders of his might. Then stayed the fervid wheels, and in his hand He took the golden compasses, prepared In God's eternal store, to circumscribe This Universe, and all created things. One foot he centred, and the other turned Round through the vast profundity obscure, And said, 'Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds; This be thy just circumference, O world'!";

but also the famous passage in Isaiah xl 12 "Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?" For special discussions on 'The propaedeutic studies of the Republic' and ' On Plato's Dialectic' see Appendices II and III. The view which I take of the simile of the Cave and its connexion with that of the Line is fully explained in the notes on Book vn (514A, B, 515 A, 515C, 516 A—C,5I7 .4,517 D, 519 B, C, 520C, 532 A—C). It is only necessary to add here that Jowett and Campbell's interpretation (Vol. n pp. 14—18, in pp. 315—317 and elsewhere) appears to me somewhat seriously wrong in regard to the dydXfuara or eiScoAu of the allegory, which, according to Campbell, " constitute a lower stage of the ideal which in Plato's language is alone the real, not the immediately visible, but the truth of phenomena, the eV ori iroWuiv eKaorwv ™v ala-Orp-uiv, the infima species, the first intention of the ev Aoyioyxw £waipavfuevov" (11 p. 17). Jowett, if I understand him rightly, goes even farther, and apparently regards some of the propaedeutic studies as symbolized by the eiSioAa (in pp. 316, 317). It seems to me quite clear from the general proportions of the simile (514A;/.) that the ciSoiAa in the cave represent nothing beyond the higher dpwjueva and the higher So^acrra (517 A, 532 B, c nn.), which are emphatically -n-oXkd and not tv i-n-l TTOAACCV, still less " the world as conceived of by the mathematician " (Jowett), which might possibly be figured as a ^>avrao-/xa Oelov (532 c «.), but certainly n o t as a c K s v a i r i o v ciStoAov: TOV yap del OVTO% TJ yetDfj-eTpLKq yvwcris i&riv (527 B ) '

II. ON THE PROPAEDEUTIC STUDIES OF THE REPUBLIC. Plato's higher scheme of education has formed the subject of a large number of dissertations and articles, besides the attention which it has received at the hands of commentators and historians of philosophy. The best and ablest discussion of the method and general principles of the system is still, I think, Nettleship's article in Hellenica (pp. 135—180), to which the second volume of his Lectures and Remains 11—2

164

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

(pp. 238—294) is a welcome supplement. Tannery's articles in the Revue Philosophique (x pp. 517 ff. and xi pp. 283 ff.) are concerned chiefly with the scientific aspect of Plato's curriculum. The mathematical difficulties have been to a large extent cleared up by historians of mathematics, and other authors of special monographs mentioned in t h e notes.

T h e o ' s treatise Trepi rwv Kara TO /xadrjfxaTiKov x/oijo-i/Acov eis

TYJV nXaraivos avayvtaa-Lv, which Dupuis has edited and translated (Paris 1892), will be found extremely useful, all the more so that it is largely a compilation from earlier sources. In this appendix I propose to touch on some questions which could not be adequately treated in the notes. The novelty of Plato's curriculum lies in the interpretation which he puts upon the subjects prescribed, and in his conception of scientific method, rather than in his selection of studies to be pursued. It will be observed that he confesses his debt to the Pythagoreans (530 En.); and, as Tannery points out (I.e. x pp. 521 ff.: cf. Diels Box. Gr. 555. 17), there is no reason to doubt that the Pythagoreans made use of a quadrivium

e m b r a c i n g (1) dpi8fir]Ti.Kij, (2) fiovcrtKr/, (3) ycw/xeTpia, (4)
(see Theol. Ar. 4. 19 Ast and Hippolytus in Diels I.e., where the o r d e r is ( i ) , (2) /JLOVCTCKIJ, (3) y(.mjxtrpia, (4) dcrTpovofiia).

See also [Archytas] quoted on 530 D. The allusions in Isocrates (Panat/i. 26, Antid. 261 ff., 266) to an educational curriculum of this kind may of course be aimed at Plato, but it is, I think, more probable, in view of some passages in the Platonic dialogues, that rj ifi tffii Ka.TacrTa6a.cra TratSeta (PanatA. I.e.) has a wider reference. In Theaet. 145 A Theodorus is said to be yeu/«TpiKos—Kal do-Tpovo/xiKos Kal AoyiOTIKOS T€ Kal /iOucriKOS Kal ocra ircuSeias (liberal e d u c a t i o n ) t\eTai, and T h e a e t e t u s professes to h a v e learnt from him yewjucTpias S.TTO.—KO! TWV 7repi a
studies in question were called 'Arts,' and Hippias was one of those who professed to teach them under this name, as appears from Prot. 318 E (see 511 en. and Hipp. Mai. 285 Bff.). From these passages we are justified in drawing the inference that the Pythagorean quadrivium was in some form or another becoming recognized in the early part of the fourth century B.C., and even earlier (cf. Grasberger Erziehung u. Unterr. 11 p. 340). The addition of Stereometry as a separate and independent branch of study is doubtless due to Plato, as may indeed be inferred from his own remarks (528 B ff.); but stereometrical problems had been handled before his time not only by the Pythagoreans, but also by Anaxagoras and Democritus (528 B, c nn.), and were probably reckoned as part of yiw/xeTpla. The studies are arranged by Plato in the sequence, Theory ot Numbers, Geometry, Stereometry, Astronomy and Harmonics. It is not, of course, to be supposed that each of the earlier subjects is dis missed as soon as its successor comes upon the stage; Plato indeed implies the opposite in 531 cff. and elsewhere. The order which he prescribes is the order in which the subjects are to be begun. I have touched on the principle underlying the sequence of studies in the notes on 526 c and 528 A. We proceed from number, which is presumably the

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

165

first ' increase,' to plane geometry and stereometry, which are concerned respectively with the second and third 'increases,' and thence to <£op<x pdOovs, taking Astronomy, the intellectual counterpart of visible opd, before Harmonics, which deals with the intellectual counterpart of audible opd, viz. 'consonant' and 'dissonant' numbers. The general principle plainly is that we should progress from the less to the more complex (Nettleship Lect. and Hem. 11 p. 269), each successive study adding a fresh element to those which have preceded it and presupposing them all. Plato would not, I think, allow that his intention was ' to arrange the sciences according to their object-matter in a direction from abstract to concrete' (Bosanquet Companion p. 288), for the Platonic sciences of Astronomy and Harmonics are, to say the least, as 'abstract' as the sciences of Number. But inasmuch as a solid concrete thing is after all an embodiment, though only an imperfect embodiment, of mathematical fidOos, Plato's curriculum, so far, and only so far, as it does in reality teach us to understand the visible concrete universe, may, if we are so minded, be held to proceed, in Aristotelian language, from the Trporepa cftvcru to the wporepa 7rpos 7)/xas.

Except in the position ascribed to 'Music' or 'Harmonics,' the order of studies in the Republic agrees with that of the Pythagorean quadrivium. The phraseology of 526 c and 528 A makes it probable that the principle of the Pythagorean arrangement was the same. 'Second increase' can only mean 'second increase' of the point or unit, the ' first increase' being the line or number. Now the Pythagoreans, as is well known, built up the line out of points, the plane out of lines, and the solid out of planes : see RP.7 § 64. (This is equally true whether we suppose that they consciously or unconsciously regarded the cosmogonical unit or point as having fieytdo<s, though for my own part I agree with Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy -pp. 312—315, that they consciously so regarded it, at all events in the earlier and more original form of their theory: see Arist. Met. M 6. io8o b 20, 32 and N 1091*15 with Phys. Z 1. 231* 24, 10. 241" 3, and other passages cited in Burnet, I.e. p. 315 n.) It may therefore be inferred that the expressions 'second' and ' third increase' are in their origin Pythagorean, and, if so, we cannot doubt that Plato's principle of arrangement agrees on the whole with that of his predecessors. The position of Harmonics in the Platonic scheme is however a remarkable divergence, especially as the study, according to 531 c, is concerned with numbers. In discussing this point Theo, who himself expounds the av^ux/oi dpidpoi in connexion with api#/x»/TiK?7, distinguishes between three kinds of dp/xovia, viz. ij iv opydvois aia-drjTt], tf

iv dpiO/idis vorjTrj, and -q iv /cooyAoi dpjx.ovia (pp. 16, 47 ed. Hiller). Plato's dpfnoviKr) deals of course with the second of these dpjxoviai. The first would have seemed to him educationally useless except by way of illustration, like mathematical diagrams (cf. 527 A, 529 D). r\ iv KoV/ta> apfiovia, which is described in x 616 D ff., Tim. 35 B ff. and by Theo 139—147, could not serve this purpose, because it is inaudible. If we take Plato at his word, we are bound to suppose that the Music of the Spheres, though more beautiful and perfect than any audible ' harmonies,' is nevertheless inferior to that which the student of harmonics

166

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

apprehends in his mind (cf. 529 c, D with 531 c), because it is produced by the movements of visible and corporeal stars; but it is permissible to suppose that the sublime Pythagorean conception of the Universe as ' God's organ' (Censor, de die nat. 13) may have induced him to crown his Trpoiva&da. with the study of those numerical ' consonances' whose grandest expression in time and space is the harmony of heaven. See also on x 617 B. The most characteristic and essential feature of the Platonic curriculum is, as I have already remarked, its method : see on 523 B, C, 528 E, 529 c, D, 530 c. Plato himself obviously claims it as new (523 A, 530 c, 530 Eff.), and there can be little doubt that the claim is just. The modern scientific reader cannot fail to be surprised and perhaps shocked by Plato's unconcealed distrust of observation and the use of the senses. In the Theory of Numbers and pure mathematics generally, this is natural and right; but what hope, he will ask, is there for Astronomy if we ' dispense with the starry heavens' (530 B) ? And how can Harmonics be advanced if we prohibit all inquiry into 01 tV Taimus r a t s cru/iM^ioviais rats a n o v o / i e ' v a i s dpidfioL ( 5 3 1 c ) ?

It has,

indeed, been maintained that ' the discovery of Neptune is a fulfilment of Plato's anticipations' (Bosanquet Companion p. 293), and that 'the mathematical treatment of the analysis of wave-forms (see Helmholtz, Popular Lectures, E.T. 1 75) seems to be an example of research which would have been after Plato's own heart' (ib. p. 294). There is something to be said in favour of such a view, and Bosanquet and Nettleship plead their case valiantly and well. But was it possible to discover the perturbations of Uranus without observation ? And even supposing they had been observed, would Plato, at the time when he wrote 530 A ff., have suspected that they were due to the influence of an unknown planet, and betaken himself to his desk? If Professor Adams' calculations had failed, Plato might have called him UTOTTOS for thinking yiyvtcruai re ravra. aet tocravTws Kal ovoafArj ovBkv TrapaWaTTtiv and seeking"

TravTi TpoVa) rijv aXyjBuav avrtav XafitLv, although he would have emphatically approved of the algebra. The fact is that Plato and Professor Adams began at different ends—Plato with problems, Adams with observation. That which is only an orrery to the former (529 Df.) is to the latter the reality which calls for explanation. It is true, of course, that Plato makes the primary impulse to reflection come from contradictory sense-perceptions (523 A ff.), but as soon as the intellect is fairly roused, the senses are dispensed with as much as possible, because they thwart and debilitate the operations of the mind, rendering its conclusions less scientific and exact (525 D, 529 c, 531 A, 532A). Nor does this conclusion rest on a few isolated passages, which may well be tinged with exaggeration, owing to Plato's contempt for the empiric sciolism of certain Sophists. The whole of the seventh book breathes a spirit of uncompromising hostility to the senses, and the same attitude is characteristic of many other dialogues, and, in particular, of the Phaedo (65 A—67 B). The fact is that the Astronomy and Harmonics of the Repicblic are fundamentally different from the Astronomy and Harmonics of modern, as well as of ancient science. The objects which they investigate are

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

167

not sensible phenomena, but intelligible realities occupying an intermediate position between sensibles and Ideas, and resembling Ideas much more than they resemble sensibles. Plato's whole conception of these sciences is idealistic; nor need we wonder if some light from the land of Ideas irradiates the path of the pilgrim as he nears the end of his propaedeutic journey. Platonic Science, like Platonic Metaphysics, can of course be arrayed in modern attire; but it may be doubted whether Plato does not lose more than Science, or even the cause of liberal education gains, by having his philosophy called down from heaven to earth. See also Appendix III. The famous words of Goethe, which I have already quoted on 486 A, express the true spirit of Plato's teaching in Books vi and vn, and are a loftier and juster tribute to his genius than any panegyric on his contributions to the cause of science: "Er bewegt sich nach der Hohe, mit Sehnsucht seines Ursprungs theilhaftig zu werden. Alles, was er aussert, bezieht sich auf ein ewig Ganzes, Gutes, Wahres, Schones, dessen Forderung er in jedem Busen aufzuregen strebt. Was er sich im Einzelnen vom irdischen Wesen zueignet, verdampft in seiner Methode, seinem Vortrage." Plato's error, as from the point of view of modern science it must be called, lies, I think, in an undue extension of the method of pure mathematics to Astronomy and Harmonics : see on 529 D ff. His theory of these sciences is geometrical, and the heavens are actually compared to a mathematical diagram or orrery. It is not the visible movements of the visible heavens, but the intelligible movements of certain mathematical heavens which the pupil is to investigate. Even apart from his unquenchable idealism, we shall not find it difficult to account for Plato's attitude, if we remember the extraordinary value which he attached to Geometry (see on 526 c), and if we also accept his assurances that the astronomy and acoustics of his day were grossly empirical. It should likewise be borne in mind that his primary aim throughout the whole of this irpovaiZiia is to discipline the intellectual powers and prepare the student to enter on the higher dialectic, in which all employment of the senses is rigidly proscribed. The goal is never for a moment lost sight of, and to a large extent affects the method by which the preliminary studies are to be themselves pursued. If his aim had been to make his pupils merely specialists in mathematics or astronomy, he might have taught them these subjects on other lines, but the man who is a mathematical specialist and nothing more is unfitted to be a Guardian, for we cannot allow 'our children' aAoyovs 6Vras axrirep ypa/x/i,a.s a.pyovTa'i iv rrj 7roAet Kvpiovs TS>V fjieytaroiv tli/ai (vil 5 3 4 D ) -

P l a t o en-

deavours to treat the study of mathematics and the mathematical sciences not as an end in itself, but as a means whereby to "revolutionize the whole state of mind1" of his pupils ; and his vindication of the ' Arts ' as the indispensable basis of a liberal training has been justified by history. Even the very name survives in the degrees which our Universities confer (see my article in Cl. Rev. xvp. 220). After Stereometry resumed its place as a department of Geometry, the four Sciences, Arithmetic, Music, Geometry and Astronomy, gradually established themselves as 1 The phrase is applied by Herbert Spencer {Education, p. 86) to the effects of mathematics as an educative discipline, provided the teacher knows how to teach.

168

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

the Quadrivium of the Middle Ages, and room was also found for a pale and ghostly shadow of Dialectic in the Trivium (see Grasberger Erzieh. u. Unterricht'pp. 235—237). Finally it is clear from some notable passages in his later writings (see on 530 B) that Plato's feeling about the visible heavens underwent a change as he grew older. In the Laws the very name of ' planets ' or 'wanderers ' sounds blasphemous in his ear (821 c). Such a change of sentiment is characteristic of his later dialogues in general, and in the Laws, perhaps, there is an added touch of the old man's feeling ' lv evc/»7/ua \PV TeAeurav.' But Plato may also have felt that his magnificent dream of a starry firmament more beautiful and perfect than the visible sky had served its purpose in the stimulus which it had given to a more theoretical and educative interpretation of physical science within the Academy. See Cantor Gesch. d. Math. pp. 202—216. But, when all is said and done, the abiding value of Plato's theory of Education is not affected by his misconception, if such it be, of the sciences of Astronomy and Harmonics. It may be doubted whether any writer has ever held so inspiring and profound a view of the aim and scope of education. Regarding man's reasoning faculty as the element of God within him, Plato makes it the supreme and only duty of education to foster and develop this element, not by feeding it with dull and lifeless dogma, but by emancipating it from the noxious influences which impede its growth. Nothing is admitted into his scheme except what tends to keep alive humanity's most precious heritage, the love of truth and knowledge. By nurturing and cherishing this instinct, Education, according to Plato, turns the moral as well as the intellectual nature of man from darkness to light, until he becomes ' like God as far as it is possible for man to be.' Nor is the horizon of the educator limited to this life. The soul is but a sojourner on earth, and its union with a particular body only a single episode in a life which reaches through ' both eternities.' Plato believes that the teacher can influence the pupil for hereafter as well as for life here, and that the soul which is once smitten with the love of truth may still advance from knowledge to more knowledge throughout unnumbered lives and phases of existence on earth and elsewhere. The sea of knowledge stretches wide, its waves unharvested as ever. " N a y , come up hither Unto the furthest flood-brim look with me; Then reach on with thy thought till it be drown'd. Miles and miles distant though the last line be, And though thy soul sail leagues and leagues beyond, Still leagues beyond those leagues there is more sea."

III. ON PLATO'S DIALECTIC. Although Socrates professes to decline the invitation of Glauco to expound Dialectic (532 E n.: cf. 506 E), he gives us in Books VI and VII plentiful indications of its method and content, and an editor of

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

169

the Republic is bound, I think, to face the task of reconstructing, in its general outlines, the science as it appeared to Plato when he wrote that dialogue. The literature of the subject is immense, as may be seen from the notes in Zeller4 11 1. pp. 614—632, pp. 643—718: cf. also Lutoslawski Plato's Logic pp. 21—27. It will be convenient to separate, as far as possible, the discussion of the objects of dialectical study from that of its method. Its supreme object, the Idea of the Good, is treated of in vi 504 E—509 B : vi 510 B, 511 B, c, and VII 531 D—534 E, 537 D—540 B are concerned chiefly with the method, although the objects are occasionally mentioned. Other passages in the Republic which throw light upon Plato's theory will be mentioned in the course of the discussion. It is hardly necessary to say that Dialectic is concerned with the Ideas. What Plato meant by the ' Ideas,' is a question which has been, and in my opinion always will be, much debated. I have explained my general view in the note on v 476 A; and it is only necessary to add here that the Republic, as I interpret it, nowhere indicates that the Ideas are only thoughts, whether of the divine or human mind1, and lends no support whatever to any of the "mildere Auslegungen " by means of which certain modern philosophers try to reconcile their own doctrines with those of Plato (see on x 597 B). Each Idea, according to the Republic, is a single independent, separate, self-existing, perfect and eternal essence, forming the objective correlate of our general notion {596 A), which may or may not, and usually does not, reproduce it with accuracy and completeness. Any milder interpretation cannot be reconciled either with Plato's language or with the evidence of Aristotle. It may be well to take as an illustration the view of Lotze. " The truth which Plato intended to teach is no other than that which we have just been expounding, that is to say, the validity of truths as such, apart from the question whether they can be established in relation to any object in the external world, as its mode of being, or not....But the Greek language then, as afterwards, was wanting in an expression for this Validity (Gelten) as a form of Reality not including Being or Existence; and this very expression Being came, often indeed quite harmlessly, but in this instance "—viz. in the interpretation of Plato's Theory of Ideas—"with momentous consequences, to fill the place."... "The reality of Being, indeed, they"—the Platonic Ideas—"have or have not, according as transient things of sense are clothed with them or not; but that reality which consists in Validity, which is a reality all their own, remains untouched by all this change."..." It seems incredible that the most acute of Plato's disciples, informed by personal intercourse with their master, should have misunderstood him in a point of such 1 Lutoslawski's formidable array of authorities who support the view that the Ideas are " a kind of notions of the human mind" (I.e. 26, 27) is not always accurate, and I suspect that some of the authors whom he cites would disown the interpretation which he puts upon their works. Among others, Shorey is claimed as holding this view, although he expressly repudiates it in the treatise referred to in App. I, and also in his £>e Plat, idearum doctr. atqtie mentis humanae notionibus comment., the very treatise which Lutoslawski refers to in support of his assertion: see p. 22, n. 2 : " Opinio—ideas Platonicas meras mentis humanae notiones fuisse iamdudum explosa est."

170

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

serious moment as this" {Logic E. T. pp. 441, 444). We may fairly reply that it does not seem, but is, incredible that Aristotle should have been guilty of so gross a blunder. It is far less incredible that Lotze is himself mistaken; nor indeed can I believe that any scholar who is capable of understanding Greek could read Books v—vn of the Republic and still agree with Lotze. "The truth which Plato intended to teach is no other than that which we have just been expounding." In this we have, I think, the key to a whole school of interpreters of Plato. " Hie liber est, in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque : Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua." It is perhaps the highest tribute which can be offered to the strength and vitality of Plato's influence that successive generations of idealists rejoice to discover themselves anew in him : but only by employing the methods of Procrustes can we force Plato into the habiliments of modern philosophy. Even if it were granted that the transcendence of the Ideas is, philosophically speaking, absurd (see Lotze I.e. p. 440), we cannot too strongly insist that Plato's thought is steeped in poetical and religious fervour: " Verlangen zum Guten und Gottlichen pulsirt durch alle seine Adern" (Krohn PI. St. p. 191) : and I confess that Plato, without transcendent Ideas to fire the imagination and generate philosophical and even religious enthusiasm, appears to me perhaps an eagle still, but chained. Those critics who deny the transcendence of the Platonic ideas are compelled to discredit the authority of Aristotle, who assures us that the Ideas were x(uPl0TC" '• but in reality such writers resemble Aristotle far more than Plato, for their eagerness to acquit Plato of such a 'poetical absurdity' (Lutoslawski Plato's Logic, p. 447) springs from the same scientific instinct which made Aristotle attack the doctrine, as in Aristotle's day they also would assuredly have done. Zeller's discussions, with the results of which I in the main agree, appear to me both temperate and sound1. It is clear that in the Republic Plato believes in the existence of an Idea corresponding to every class or group of particulars, artificial as well as natural. See on v 476 A and x 596 A ff. If we are mainly concerned in that dialogue with Ideas like Justice and its sister Virtues, the sole and sufficient reason is that the Republic is an ideal city, and the institutions of an ideal city must be regulated chiefly by ethical and political principles: see on vi 484c and 501 A ff. The totality of Ideas forms an hierarchy reaching in just and well-ordered sequence to the Idea of the Good, of which each individual Idea must be held to be one particular form, aspect, or determination. The hints which the Republic furnishes as to the place of the several Ideas in this hierarchy are enumerated in the notes on vi 510 B, 511 B. On the supremacy of the Good, there is little to add beyond what the notes contain : see on vi 506 E ff. The Idea of the Good transcends Knowledge and is its source and fountain, as well as the ultimate cause of whatsoever shadow of Truth still clings to the lower grades of intellectual apprehension enumerated in the simile of the Line. Itself above and beyond Being, 1 In edition 4, Vol. 11 1. pp. 658-679. See also Krohn PI. St. pp. 188—192. and Kraram De Ideis Platonis a Lotzei iudicio defensis Halae 1879. The last-named writer appears to me to have completely refuted Lotze's interpretation of Plato's theory of Ideas.

APPENDICES

TO BOOK VII.

171

the Good is the author of the other Ideas, and through them of the realities which the mathematician studies : it is also the cause of that image or semblance of reality which remains in the objects comprehended under the name of yeveo-is. We may therefore call the Idea of Good the 'Maker and Father of all' (cf. Tim. 28 c), and identify it, in this aspect, as in others, with the supreme God (505 A ».). Its relation to the Universe of Mind and the objects which are apprehended by mind may be expressed by the following diagram, in which the lines A'B' and AB are divided according to the proportions of the simile of the Line : THE GOODL

172

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

A further and perhaps still more significant presentation of the Good in the Republic is as the true and ultimate object of all creation— the ov fvefca of the whole universe and every part thereof, and consequently at once the regulating law of everything which exists, so far as it exists, both organic and inorganic, and the rrpwrov i\ov for which the whole of Nature, with greater or less degree of consciousness, for ever yearns and strives. See on vi 505 D f. It is, I think, scarcely more than half the truth to say that the Idea of Good, " means, when stripped of its poetic vesture, a rational consistent conception of the greatest possible attainable human happiness, of the ultimate laws of God, nature or man that sanction conduct, and of the consistent application of those laws in legislation, government and education" (Shorey On the Idea of Good etc. p. 239). Man is not the whole of creation, though its highest product; and the Good is the final as well as the efficient cause, not only of human institutions, but also of the rest of nature—the dp^rj <x(£' fj<; rjpTrjTai 6 ovpavbs KCU 57 <£t!(ris (cf. Arist. Met. A 7. 107213 14). The reason why in the Republic Plato deals, not indeed by any means exclusively, but chiefly perhaps, with the bearings of the Good on human life and interests, is because that aspect of the Idea is more relevant than any other for the founder of a city. In the Timaeus Plato completes his account of the Good by tracing its operation in the works of Nature. It helps us to understand the manysidedness of Plato's conception if we remember that 'good' was a term of wide application among the Greeks in general, and that the Socratic school in particular regarded things as good in proportion as they fulfilled their proper office in the economy of Nature and Society. See 1 353 A—E, V 457 B and the suggestive remarks of Nettleship Lectures

and Remains

11 p p . 2 2 1 — 2 2 5 .

There remains the further question : How does the Supreme Cause operate in the Universe ? or in other words, What is the mode or kind of relationship existing between the Idea of Good and the particular of which it is the cause ? The subject is full of difficulties, and it must be premised at the outset that the relation between the eternal and self-existent and the derivative and transient cannot be otherwise expressed than by a metaphor. Cf. A. E. Taylor in Mind N. S. v pp. 309 f. But we are none the less bound to examine the metaphors employed in describing the connexion if we would see how the relationship was figured by Plato in his own mind. If we follow the indications furnished in our dialogue, we may suppose that Plato, when he wrote the Republic, conceived of the matter somewhat in the following way. The Idea of Good is the principle from which the other Ideas derive their existence (vi 509 B ff. nn.), and may therefore be regarded as the ultimate cause of everything which they in their turn produce. The immediate cause accounting for the existence of a particular is the 'presence' (irapova-ia) of an Idea. Thus for example the cause which enables us to say that Socrates is a just and pious man is the 'presence' in Socrates of the Ideas of Justice, Piety, and Man. The Ideas are therefore the immanent causes of particulars, each of which is the meeting-ground of as many Ideas as there are predicables rightfully belonging to it. Thus much may be

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

173

inferred from Republics 476 A ff., not to mention other dialogues; but the difficulties attending such a theory of Causation, if it is strictly interpreted, are great and numerous, and in particular the immanence of the Ideas can hardly be reconciled with their self-existence and unity. Plato was well aware of this objection, at all events when he wrote the Parmenidesx (see Parm. 130 E—132 B, and Waddell's edition of that dialogue pp. xliii f. and lxix), but in the Republic, whether because he had not yet realised the difficulty, or because he was occupied with other and more fruitful topics, he ignores it altogether. The more poetical and figurative conception of the Idea as a Trapd8<;Lyfj.a, whereof the particular is an image or likeness or shadow, visible beauty, for example, being only, in the words of Shelley, the "shadow of Beauty unbeheld." is also found in the Republic, as in other dialogues, side by side with the doctrine of Trapovaia, /xe'#e£i5, or Koiviavia. See on V 476 D and A. E. Taylor in Mind I.e. pp. 308—311. This view, like the other, is by no means free from philosophical difficulties, as has been pointed out by, among others, Waddell I.e. pp. li f., and Taylor I.e. pp. 307, 312, but the paradeigmatic relation of the Idea to the particular is more in keeping with the Platonism of Books vi and vn than the theory of participation, and it is the form in which the relationship presented itself to Plato in the last of his great metaphysical dialogues, the Timaeus. Finally, it should be remarked that in applying his doctrine of causation to sensible or concrete numbers and numerical relations, concrete mathematical figures and the like, Plato introduced a fresh link between the Idea and the particular in the shape of ra ixaOrjfuaTiKa.. See on this subject App. I to Book VII. I pass now to the subject of dialectical method, as expounded in the Republic. Formally considered, it proceeds, like the Socratic crossexamination, by question and answer (534 D). Dialectic is above all things synoptical, striving everywhere to see the one in the many (531 D, 537 B, c). Hence the coordination of the Sciences is a good preparation for the higher study (11. cc.: cf. also Zeller4 11 1. p. 616 ;/. 1). This synoptical faculty is akin to the o-wayuyrj of the Phaedrus and other dialogues (see on 537 c), although the word o-wayatyrj does not occur with this meaning in the Republic. But whereas the dialectic of the Phaedrus includes the combination of particular sense-perceptions us %v Aoyio-jiM3 fjwcupovfjLcvov (249 B, cf. 265 D), that of the Republic aims at combining different Ideas under yet higher and higher Ideas, and all of them finally under the Idea of the Good. Cf. [Archytas] in Mullach Frag. Phil. Gr. I p . 5 9 9 o(TTis utv avakvaai 010s T ivrl TVO-VTO. TO. yeveot viro (JLiav T€ /ecu TCLV avTav dpyav, Kal 7raA.iv (rvvOuvai re Kal (rvvapdfjLrjaaaOai, OVTOS 8OK(1 /xoi KCU O"0(£COTCITOS ^(U.£i/ /ecu iravakadea'TaTO';, e n 8c Ka\av ' as oWaros ecrtreiTai TOV 0ebv Karotj/eiaOai Kal TTOVTO, Ta cv TO (Tva-Toixa'a Kal Tai.il TO. exeiVo) /caTaK€XieVa, KOL TOLVTCLV TCLV apjxa.T^\aTov bSbv iKiropiaajxevos TU vda> Ka,T tvOtiav op/j.a6rjjj.ev Kal 1 I assume that the theory of Ideas which the Platonic Parmenides criticises is that which appears in the Republic and the Phaedo. The resemblance is so exact that I cannot see how we can escape from this assumption. Cf. Jackson in J. of Ph. XI p. tg6. A different view is maintained by Taylor I.e. p. 317.

174

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

TiXioSpo/xaaaL r a s a p ^ a s rots Trepacri (ruvai^as r« Kal tTTtyvov';, o n 6 #eos a p ^ a T£ Kal reXos «ai fieaov ivrl •Ka.vrmv TWV Kara SiKav re /cat TOV opDov

Xoyov Trepaivofxevwv. Neither in his ascent nor in his descent does the dialectician have anything to do with sense-perception, or ' particulars' in the ordinary acceptation of the term (511 B f.). It is clear therefore, as Oldenberg has pointed out 1 , that the dialectic of Books vi and VII is a higher dialectic, to be compared in some respects with the intellectual discipline recommended in the Parmenides (135 c—136 E, especially 135 E OVK daq kv rots bpuifievoK ov8t Tre.pl ravra rr/v it\avi)v liruxKOTriiv, aAAa wepi ineivo. a fiaXicrrd TIS av A.oya> Xa/3oi xai eltrj

av Tjyijo-aiTo elvac). In taking this view I do not mean to deny that dialectic in the Phaedrus embraces the higher as well as the lower branches of the study; but in the stricter dialectic of vi 510 B—51 IB the lower variety is expressly excluded. Of Saupccris the Republic says comparatively little. There is a casual reference to the process in v 454 A, and it is of course represented in an idealized form by the descent of the dialectician from the Idea of the Good (511 B, c: cf. 534 B n.). But the full development of this side of Dialectic belongs to a later period of Plato's life, if, as is now widely believed, the Sophist and Politicus are later than the Republic. It should also be remarked that definition, which belongs to Dialectic (534 D) and depends on grasping the Essence of the object to be defined (533 B, 534 B: cf. 531 E), involves <Wpeo-is in a certain sense as well as crwaywyj?'. We have still to discuss the most serious difficulty in Plato's description of the dialectician's progress, viz. the ascent i$ vwodia-ews e-rr dpxijv dvviroOeTov (510 B, 511 B, 533 c). Socrates gives no precise explanation of this part of the subject, although it is not, in my opinion, this particular difficulty which makes him say that Glauco will be unable to follow him any farther (532 E). The principal passages in other dialogues which appear to throw light on Plato's meaning are Me?i. 86 E ff. and Phaed. 100 A ff. In the Memo Socrates proposes e£ virodeamas ios i£ wo0«r«os, on which see Wallace Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle pp. 41 f., and Waitz 1 De Plat, arte dialedica (1873) p. 48. Lutoslawski must himself have read this work very superficially before he could have described it as "very superficial" (Plato's Logic p. 21 n. 58). The judgment of Peipers, though he frequently disagrees with Oldenberg, is very different: " quae Herm. Oldenberg egregie disputat in commentatione de Platonis arte dialectica" {Ontol. Plat. p. 402 n.). So also is that of Zeller4 11 1. pp. 619, 620 nn. et al. I am far from accepting the whole of Oldenberg's results, but his treatise is anything but superficial, and a large part of it is in my judgment true and admirable.

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

175

on Arist. Atialyt. Pr. A 23. 4ob 25. This method is parallel to that described in Book vi in so far as the original vVdflecris is not left OUCIVIJTOS (533 c)> l)Ut itself deduced from something higher. It is not parallel in so far as this 'higher something' is itself only a V7rd0£
has in mind a possible defence of the original vVdfeo-is by deducing it, as in the Meno, from some VTT6Q(.<TI% still higher, and the SiaVoia of the Republic, qua Siavoia, never defends its vVotftWs at all (510 c, 533 c), not even by any other hypothesis. There is also in 107 B an express direction to examine the viro9eo-eis themselves: ras v-n-oBia-tis ras TrpuJras, KCU el TTMTTOI vfuv elaiv, o/xios e7ricrK€7rT£ai eis yivr/Tai, ovSkv

t?)rri OVTL vVo$6
IXOVfj

TOMTYj

7TOp£V€Tat, TCtS

VTTO04o~

€tS

d V O. ip

OV (TO.,

C7T

aVTTjV

Tt]V

°-PXlv> "lva /3t/3ai(A a7ro T W aAAe\ix>v rrjv TOS dyaOov iStav, K Adya) b'lo.Troptv-qTai, OVTC

176

APPENDICES

TO BOOK VJI.

IXVTO TO dyaBov (frijcreis etSeVat TOV OUTOJS e^ovra ovre dXXo dyaBbv ov&iv KTA.

With the substance of these extracts the student should carefully compare the intellectual discipline recommended in the Parmenides(i^ c— 136 E) as an indispensable preliminary for the dialectical study of KU\6V, SUaiov, ayadov and the other Ideas, noting in particular 136 A—c and 136 E: IIOJS Xeycts; avai. Otoi', £<j>rj, ft f3ovXei Trepi Tavnjs rrjs viro#60" c o s fjv Zijvmv viritiero, ei iroXXa Ian, TL ^pi) £vfj.(3aivtiv KOI auVoi9 TOIS TTOXXOIS Trpos a u r a Kai 7rpos TO ev Kal T<3 ei/t Trpos TE airro Kal 7rpos Ta iroWdKal av ei fi.rj £
7roAXots Kal 7rpos avra Kal 7rpos ak\r]\aKal avOis av lav xnroOfj, ei 1' exaTepas T^? viro&eatui's £vfj.fSijcrtTai Kal awots TOIS vTTOTtOtiai Kal TOIS aAXois Kai Trpos avrd Kal Trpos aAA.jjXa. xai nepl avofjt-oiov 6 auros Xoyo?, /cat jrept Kti/)yo'ea)5 Kat CTacretos, KCU Trcpt yevc'crcw? « a t <jiOopS.<;, Kal Trept avToC TOE «Tvat Kal TOV [xrj uvai.

Kal evl Xoyu, nepl OTOU

av del xnroOrj GJS ofro? Kat OVK OVTOS /cat ortovv aAXo TraOos Tracr^ocToSj Set o-KO7retv TO. fu/x/8atVoj/Ta Kat irpos auTO «at 7rpos tv txacrroi/ TUJI' aXXcoi/, o TI ai/ TrpoiXrj, Kal Trpog TrXet'a) Kat Trpo? ^vjXTravTa wcraiJTws' Kat TaAXa av 7rpos a u r a T€ Kat irpos aXXo o Tt ov irpoaipfj a€t, «£v Tf (OS oi' viroOfj 0 virerWwo, lav T£ cu5 JUT) ov, €t jixeXXets TEXCWS yvjuvaera^fvos Kuptios Stoi/'co-^at TO aXv;6€S...ayi'Oo{!o"t yap ot 7roXXot OTI ai'eu Tavrr;? Trjs 8ta irai/Tiui/ Ste^dSou Te Kai Trkdvrps duviaTov h-TV)(6vTa T(3 d\.7]8ei vovv «X€t>/-

The key to the solution of the difficulty is furnished by the words vrro6i(T€{.<; dvaipovcra 5 3 3 C, a n d Sia TTOLVTWV IXiy^wv

8ie£iwv 534 C.

Ill my

notes on these two phrases I have tried to indicate the general character of the dialectician's ascent €^ vTro^eo-™? lir apxyv dwwodeTov. He begins by offering a >™-o#<:o-is on the subject to be discussed, and then proceeds to test his vir6(ltcn<s by the conclusions to which it leads. If these conclusions are untenable, the original wo#«m is cancelled or annulled (avatpttrat), and a new suggestion takes its place, only to suffer the same fate. The process is repeated again and again, until at last we reach an a p ^ which will withstand every test (J!o-7r«p iv paxy Sta. jra'vTuv IXiyy^wv Bie^iwv KTX. 534 c). Thus each successive VTrdftans serves as an additional step in the stair by which we ascend, and is useful to the dialectician just because he is willing to leave it and mount higher. Cf. Gomperz, Greek Thinkers, 1 pp. 303—306, where the scientific value and importance of this method is very clearly explained. In the completed Dialectic which Plato adumbrates in Books vi and vn, we are invited to suppose that the whole kingdom of knowables, in the spheres alike of Nature and of Man, has been surveyed and mapped out by this method, of which the intellectual yvjxvaaia of the Parmenides is a kind of example on a lower plane. The result is a number of true and irrefragable ap^at, apprehended not only in their mutual coherence and interdependence, but also in their relationship to the supreme Idea, which is itself, when we have climbed to the summit, no longer a wo'#£
APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

177

parts are only the expression of the Good unless and until we have found it to be so by such an exhaustive scrutiny as Plato describes, Plato might reply: ' True, we have not as yet complete scientific knowledge of this fact; but knowledge is not everything ; we have dra/Ai^cris also.' " Not in entire forgetfulness And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home."

The progress of human knowledge from generation to generation will help to demonstrate the supremacy of the Good, of which, by virtue of the Odiov TI iv ijfuv, we are already well assured. The later stages in the dialectician's journey belong to an ideal which human investigation can hardly hope to reach (vi 511 B n.), but, as I have hinted on 533 c, the general character of his progress may be illustrated from many Platonic dialogues. In the Laches, for example, we have several mrodicreis of courage, each of which is treated as a stepping-stone—olov eiri/3a.o-i<s re Kal 0P//.17—on the way to a better and truer conception of the virtue. The first definition given by Laches, that courage is Kaprtpia rts 4/vX0'i, Socrates attacks with the elenchus and overthrows (192 c, D), but a new and better vVo0eo-<,s rises on its ruins, viz. that courage is <£po'vt/u.os Kaprtpia i/'vx1'?? (I92 D )- A further application of the Socratic weapon shews that this vVo'^ccris must also be revised (192 E—193 D), and Nicias suggests a third, defining courage as TTJV TIOV Seii/wv Kal OappaXimv iirurTi)fji.r]v KCU iv iroXifim Kal iv TOIS aAAois a-n-acriv (195 A). In the sequel, this definition IS widened into rj irtpl TravTiav dyaOwv

T £ Kal KaK(3v Kal ira.vTio'i i^ovTiav

fTTia-Tij/jirj (199 c), whereby courage becomes, no longer a specific part of virtue, dAAa (rvfjiTraa-a dperrf (199 E), and the unity of virtue is affirmed. The final definition is not refuted on its merits, although Socrates declares it to be inconsistent with the position already assigned to courage as one of the parts of virtue. It will be observed that each vVotfetns owes something to its predecessor, that in the progress of the argument courage is brought into connexion with other viroOecreis, such as TO SCLVOV and TO 6appake.ov, and that the last uVofleo-is is wider and more comprehensive than any which has preceded. A cursory glance at the course of the argument in the Charmides and Euthyphro will provide many illustrations of the process which Plato calls TO dvaipeiv ras uVo0e'o-£is, and a more careful analysis will reveal a gradual advance in both dialogues from the accidental and superficial to the essential and profound. See for the Euthyphro my edition of that dialogue pp. vii—xxii. These distinguishing characteristics of Plato's method are easiest to trace in his simpler and less elaborate dialogues, but nearly all his writings shew analogous features, and the Republic is itself a conspicuous example of the same method. It is not too much to say that the true unity of the Republic, as of many other dialogues of Plato, consists in a continuous ascent from stage to stage, each successive elevation not only revealing new and wider prospects, but also enabling us to modify, correct and enlarge our apprehension of that which we have seen before. A. P. II.

12

178

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

It lies beyond the scope of this Appendix to discuss the origin of Plato's dialectical method, and I must here content myself with saying that although it owes not a little to the Eleatics, still more to Socrates, and something perhaps to geometrical analysis, which Plato is said to have invented (see Hardie in Mind N. S. v p. 180), the full development of the method must be ascribed to Plato himself. Rightly understood and practised, the method is extraordinarily valuable and fruitful, not merely for purposes of education, but as a weapon of scientific discovery. Every teacher who is worthy of the name employs it to kindle and feed the love of knowledge in his pupils. It is the method which an editor of necessity adopts in endeavouring to explain and expound the text of an ancient writer. The conjectural emendations and interpretations by which his pathway is beset are all of them OTofcVas of more or less value, and the very process of testing and rejecting these viroOi^w frequently brings to light the true interpretation.

An editor, in short, dvatpel ras vwoOto-ws, ttr avrrjv r-qv dp-^v

•n-opeuo/xEvos, (W /3e/?
that which takes place on a small scale in the exposition of an ancient text is reproduced on a larger scale in the history of investigation and discovery not only in the humanities, but also in natural science. Speaking of the part played by hypotheses in the progress of scientific discovery, Professor Riicker in his Presidential Address at the British Association, 1901, remarks: "The wraiths of phlogiston, caloric, luminiferous corpuscles, and a crowd of other phantoms haunt the investigator, and as the grim host vanishes into nothingness he cannot but wonder if his own conceptions of atoms and of the ether ' shall dissolve And, like this unsubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind.'"

But though science, like Bunyan's hero, has sometimes to pass through the ' Valley of Humiliation,' the spectres which meet it there are not really dangerous if they are boldly faced. The fact that mistakes have been made, that theories have been propounded and for a time accepted, which later investigations have disproved, does not necessarily discredit the method adopted. For scientific theories, as in the world around us, there is a survival of the fittest, and Dr James Ward's unsympathetic account of the blunders of those whose work, after all, has shed glory on the 19th century, might, mutatis mutandis, stand for a description of the history of civilisation. " The story of the progress so far," he tells us, " is briefly this—divergence between theory and fact one part of the way, the wreckage of abandoned fictions for the rest, with an unattainable goal of phenomenal nihilism, and ultra-physical mechanism beyond " (James Ward, Naturalism and Agnosticism, Vol. 1 p. 154). "The path of progress," says Professor Karl Pearson, "is strewn with the wreck of nations. Traces are everywhere to be seen of the hecatombs of inferior races, and of victims who found not the narrow way to the greater perfection. Yet these dead peoples are, in very truth, the stepping-stones on which mankind has arisen to the

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

179

higher intellectual and deeper emotional life of to-day" (Karl Pearson, National Life from the Standpoint of Science, p. 62). When hypotheses are mistaken for established and unquestionable truths, the love of knowledge gives place to the love of dogma, and progress is arrested. In Plato's way of thinking, the path of knowledge is and must be paved out of the ruins of generalisations, if we are to tread firmly on the road to " T h a t imtravelled world whose margin fades For ever and for ever as we move."

IV. V I I 515 B. el ovv %1ake.ye.uOai OLOL T' elev irpos aXkrjXov;, ov TCLVTCL yyex av TO. TrapiovTtx avrovs vo/xi^etv oVo/ixa£en/, airep opwev;

TavTa appears for ravra in A and some other MSS. Instead of -rrapiovra, all the MSS except Flor. T have TrapoV™, while Iamblichus (Protrepl. 15) and Proclus (in remp. 1 p. 293 Kroll) appear to have read ovra.

The following are the principal solutions which have been proposed: (1) With ravra—ra irapovTa.. " Hoc rogat Socrates—an haec, quae viderent, tamquam res praesentes, non tamquam umbras appellare, de praesentibus, non de absentibus loqui sese opinaturi essent?" (Schneider). " Do you not suppose that they would believe that they were naming those things that they actually saw before them?" (J. and C). This interpretation separates ravra from TO. trapovra, and makes the whole force of TO. irapovTa depend upon its antithesis (' non de absentibus'), which is not expressed, and difficult to supply. Other objections are urged by Vermehren Plat. Stud. p. 105. Prantl (after Schleiermacher) takes vojx.it,e.iv as "fur iiblich halten" (cf. Laws 637 E), translating "glaubst du nicht, dass sie es fur iiblich halten wiirden, eben die je anwesenden Dinge, welche sie sehen, mit Namen zu nennen?" (So also D. and V.) Prantl's view has been demolished by Schneider: "non hoc rogat Socrates, an nomina umbris imponenda existimaturi aut re vera imposituri essent, quippe quod citra errorem facere eis liceret." The progress of the argument, as well as the close parallelism with the next sentence, makes it clear that the prisoners are in error. The same criticism applies to the view of Ast, who reads TOISTOI—TO. irapiovra, and translates " Nonne censes eos res praeterlatas arbitraturos esse nominandas quas viderent ? " (2) With TavTa—TO irapiovTa (Hermann, Stallbaum). Stallbaum translates " nonne putas eas res, quae praeterveherentur, iisdem nominibus atque quae viderent nominare solituros esse?", explaining Tavrb. (predicative after 6vop,dt,eiv) airep opwev as equivalent to rafira TOVTOIS airtp bpwev. " Sententia igitur haec est: vinctos illos nonne putas nomina rerum, quas conspicerent (conspicere sibi viderentur) ad umbras illarum praetereuntes esse de more translaturos?" But what objects at all except shadows can the prisoners see? 12—2

180

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

(3) Emendations, (a) Cobet (Mnem. xi p. 173 and V. Z.2 p. 531) proposes oi Tavra. Tjyei av—TO irapiovra voful^eiv [oVoyiid^fiv] cnrep opioti/.

The word ovojxa^uv is rejected also by Baiter, who further changes oi ravra to ovK^avrd, following Vermehren and Madvig: see below. Neither of these critics appears to have noticed that el ovv SiaXeyea-Oai oloi n uw becomes altogether superfluous if 6vofxa.t,eiv is omitted. For this reason Richards' insertion of KCU between vofiitf.iv and 6Vo/ia£eiv {Cl. Rev. vm p. 192) is preferable to the suggestion of Cobet. (b) Vermehren, in an elaborate and careful examination of the passage {Plat. Stud. pp. 103 —106), argues that the sense required by the context is "dass die Hohlenbewohner die voriiberziehenden Schatten fur die Gegenstande selbst nehmen und sie demgemass benennen wiirden, gerade wie sie die vernommenen Tone vermoge des Widerhalls den Schattenbildern, nicht aber den sie erzeugenden Originalen zuschreiben wiirden." He therefore conjectures OVK avra—ra iraptovTa KTA. " glaubst du nicht, dass sie in ihrer Lage die voriiberziehenden Gegenstande selbst zu benennen meinen wiirden, die sie—ihrer Meinung nach—sahen ? " According to this view, TO irapiovTa denotes the real irapafapoixna.-.but how could the prisoners suppose themselves to be naming the real Trapaep6fieva, of which, ex hypothesi, they know nothing whatever ? The interpretation given in the notes appears to me to give the sense required, without attributing to the prisoners any knowledge from which their situation excludes them. I have not seen it anywhere in print, but I am glad to say that Dr Jackson writes as follows: " So I have long taken this passage. I copy my old note. ' Read ravra, retain ovojia^iiv, and translate : Don't you think they would suppose the names which they used to belong to the passing objects which they saw before their eyes ?'"

V. evdvi

V I I 5 1 9 A, B. TOVTO [I.£VTOI, rjv 0" iys f u y y e v c t s (jyairep jU.oA.u/38/Sas,

at S>? tSojSais T€ KOI roiovTtDv r/Sovais T« Kai At^vtt'ais (ri. rqv TI^S 4'VXO(' o\j/'iv.

This passage has been strangely misunderstood by many editors and critics. yei/<-'txr£M? from which they have to be removed (KOTTTO'/ACI/OV TrepieKoirrj). Moreover x 611 E—612 A, quoted in the notes, conclusively disproves this

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

181

As regards the text, TO. TTJS ycveo-tw; £vyyevrj is read by many editors on the authority of some inferior MSS. TO me the neuter appears a manifest 'correction,' and far less elegant and expressive than the feminine, which has the support (among other MSS) of A, n and q. See also on in 401 c. It is strictly true, according to Plato, that the leaden weights of appetite and self-indulgence are 'kindred with,' 'of the family of yeVeais (see especially, in addition to the evidence adduced in the note, ix 585 B—586 B), SO that the adjective ought to agree with |U.o\u|38tSas. Instead of the -n-epi K6.TO> of the best MSS, Hermann, who is followed by Burnet, reads Kara, adopting a suggestion of Schneider's. Schneider himself, with Stallbaum and other editors, chose the reading of q (irtpl TO. KO.TU)), which is unexceptionable in point of sense, and which I also once thought right. Longer reflection has however convinced me that Madvig is right in restoring -n-epiKaTO). The strongest evidence (other than that of the best MSS) in its support is furnished by Photius (see note) and Plutarch. The latter certainly read •jrepiKarw or nepl KOLTW (the reading of A): see de fac. quae in orb. lun. app. 943 D ivias 81 (sc. i/ai^as) KOU Ttof €K€t 7T€pl

KOLTto Tp67TO^tCVaS

( v . l . T€p7TOjUe|/as) OlOV €tS jSvObv O.V&IS

opuo-i Karayi^o/xevas, an obvious imitation of this passage of Plato. J. and C. object that ireptKaTw could only mean ' upside down.' Such a translation is of course ridiculous here, but it does in point of fact accurately represent the situation. The eye of the soul, according to Plato in this, passage, naturally looks up; so that when forced to look down, it is itself, strictly speaking, turned 'upside down.' The fact is that TrepiKorw o-Tpc etc. favours this accentuation : cf. Lobeck Phryn. p. 48. For other instances of prepositions combined with adverbs see KiihnerGerth Gr. Gr. 11 1, pp. 538—540.

VI. V I I 521 C. TOVTO 817, (us eoiKev, OVK oarpaKov av tir) TrepL<jTpoy], d\\a i ^ u ^ s TrepLaytoyr] £K vvKTipivrjs TWOS rjjxipas th aXr)6ivr]v, TOV OVTOS ovcrav

iiravohov, rjv 8rj i\o(ro(f>tav dX~q6fj (pTJfTO/xw eiyat.

The proverb oo-Tpaxou -jrEpiorpo^r/ was variously explained by the ancients as (1) «rt rwv Tax«W TI Troiovvrav : (2) ori TOV tvfJ.€Ta/36\v : ( 5 ) €7ri T W Sta Td^ovs £is 4>VY>)V °p-

fiiavTuiv or the like (Schol. I.e. and on oa-rpaKov ixnaireo-ovTos in Phaedr.

241 B). See Leutsch und Schneidewin Paroem. Gr. 1 p. 285 f., 11 p. 84.

182

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

The last of these explanations touches on an essential feature of the game, which was itself also (according to Pollux ix 112 and the Scholiast on this sentence of the Republic) called oa-rpaKov ircpio-Tpo^', but does not fully elucidate the meaning of the phrase when it is used as a proverb. None of the ancient interpretations is exactly suited to the present passage, and it is clear from their number and diversity that the phrase was not clearly understood. As the proverb is believed to have originated with Plato (Leutsch und Schneidewin I.e. 1 p. 285 n.\ we are bound to interpret it as the context requires, and Schleiermacher's solution appears to me to come nearest to the truth : "hier ist mehr zu denken theils an die Fliichtigkeit, mit welcher solche Spiele iiberhaupt behandelt werden, theils an die Zufalligkeit, mit welcher die Scherbe auf diese oder jene Seite zu fallen scheint" (Translation of the Republic P- 577 n- 372)- Th' s view combines the first and second explanations, and is in no way invalidated by the criticisms of Schiick (de Schol. ad PL civ. pertinentibus p. 31). Plato is perhaps aiming a taunt at the educational theory and practice of contemporary sophists (cf. 518 B«.). The details of the game itself have been often discussed, and are now tolerably clear. See (besides Grasberger quoted in the notes) Bliimner Privatalt. p. 298 and Forster in Rh. Mus. 1875, PP- 2^7 ff. The latter was, I believe, the first to point out the allusion in wKTeptvij<; TWOS rffiepa's to ' vv£ rjixipa.'

I think that the placing of a comma after aXyjOivtjv restores sense to the latter part of the passage. The reading in the text has the support of A, II, and a great majority of MSS ; and the comparison with 517 c seems to me conclusive in favour of the view taken in the notes. Hermann and others have pointed out that r^jxipav should be supplied with aXr/OLv/jv, but those who take this view have hitherto (with, so far as I know, the single exception of Jackson) connected TOV OVTOS with aXrjOivqv (•qfitpav). It was perhaps on this ground that Schneider peremptorily declined to admit such an explanation. In any case the emphatic opposition between wKTipivrjs and aX-qOan^v invites us to supply rj/xipav, and the transition from the metaphor to its interpretation would be too abrupt if dkrjOivrjv were connected with eirdvoSov. ova-av is a further difficulty on this view; and H accordingly omitted the word, while q boldly changes it to loixn?;. Schneider, with whom J. and C. are inclined to agree, joins dkrjdivrjv with i-n-dvoSov, and argues that ovaav is added partly on account of orros, but more " ad augendam veritatis significationem." But, as J. and C. remark, ovo-av still drags, "and etrdvoSov gives a feeble antithesis to ij/xipas." The passage from the Laws (728 B) which Schneider quotes in support of his interpretation is not parallel. Of emendations there has been no lack, iovo-qs is adopted by Stephanus, Bekker, Ast and Stallbaum, the last of whom construes iovo-qs i-rrdvoSov by ' adscendentis' and supplies y'lp-lpav with d\rj9ivrjv, as

Schleiermacher also did. This yields a better sense than the old view, which connected dXrjBivrjv with i-n-dvoSov, but is harsh in point of syntax, and lov
APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

183

194, where ovo-a iirdvooov (not tmw'oSos, as J. and C. assert) is found. But the tTipiayuiyrj i/'v^s is not itself the eTiwoSos, and ovcra iirdvoZo^ drags unpleasantly. Cobet's emendation, which is partially adopted by Baiter, changes ovaav to ovcriav, inserts Kal before IK wKTepivrjs, and reads eWvoSos for i-wdvooov. But, apart from other objections, rov OVTOS ova-Lav, in spite of Soph. 262 c, is extremely unpleasing. Jowett and Campbell's otherwise excellent note appears to me fatal to their own as well as to every other solution proposed before they wrote, and overthrows all the emendations except dyovaa for ovo-av, which I suggested in 1897. I take this opportunity of withdrawing so hasty a proposal, and restoring the text of the best MSS, which I am glad to say that Jackson also defended when in a letter to me some years ago he remarked " I have been in the habit of putting a comma after dX.rf6ivrjv, and otherwise keeping the reading of A."

VII. V I I 527 D. TO 8' ecrriv ov trdvv cj>avXov, dAAa ^aXeirbv Triarevo-ai, on iv TOVTOI*; TOIS fj.a8rift.aaiv tKaorou opyavov TI tyvyrfi iKKaOaiperai re Kal ^ 2 a7roXXvfj.eirov Kal TVXovfj.evov V7ro TOJV aWotv €7rtT^0€u/iaT0)v, ov o-u>6ijvai [Jivpiiov ofj.fi.aTu>v fj,6vu> yap avTta akyjOcia 6po.Tai.

This eloquent sentence was deservedly famous in antiquity, and is constantly quoted or alluded to by many authors : see the references in Ast, Schneider, Wex {Fleck. Jb. 1864 p. 381), and Hiller (on Theo Smyrn. 3). An attempt has been made by Cobet {Mnem. xi p. 177) to remodel the text in accordance with Theo's citation, which is as follows : TO h° IO-TLV ov 7rdvv <jiav\oL<;, a.\Xa iraai ^aXeirbv Trio-TevOrjvat., 6'TI iv TOVTOI'S TOIS fxaBrffiacriv eK<xo-Tov olov opyai'ots TO \pvyfj% cKKa^atperat «at avattnirvptiTai oixfi.a Tv\ovfj.evov Kal diroaftivvvfJLtvov VTTO TCOV aAA.wv l-rri.Trjo'eviJ.d.Tuiv, KptiTrov ov o-tadrjvai fj.vpiu>v bfJ.fj.a.Twv fiovm yap a i ™ dXrftitia bpa/rai (ed. Hiller p. 3).

Wex (I.e. 1863 pp. 692 ff.) had maintained, strangely enough, that opyavov
which, as (Kao-rov shews, this sentence expressly refers, opyavov >pv)(rjs was also, as Wex admits, the reading of Plutarch (Conv. Disp. vm 718 E).

dTroo-f3evvvfj.evov, which Cobet substitutes for aTro\X.vfj.zvov, is in

itself good, and may point to an early variant, but dnoXXv^vov is supported by the evidence of Plutarch (I.e.) and Alcinous (Isag. c. 27). Nothing could be a more instructive lesson on the almost utter worthlessness of early citations of Plato for determining the text of the Republic than to compare A's readings in this passage with its reproduction by Theo and Nicomachus (Intr. Ar. 1 3. 7). Even the meanest and most corrupt of our MSS is, from the literary point of view, superior ; and there is not in these citations a single variant to which any of our MSS here lends support.

184

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII

VIII. V I I 528 C. iiril KCLL vvv VTTO T(2V iroWoiv cmiia£dju,eva Ka\ KoXovo/iiva w o 8e T
airavra Taxna /8ta w o ^api-ros aifavercu. I have returned in this edition to the reading of the best MSS, which is kept also by Schneider, Hermann, Stallbaum, and J. and C. The explanation in the notes appears to me required by the grammatical construction, as well as suitable in point of meaning if we remember that the mode in which stereometricians 'dishonour'' their subject has already been explained. T h e Many dishonour Stereometry negatively, on ouSe/xi'a TTOAIS evTi'/u.a>s a i m ?x€ti a n d thereby negatively clip or curtail the study, for until it receives public support, it will not attain to its natural and proper growth. The students of stereometry dishonour and curtail their study positively by prosecuting it feebly and in a slight degree, because they do not know its real utility, and (as was said before) have no public encouragement to support them in so difficult a subject. The omission of /n.iv before T W irokXwv was apparently a stumbling-block, for it is replaced in B and some other MSS of secondrate authority. See however i 340 D n. If w o fxh> rutv TTOWQSV were read, we should, I think, expect another passive participle to be present in the balancing clause. As it is, <5e merely marks the formal contrast b e t w e e n ol TTOXXOC a n d ol tpr/rovvTc;.

Schneider understands frji-ov/Aera or the like after xprjo-Lfia, and takes VTTO 7 w tprjTovvTUiv with avgdieTou. This explanation is too tortuous, nor is 8e accounted for by calling it "quasi primitivae orationis monumentum." Stallbaum's solution is in principle the same as Schneider's. According to the Oxford editors, w o 8i rdov tpqrovvToiv "may depend on some general idea of disadvantage, e.g. Kdikvo^va understood from the previous clause." The zeugma is however difficult, and a.TifjLa£6fj.eva «at KoXovopeva axe just as true of the fjjToiWes as of the TTOXXOI.

The following emendations have been proposed. (1) w o TMV iroWuv aTi//.afd|U.eva KOU Kokovo/xtva VTTO TU>V t^TovvTiov (' d i s h o n o u r e d by the many

and curtailed by students'). I formerly accepted this change, which is due to Voegelin, and has the support of Madvig and Baiter. The sense is excellent, but the intrusion of oY into all the MSS is very difficult to a c c o u n t for satisfactorily.

(2) v-n-b—KoXovo/xeva, TISV 8e £TJTOVVTO>I> KTA.

(Cobet). This correction, which (with the addition of \xkv before ruiv TroXkwv) commends itself to a reviewer of my Text of the Republic in Lit. Centralblatt 1898 pp. 296 f., is much too drastic. T h e same criticism applies to (3) Badham's art/xa^o'/xeva, Ko\ov6fxeva S' v-rro KTX., and also (4) to Liebhold's uVo fxiv i w -n-oXkiuv—vtrb Se i w £,T]TOVVTWV
APPENDICES

TO BOOK VII.

185

IX. V I I 529 C.

KCLV e£ VTTTias viwv iv yrj r) iv OaXdrrrj /xavOdvrj.

The MS tradition in this difficult passage points to the existence of two early variants, viz. vV-rias /xiv and uTn-ias vkwv. The former is read by A, Cesenas M, and two other MSS ; probably also /u-a\-i)v in Arist. a p . A t h . 1 34 B a n d i£vTTTia£i> 6jxjxa (Schiitz's

conjecture for ovo/xa) in Aesch. Sept. 577. The active is three times used by Lucian intransitively for throwing the neck or body back {Gall. 12, Heracl. 3, Adv. i?id. 21), and once with lavrov in the same sense (Catapl. 16). But the accidental omission of —os is not easy to explain in a MS of the ninth century or its progenitors, though natural enough at a later date (see Bast Comm. Pal. p. 772 and Ihb. iv 18). If fiiv and viwv each contain an element of truth (a very improbable supposition), it may be thought that fievwv is what Plato wrote. But the word is much too feeble and pointless. The editors, except Baiter, unanimously and (I think) rightly, read veW. A confirmation of this reading is supplied by Pollux vn 138 vav 8' c£ viTTLas jxaOrj/xa KOA.V|U./3IJTO5V 'ApurTCK^aV^s cure Kai IIA.aT(oi/: for it IS

unlikely that Pollux is thinking of the more artificial passage in Phaedr. 264 A oiSe air dpxrjs aAA' diro TeXtvTrj'i dvdiraX.iv Siai'etj' iirt^npa. TOV \.6yov.

Schneider's translation "und wenn er auch auf dem Riicken schwimmen in Landes- oder in Meeresgewassern lernt" is in harmony with his note " in ea orbis terrarum parte, quae yi} vocatur, non minus quam in altera natari potest. 777 non idem est, quod x«V(ros-" But even if we allow that iv yjj may bear this meaning, there must be some more specific reference, or else the phrase is pointless; for there is no object in swimming on one's back in a river with a view to watching the heavens, when the adjoining bank affords a more secure and stedfast post of observation. Stallbaum avoids the difficulty, merely translating "etiamsi (more urinatorurn) resupinus natans in terra vel mari discat," with the note " dictio e£ v7TTt'as velv vel Siavuv ab arte urinatorum petita." J. and C. see in Plato's phrase " a piece of extravagance " and nothing more ; but even the extravagance of Plato is never destitute of point. To understand viusv iv yrj as no more than lying on the land (with some older translators, including Ficinus), and to transpose iv yrj and iv OaXdrTy (with q and Flor. U) are of course wholly illegitimate resources. I have sometimes suspected that
186

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

D. L. i 34). That it has some peculiar and specific meaning I am convinced ; and the explanation offered in the notes appears to me far more probable than any other. The Aristophanic instance of i£ V7m'as vw does not occur in any of the extant plays. It should be added that in yrji fj.rj irkiiv was a Pythagorean .(3o\ov (Clement Strom, v 5. 49 A

Migne), but I do not think there is any allusion to the maxim here. See also my article in Cl. Rev. x m p. 11.

X. V I I 529 C, D. Trfn-otKiArat,

Tavra fiev TO. iv T<5 ovpavui TTOLKiXjxaTa, iireiirtp iv oparu

KaXXicrra fi.lv TjyeLcrdai Kal aKpi(3iV TOIOVTUV (\(U>,

T(SV Bi aX-qOwuiv TTOXV ivSeiv, as TO OV rd\o<; KOU IJ ovua. /3paSuT))s iv T<3 dXijdivw dpi6fj.w Kal 7raci Tots dXrjdicri £pei- a Srj Xoyu) /j.kv KOL Siavoia XijTrrd, o\j/u 0 ov.

This famous and difficult sentence has occasioned a vast amount of debate. I may refer in particular, besides the editors, to Schleiermacher in his Translation pp. 580 {., Steinhart Ei?ikitung pp. 691 f., Susemihl Gen. Entw. 11 p. 209, Krohn PL St. pp. 170ff.,Cohen Ideenkhre u. die Mathematik pp. 22 ff., Richards Cl. Rev. v m p. 194, Nettleship Lectures and Remains 11 p. 275 and Bosanquet Companion p. 290. Krohn's discussion, though not free from errors, is particularly able and suggestive. A large majority of editors and critics approve the MS tradition, but there is no consensus of opinion as to the meaning among those who have seriously attempted to grapple with the unusual difficulties of the sentence. On grammatical grounds, there should be no doubt that TU>V dX-qOivm means TWI> dXr]8iv<Sv iroLKiXixdrinv. It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand opc5v after dX-qOwuv (with Steinhart and Susemihl), or to take TWV dXrjdwdiv absolutely in the sense of 'the true' sc. system, as Bosanquet desires to do. The accusative as—tj>opd<; is believed by Schleiermacher and others to be equivalent to Kara -ms ^>opa's, but the construction, to say the least, is difficult and obscure. Schneider, who as usual is clear and precise, repeats TroiKiXfxdTwv with dXr)8ivuiv, and holds that as—fop't KTX. defines the true TroiKtAjnara " quasi dicat TUV dX-qdivuiv iroiKiX/iaVaiv, TOVT eo-Ti TWV opuiv as " etc. This view, which I have adopted in the notes, appears to me unquestionably correct. Schneider interprets the whole passage as follows:—"quemadmodum —sensibilis coeli varietas eo efficitur, quod Stellas in coelo conspicuas alias celerior, alias tardior motus per definita temporis spatia certasque figuras circumagit, qui motus est non verae, sed sensibilis celeritatis tarditatisque et per numeros atque figuras item sensibiles decurrit, ita veram varietatem vera celeritas et tarditas efficiunt eo, quod veras Stellas secundum verum numerum verasque figuras movent, qui motus partim ipsarum est, quia celeritas et tarditas motu carere non possunt, partim ad res motas seu veras Stellas pertinet, quae TO. ivovra dicuntur quia celeritas et tarditas cum eis sese coniungentes eas amplectuntur et

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

187

continent." It will be observed that Schneider identifies TO. kvovra. with 'verae stellae,' 'die intelligiblen Analogen' of the visible stars (Krohn), and TO 6V TO^OS Kal -q ovo-afipaSvTijswith ' vera celeritas et tarditas'; whereas, according to my interpretation, TO OV TO^OS Kal -q ovo-a y8paSvT7;s represent the ' verae stellae,' and TO IVOVTO. the mathematical OVTOL which they contain, analogous to the sensible ytyvo^cva. which are present in visible stars. Others, such as Steinhart and Susemihl, have actually recognised in ™ ivovra the visible stars themselves. To the latter view there are many objections, and it may be urged against both Schneider and Steinhart that neither intelligible nor visible stars can reasonably be said evelvai T<« OVTI ra^n etc. rd ivovra is a precise and definite expression which Plato ought not to have employed if he merely meant that 'celeritas et tarditas cum eis' (i.e. according to Schneider 'veris stellis') l sese coniungentes eas amplectuntur et continent.' The meaning which I have given to ™ ivovTa appears to me the only one which assigns its full and proper connotation to the word. It has been thought by some critics that TO 6V TO^OS Kal v ovo-a f3pa8vTrj<; are the self-existent Ideas of Speed and Slowness. Apart from other objections to this view (see Zeller4 11 1, p. 697 n. 3), we must insist that the astronomer as such is not yet concerned with the Ideas at all, but only with ra fieraiv i.e. TO. fj.a8r]fj.aTiKd, which, though 7roAA.a, are nevertheless both 0V0 (hence TO OV TOX°? «ai 77 ovo-a /JpaoV^s) and diSia: see 527 B«., with App. I and Zeller4 11 1, p. 701 n. 1 and Susemihl I.e. p. 209. The whole structure of the sentence in my opinion compels us to find the mathematical analogues of the visible stars'not in Ta evovra, but in TO OV Ta^o? Kai rj ovo-a /3pa8vTr/s, and I have tried in the notes to indicate the reason which induced Plato to express his meaning in this particular way. The text has of course often been called in question. The first to suspect corruption was apparently Ast, who suggested &v TO OVTO^OSKal •ij uvaa ySpaoVrry? <«at> iv KT\., and Richards accepts the principle of this proposal, merely substituting ots for Zv. I was myself once inclined to read ft. iv ™ d^rjOivw KT\., omitting TO OV TO^OS KO.1 rj ovo-a /3paSuT7;'s as well as the final s of as, but TO OV Ta^os Kal tf ovo-a /JpaSur^s is in all the MSS and was read by Proclus (in Tim. 244 c and elsewhere), and it is hardly necessary to say that 'emendations' on passages of this kind are peculiarly liable to error. I see no good reason for doubting the accuracy of the MSS.

XL V I I 531 B. o-v /JL£V, YJV S' cyo), TOIIS Xprjo'Tov's Xe'yeis TOVS Tals ^opSais irpayfiaTa irape^ovTa^ /cat /3ao-avt£ovTas, ITA TUIV KOXKOTTIDV o-Tpt($\ovvTas' tva 8t /JLT) ixaKpoTepa r) eiKwv ytyi/r/Tai v\rjKTpu> T€ TrXrjyuiv yiyvofiivuiv Kal KaTijyopias iripi Kal e^apvyjaewi Kal aXa^ovetas ^opSiov, TravofA-at Trji ctnoros KTA.

I take »7 einwv with iripi in the sense virtually of Aeyouo-a -n-ipi. This construction appears to be generally accepted, but there is considerable diversity of opinion as to the meaning of KaTijyoptas KTX. .Many inter-

i88

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

preters understand Kar^yopias as something which is done by the strings and not by the musicians, in which case x°P^v ' s a subjective genitive going with Kanyyoptas as well as with the other two nouns. Grammatically, this view is defensible enough: but whom, and how, do the strings Karriyopeiv? Is it the musician? If so, the tortured slave should 'accuse' the executioner, but he does not, although he may revile him. The slave upon the rack may denounce or accuse his accomplices, but the strings can hardly be said KaTr/yopeiv in any sense analogous to this. Others, as for example Schneider, suppose that Karrjyopia is a technical term in music (" hoc quoque artis vocabulum esse liquet"). For this idea there is no authority in any ancient writer, so far as I can discover. D. and V. translate " the peevishness, reserve and frowardness of the strings," but the word Kcn-Tjyopuxs does not mean peevishness, but 'accusation.' On the other hand the contrast between KaT-qyopias and l£apvijs is strongly in favour of holding that it is the musicians who accuse, and the strings that deny. Stallbaum and others think i£apvrj(reus means giving out no sound, and dAa£oveia<; ' nimis acute sonant.' This too is in my judgment far-fetched and weak. Plato's words should be taken in their full sense. The musician accuses the strings; the strings protest their innocence like an obstinate slave upon the rack. If more point is needed, we should remember that if the strings are innocent, the musician is guilty. Jowett apparently makes Karr/yopta^ govern itjapv-qaews : " they have a controversy with the strings and torture them : they accuse them of refusing to speak or of speaking too much." But the grammatical construction is harsh and the sense inadequate. The alternative view in J. and C. is in my opinion correct, except that dA.a£<Was is rather 'effrontery,' 'swagger,' than 'exaggeration.'

XII. V I I 5 3 2 A. ovTiD Kai orav TLS TV Oijcraiiv Sia TOV Xoyov iir' avrb o canv e.Ka. TOV vat)iov A KT\.

The MS reading bpjxS. is retained by J. and C , as well as by Richter in Fleck. Jb. 1867 p. 145. The Oxford editors treat aviv—dirovrrj as explanatory of ovTut—iiri^eipfj, remarking, truly enough, that such an asyndeton is "not without parallel in Plato." But the objection is not so much to the asyndeton in itself, as to the misunderstanding which it would occasion. No one would readily imagine that op/xa is a subjunctive dependent upon orav: it would naturally be construed as an indicative, and the words aven—6p/m would almost inevitably be taken as the apodosis corresponding to orav—lin^iprj. Richter is certainly wrong in supposing that av can be understood before avtv iraa-wv KT\. out of orav. Ast's emendation is in my opinion all but certain. Other proposals are (i) Zirixeiprj, dvev—op^ta, «ai iav /xr] aTroo-rij KT\. (Stephanus, with

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

whom Hermann and Stallbaum, reading

KOLV,

VII.

189

virtually agree): (2) eW

\tipy, avtv—opfia, Kai fvq diroorfj (Baiter) : (3) iirv)(f.ipZv for eV<-

X«pjj (mentioned in j . and C). The last conjecture is too drastic; of the others, (2) is better than (i), but neither is satisfactory. On the one hand, if aVeu—6pfj.a is in the apodosis, it is too prominent, and looks too much like a definition of the dialectical method ; on the other hand, Baiter's remedy seems to imply that it is or may be possible to attempt dialectic without dispensing with nao-aL at alo-Orjo-eis. Neither of these objections applies to Ast's conjecture, which is also more in harmony with the previous sentence than any other emendation.

XIII. V I I 532 B, C.

ij Se y£, yjv 8' eyco, A.v
(TTpo<j>rj awb TUIV O-KLUIV iir\

TO. eiSoiAa Kal TO <£O3S Kal £K TOV Karayeiov

eU TOV

rjkiov €7ravoSos, Kai €K£i irpbs fx.ev ra ^(5a re Kal VTa. Kal TO TOV TJXLOV <^
CTI aSwva/xi'a fiXiirtiv, 7rp6s 8c TO. iv v8ao-i ^ai'Tacrmara Bela, Kal
The reading lir aSvi/a/iia has the support of the best MSS and is retained by Schneider, Stallbaum, and J. and C , not to mention older editors. According to Schneider's explanation (with which the Oxford editors agree), fiXiireiv is a substantival infinitive, parallel to cWvoSos, and eV aSwa/ita is adverbial ('with inability' or the like), while iirl 8wa(«i /JAeVeiv (or something of the kind) is to be supplied with the contrasting clause. But eV dSway,ia, if taken adverbially with fikiwuv, is an extraordinary phrase, and none of the instances cited—chiefly from the tragedians—by Schneider and J. and C. is comparable to it. Stallbaum makes (SXtTrtiv depend on dSwa/ita ("bei dem Unvermogen hinzublicken nach" etc.), and supplies im 8wd.fj.ei to govern the /JAeVeiv which has to be supplied in the next clause. This explanation does more justice to the Greek, as far as
19o

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

able that Herwerden alone of recent critics has proposed this reinsertion, beguiled, perhaps, by the homoioteleuton, which Schneider-thinks was a deliberate artifice of the forger (" quis non glossema ex male intellecto adverbio ex€i vel undelibet oriundum et de industria homoeoteleuton factam agnoscat ? "). The adjective Qiia. has caused a great deal of discussion. I once unhappily proposed to read eta, comparing vi 510 A. The correct view was pointed out by Shorey in his severe though just denunciation of my remedy (Cl. Rev. iv p. 480). Schneider takes (f>avTaa-fj.a.Ta Bela as virtually <£avTaavTa.(TiJLa.Ta. of the sun alone are meant (cf. 516 B), but this is scarcely adequate. Against Stallbaum, who (without quoting the Sophist) bracketed 6da, Richter (Fleck. Jb. 1867 p. 145) rightly argued that the epithet was indispensable " um den Unterschied zu markieren zwischen den (ftavTaa-fxara und den im Kardyeiov vorkommenden ei'SwAa." Ast's conjecture Oea is neat, and has won considerable favour (see E. J. Palmer in Cl. Rev. v p. 278 and Apelt in Fleck. Jb. 1891 p. 556; where Apelt makes the same proposal independently), while Madvig's aSeta has been deservedly ignored. I have no longer any doubt that the text is sound. Some may find a difficulty because the Sophist is now believed by many to be later than the Republic; but 8iia in this sense may have been familiar in the Platonic school, and in any case (see note ad loc.) the meaning can be inferred from the context, even without the aid of the Sophist, whose theory of a 6eia and an avOpanrivq tlSuikoirouKi] may, if we think fit, be viewed as a further development of the expression in the Republic. There are also other traces in the Republic of doctrines supposed to be especially characteristic of the so-called ' dialectical dialogues': see App. VII to Book V. Finally, it should be noted that Herwerden's excision of O-KIO'S after t&ittkwv is not only unnecessary but wrong, because aTroo-Kta^oyuevas would then be most naturally taken with cr/aa? TO)V OVTOJV.

XIV. VII

533 E.

TOSC yovv, YJV S' eyui, ovScts rjfjlv d/x^Kr/Jjyny'cm kiyovaiv,

cos avrov y e €/cao"T0v Trept, o -etrrtv CKCKTTOV, O.X\TJ T19 €7riy€i/)Ct fieOooos 68(3 7T€pt 7rai>T0S Attyi/Javeiv, dAA' at fj.iv aXXai Tracrai KTX.

The ordinary explanation of this passage takes cos with aptfrurfiy Ttjo-ei and not with Xtyovaiv, interpreting oiXkr] as ' other than dialectic' (Schneider in Addit. p. 58, Stallbaum and J. and C ) . But it is scarcely possible to separate cos from Aiyowiv, and for this reason J. J. Hartman (who understands a\\-t) in the same way as Schneider) cuts kiyovaiv out. If \eyovcriv is retained, and connected, as it must be, with ak\r]. The latter alternative was adopted by Stephanus, Ast, and Bekker, whose apparatus criticus stated by implication that OVK was actually written in Paris A. Recent editors have rightly rejected owe

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

191

after it was found to have no MS authority. It is clear, therefore, unless we resort to unjustifiable emendation or excision, that aA.A.77 does not mean ' other than dialectic' The only other possible explanations are (1) other than all the arts spoken of in aAA.' a£ p aAAai— aiiw, (2) that given in the notes. Against (1) it might be urged that oXkr) does not easily look forward in a sentence of this kind, and (2) is in every way simpler and more natural, provided we observe that the stress falls on
XV. V I I 533 C. OVKOVV, rjv 8' iyo, 17 SiaAeKTiKT; fx.i6o8o<; fx-ovt) ravry iropeuerat, Tas xnroOiaei'i avaipovaa, iir' avrrjv rrjv apy(rjv, Iva fie.jia.i(X7JTGU.

The MSS without exception have avaipovo-a, which a majority of editors retain, avdyovaa was read by Canter (Stob. 11 p. 157), and is found as a correction in one MS of Stobaeus {Eel. 11 2. 1 Wachsmuth). I formerly printed dvaepovo-a, which Oldenberg (de PL arte dial. p. 38«.) had already (as I have since found) mentioned as possible, though he himself preferred avdyovaa. On an earlier occasion I conjectured avtowa (Cl. Rev. iv p. 357), thinking of Symp. 211 B : cf. also Alcin. Isag. 5 and 7. Schneider's dvaipovcra is an excessively rare word, and has met with little favour from critics ; but dvdyova-a has been approved by various writers, among others Oldenberg (I.e.) and Richards (Cl. Rev. vin p. 194). Further investigation into Plato's 'hypothetical method' has now convinced me that the reading and punctuation of Paris A represent the truth. See App. Ill, where the subject is discussed at length. The expression ras v-rroOeo-eis dvaipovcra throws a much-needed light on the real nature of the process described here and in vi 511 B, VII 532 A. It is not, as has been asserted, inconsistent with the description of Book vi, for although we demolish our viroOecreLs and must do so if we are ever to rise above them, they are none the less -no 6vn V7TO#<EO-£IS, olov cTri/Sao-as T€ «at bpfxai, without which we cannot even make a start. The path of knowledge is strewn with the wrecks of hasty generalisations, which have served as stepping-stones to students in the very act of their demolition: and in this sense, if in no other, it is true that "Error in the round of time Still fathers Truth." It is perhaps necessary briefly to advert to some erroneous interpretations of the authoritative text. Steinhart {Einleitung p. 693) translates "die Voraussetzungen aufhebend, um das Princip zu gewinnen," taking
192

APPENDICES

TO BOOK VII.

the good they cease to be viroOeo-eis" : but dvaipelv cannot be thus pared down, and should be taken in its full force as explained in the note.

XVI. VII

533 E.

Ov yap ovv, Z<pr) [aXX' o av fiovov S17X01 7rp6s rrjv
is

7)V(.iq. Xeya iv i/")x5]-

'Ap«r/cct ovv KTX.

The words within brackets are printed as they appear in A. n agrees, except that it has aXXo (corrected to aXX' o) and e£iv (sic). In q and Flor. U we find aXX' 8 av fwvov 877X01 irpos rr)v Xe£iv o-a<j>rjve(a (i.e. o-a<j>r]veia) § Xcyoi iv i/^xfl, and this reading is adopted by Bekker. There is also some slight authority (in addition to II') for aXXo instead of aXX' o, for crar]v€La.v instead of o-atfrrjvua, and for Xe'yeiv instead of Xeyei.

Jowett and Campbell remain faithful in their allegiance to A, except that with q they insert o before Xeyei. " T h e words in the text," they remark, " are very possibly genuine and may be rendered—' we only require ' (the verb is gathered from ov 7rept ovd/taro? d/A(£icr/3>fn?<m) 'an expression which may indicate with a clearness proportioned to the mental condition, that of which it speaks as existing in the mind. For example, Sidvoia may not be a very clear or definite expression, but the state of mind which it expresses is also far from clear." But they do not explain how the words which I have italicised represent the Greek, and few will find themselves able to accept the translation which they offer. The reading of q is carefully examined by Schneider, who justly characterises it in these words '' sententia mihi tam absona videtur, ut earn vix interpolatori mediocri, nedum Platoni tribuere audeam." The chief emendations are ( i ) a'XX' o av /JLOVOV SrjXoi irpos rrjv c^e'racrii/ ararfrrjvua < o > Xeycis iv if'V)(rj (Wlrickelmann), (2) aXX' 0 av fjiovov

OJ^Xot Trpos rrjv

€^w cracjyyiveioLV < a > Xcyct

kv ibvvr}

< apueffti >

( H e r m a n n , a n d B a d h a m , except t h a t t h e latter writes cx« for Xe'y£l> a n d begins t h e next s e n t e n c e with 'ApKecm), (3) aXX' o av ovopa SrjXot •n-pos TYJV Xefceo? aaffirjveiav < o > Xc'ya (or av Xeyoi) iv ijjvxfj < dpnioa > (Steinhart), (4) aXXo av oro/xa 817X01 Trpos rrjv e£w cra^veia, Xeyot av ^vyr/ ( R i c h t e r in Fleck. Jb. 1867, p . 146), (5) aXX' o—Uiv <ja(f>rjveia, Xe'y', 6i iv ij/vxrj (Madvig, Baiter), (6) oiXX' o av /xovov hrjXoi Tijv l£iv < TTIUS i \ u > Xcyets iv ij/vXV (Bywater), (7) a'XX' 0 av

fjiovov

OYJXOL 7ra>? avrr^v

eyetv o"a<^>7yi/etas

Xeyets

iv \bv\rj

< apne(T€i > •

'ApKeVei (or dpeo-Ktc) yoCi/ KTX. ( R i c h a r d s ) , (8) aA.X' o av povov 877X01 » ; rr)v e$tv (racbrjvda Xe'yetv iv {j/v)(yj< apKicrti; Nai. >'ApKeo-et KTX. (Burnet).

Some of these conjectures are ingenious and scholarly, but none of them, nor any other which I can devise, is altogether satisfactory in point of sense, or diplomatically probable. (The last remark does not apply to Madvig's correction, which is easy enough, but KaKov KOKU l and does not attempt to cure irpos TTJV t£iv a-a<j>rjveia at all.)

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

193

The independent reasons for holding the clause to be interpolated are :—(1) it is absent in B, which the Aldine edition and Stephanus as usual follow: (2) " in Platonis dialogis quum negationi assensus per formulam ov yap ovv praebetur, nusquam assentiens quicquam addit, quod ex contrario petitam negati descriptionem contineat idque per affirmationem cum particula d\\d definiat" (Schneider). Little weight need be attached to the first argument, in view of the general character of H, but if (as I believe in opposition to Schanz Platocod. etc. p. 81) H is sometimes independent of A, it is possible enough that the words were omitted in the MS (or MSS) from which H was copied in this passage. The second consideration, which Schneider establishes by a vast number of instances, is extremely weighty. As regards the origin of the gloss Schneider observes {Addit. p. 59) " ceterum primitivam formam et originem glossematis investigaturos contulisse iuvabit Platonis verba Leg. 1 p. 633 A : irepl TWV T^S 0EAA77S dptrrjs eire p.epwv eire CLTT' avra KaXeiv xpetov t o r i , SrjXovvra JXOVOV a Aeyei, et h a e c G a l e n i EicraycoyVys SiaXtKTiK-ijs p . 1 2 : ovSev y a p irpos TO Trapbv o~ia<j>€pei uvp.iriTrXiyp.ivqv Xeyeiv aTrocpaTiKrjv rj a.TiKijv, I^OVTOS yt o~ov (TKOTTOV iv awdo-rj Xe$a TO SrjXwo-at r o t s TreXas, 0 TL 7rep av

avros iwofjs." Cf. also Theaet. 177 D, E, Soph. 218 B, Hipp. Mai. 296 D. The sentence is evidently an attempt to say that we should be content if the words we use express our meaning clearly. In Xe'yei (and still more Xe'yeis) iv <]/vxfj we may detect an allusion to the Platonic theory of thought as the conversation of the soul (see on m 400 D) and perhaps also to the Xoyos eVSiaflero? of the Stoics. On this account, and also because of e£w, I am inclined to attribute the interpolation to some adherent of the Stoic school, of which, in point of style, it is not unworthy.

XVII. V I I 534 D. 'AXXa l*,rjv TOV'; ye aavrov TraiSas, oik T<3 Xoya> Tp£<j>us re Kai iraiSoJets, ei 7T0T£ ?pya> Tpicfaois, OVK av €ao"ats, cos £ywp.ai, dXoyous ovras v eivai.

Schneider was the first to discover in this passage a punning reference to mathematical aXoyot ypap.fi.ai, as denned by Euclid x Deff. 5 — n . The same explanation, although it did not commend itself to Stallbaum, is apparently accepted by the Oxford editors, who aptly quote Theaet. 146 A Trpo8vp.ovp.tvoi rjjxas Trourjo-ai SiaXey«r#ai Kai (f>iXovs re xai

irpoa-q-

ydpovs dXX^Xois yiyveuOai. It is to Theodorus the mathematician that these words are spoken, and Campbell is, I believe, right in thinking that Trpoo-rjyopovs is quasi-mathematical: cf. VIII 546 B iravra Trpocrijyopa Kai prjTa. Trpb'i aXXiyXa

diritfyrivav.

It is better, I think, and more pointed to connect dXoyovs directly with ypap.p.di (cf. 519 A Tct? TJJS ytyeVecos ^vyyevets wcnrtp p.o\.v/38iSa<; with note ad loc), than to translate "incapable of reason, like irrational lines" (with Schneider and J. and C). In order to extract this meaning from the Greek, we must understand ypap.p.ds as = dXoyou? ypap.p.d<;, which is doubtless possible, but less natural than the view given in the notes. A. p. II. 13

194

APPENDICES

TO BOOK

VII.

J. and C.'s translation also gives to 3>
There is little to be said in favour of the non-mathematical interpretations, though perhaps the following contain an element of truth: " unverniinftig wie Figuren " (Schleiermacher), " unverniinftig wie todte Striche" (Prantl), "lineae penecillo praeformatae " (Stallbaum). ypo/ijuds has, I think, a non-mathematical as well as mathematical meaning in this place, and the former is fairly expressed by Prantl's "todte Striche." Ast thought of "literae s. scriptiones," remembering the well-known passage about dumb books in Phaedr. 275 ff.; but ypafi.fj.as cannot be thus interpreted. Others have thought of pictures, as for example Stallbaum, who refers to Plut. Lycurg. 10. 3 wo-ircp yparjv a\j/vxov KO! aKLvyyrov, and is inclined to read ypa<j>ds instead of ypa.fjt.fj.ds. The correction yeypafifiivovs is suggested by Steinhart (Einleitung p. 694) and yp6.fi.ftM. or ypa.fLfn.ar (with reference to v 472 D) by Apelt (Fleck. Jb. 1893 p. 556). T h e eccentric proposal pvyas MiSas apymnas is due to Cornarius, who remarks " coniectura est nostra, qua falli possum: sed tolerari poterit donee rectior occurret" (Edog. p. 101). Stallbaum's conjecture is neat and elegant, but the text is indubitably sound.

H. 543

I.

Etey ravra

fiev Bt) wfioXoyrjTai, « YXavKcov, ry fieXXovcrrj

5 4 3 A—545 c Socrates now returns to the point at which the digression occupying Books V—VIIbegan. There are, as we observed, four leading varieties of States and individuals, in addition to the perfect polity and perfect man. In order of merit they are (i) Timarchy, or the Cretan and Laconian State, (2) Oligarchy, (3) Democracy, (4) Tyranny. All other kinds of commonwealths, such as dynasties etc., lie somewhere between these primary and conspicuous varieties. Furthermore, inasmuch as the specific character of States is determined by that of individuals, there will be five leading types of individual character, embodied respectively in (1) the aristocratic, (2) the timarchical, (3) the oligarchical, (4) the democratical, (5) the tyrannical man. The first of these we have already described; but we must review the others also, in order that, by contrasting the best and worst, we may apprehend the relation between undiluted justice and undiluted injustice in respect of the happiness and misery of their possessors. As before, we will examine the commonwealths first, and afterwards the individuals. 5 4 3 A ff. The description of the philosopher and the philosophic city is at last complete, and the argument returns to the point at which the 'digression' began, viz. v 449 A: see note ad loc. Plato has already said repeatedly, and reminds us yet again in 544 A, that the aim of our whole investigation was to

to 576 B). The method which he follows resembles that adopted in II 369 Bff.—iv. In the first place, he retains throughout the former analogy between the Soul and the City, and his account of the imperfect man is in every instance preceded by an account of the imperfect State. Secondly, instead of going straight to the mark and giving us a single ready-made sketch of total and complete depravity, Plato draws an elaborate and quasi-historical picture of the gradual descent of the perfect State and the perfect Man through successive phases of ever-growing degeneration down to the lowest depth of wickedness and crime. In. the same way, as Nettleship observes (Led. and Rein, n p. 295), " i n describing a perfect state, or certain steps in the process of forming a perfect state," he sometimes wrote " as if one step of that process succeeded another in a historical order." See on II 369 B, 372 D, 373 D et al. The question has often been discussed whether the sequence of polities in v i n and IX was intended to be really historical or not: see for example Zeller4 11 pp. 923—925, Henkel Studien zur Gesch. d. Gr. Lehre v. Staat p. 56 and Krohn PL St. pp. 204 ff. Aristotle seems to have understood Plato's account as an attempt to describe the actual facts of Greek history, and severely criticizes it from his usual standpoint in Pol. E 12. I3i6 a 1—b 27 ; but Plato himself must of course have known as well as Aristotle that the historical development of Greek constitutions did not by any means always correspond with his scheme. See Whibley decide el 6 dpurros eiSaL/iovio-Taros Kai 6 Gk Olig. pp. 62—88 and Greenidge ,) x ( Gk Const. Hist. pp. 12—35. The fact 368 E, 36o.A««.). With the character of is that Aristotle altogether ignores the the perfect man we are now familiar, but real object of Plato, which is, as we we have still to discover and describe rbv Ki.Ki.aTov, in order that we may institute have seen, to arrive at the worst State and the worst man, and treats him as our comparison and pronounce our verif he had undertaken to exhibit a full dict. This is the task to which Plato addresses himself in v i n and ix (down 13 2

TTAATfiNOI

[543 A

aKpax; oliceLv iroXei Koivas fiev yvvaiKas,

KOLVOVS Be 7ratSo? elvac

196

Kal iracrav Trat.Bel.av, dxravrco<; Be ra eTriTrjBevfiaTa KOLVCL ev TroXe/iw Te Kal eiprjvri, ftaciXea's Be aiir&v 5 7rpo« TOV iroXefAov yeyovoras

elvai

apLarovs.

TOVS ev iXocro<j>ia re Kal ' VLfioXoyqrai,

firjv Kal rdSe ' l^vveyaip-quayuev, to? orav Bij KaTaarwatv ayovTes rovs cnpariunas

KaroiKiovaiv

IBiov fiev

ovBev ovBevl

roiavrais

oiK^creai Kal ras

10 fxe8d

-7TOV olai

et? olKijcreK oia<; irpoeiTrofiev,

e^ovcra?, Koivas

eaovrao

Be iraai.

irpos Se rail

KTrjcreis, el fAvrjfioveveis, BuofioXoyrjadavTOis.

and complete genealogical tree of all the changes good or bad which had ever taken place in Greek constitutional history. But Plato does not here profess to describe political advance, but only political decay; and even his theory of political decay is itself based upon a theory of psychological degeneration which justly and deliberately ignores, as irrelevant for our present purpose, the undoubted power of human character to improve as well as to deteriorate. The question, as Nettleship says, which Plato puts before himself is this: " T h e human soul being as we have described it, and having in it a certain capacity for evil as well as for good, what would it come to, and through what stages would it pass, if its capacity for evil were realized gradually but without any abatement? In actual human experience there is always some abatement; there are always counteracting circumstances which prevent any one tendency working itself out in isolation and unhindered; but the philosopher may, as Plato here does, work out the result of a single tendency logically. These books therefore put before us an ideal history of evil, as the previous books put before us an ideal history of good" (1. c. p. 295). The different stages in the decline of the individual soul are each reflected in the decline of the TTOXIreta, which is still, as in II—VII, not ' a lifeless instrument, or dead machine,' but in the words of Isocrates, simply the soul of the State (?
ecfyq. Kal 01 ap^ovTet, B

But

although Plato treats the whole question from a psychological rather than a historical standpoint, it is none the less true that the materials of his picture are taken from Greek political and social life. In Books VIII and ix of the Republic we have an extraordinarily vivid and life-like

AXXa

/J,vr)fioveva>, erj, on
embodiment of the results of Plato's observation and experience of the Greek character, both private and public, in all its different phases, Lacedaemonian, oligarchical, democratical or Athenian, and tyrannical ; and the student of Greek history, whether political, economical or social, will obtain a clearer idea of the inner life and animating spirit of Greek constitutions from Plato's description than from any other ancient source whatever. For the rest, it should be noted that Plato has given us in this part of the Republic the earliest attempt at a Philosophy of History, and founded the psychological interpretation of the State. Every political movement is, according to him, the expression of some particular psychological impulse or impulses, and the Constitution inevitably assumes different forms, according as one or another element or * part' of soul obtains the mastery in the individual citizen. See on this subject Krohn PL St. pp. 199 ff., and Bluntschli Theory of the State pp. ;6f. 5 4 3 A 1 TT) [leXXoio-n oLKpws KTX. Cf. Laws 739 c, D. The adverb cucpws is said by Herwerden (Mn. x i x p. 335) to be a a?ra| elpf\ixivov in classical Greek. On the word f3a
543

TTOAITEIAC H

197

ovBev ovBeva coo/xeOa Belv KeKTrjadai a>v vvv oi aXKot, axrirep Be C a6\7]Td<; r e troXefiov pevovs et? eviavrov

Kal $>v\aica'i, fuadov

tr)v et? Tavra

TT)? v\a>cfj<; ' Se^o-

rpo(j>fjv trapd

re Belv Kal T779 OX\T)<; TroXew? eTri/ie\ela8ai. dWd

7 ' €7reiBr) TOVT

d7rere\ecra/j,ev,

Xva irdXiv yap, \oyovs

KaQdirep vvv,

rrjv

avrrjv

Iwfiev.

Ov

irepl

(lev rrjv

avrSiv

e(fir)v, Xeyeis.

dva/j.vrjO'Owfiev irodev

0)9 Bie\rf\.vdw

eirOLOv, Xeycov, &>? dya8r]V

rmv aWwv,

'OpSw,

Bevpo 15

^aXeirov, e(f>7j.

T?}? TroXetu? TOVS

TOtavrrjv,

oiav

Tore

D 8ifj\6e<;, ri6eiri<; TTOX.LV Kal dvBpa ' TOV eicelvr] ofioiov, Kal Tavra, &)?

Liebhold's conjecture on KOIVO.1 is an The MSS fluctuate between dXXd 7' (the undeserved reflection on Glauco's powers reading of A), aXX' #7' and dXX' &ye (II), of memory. the last of which readings is adopted by 11 OL d'XXoi. oi &v6poiToi, which I all editors except Schneider. dXXd ye, once suggested (Cl. Rev. IV p. 357), would though rare, is, I believe, firmly estabe more exact, and AAAOI and ANOI blished in Plato: see on I 331 B. It fits are pretty easily confused in uncial MSS the situation in this passage exactly, (Cobet F.Z. 2 p. 432: cf. Heindorf on whereas dXX' uXa/c7Js Sie\y\v6a.s alone: but A (with which II 2 etc. For the use of the pronoun cf. v n and several other MSS agree) is certainly 536 A and infra 558 EKK. Madvig's els TUKTO. is unnecessary, and Ta£a/j.evovs in right. 18 \4yvv KTX. V449.A. HI 416 D means something quite different. 5 4 3 D 19 Kal TavTa K T \ . : 'and 15 dXXa y 4irei8i^ KTX.. : 'yes, but that, too, though, as it seems, you could after we finished that subject, let us recall have told us of a still more beautiful city where we digressed to come here, that and man' viz. the city of the philosopherwe may resume the old path.' "ye ad king and the philosopher-king himself, sequentia iireiSij TOVT' aireTtki
rTAATQNOI

198 20 eotKas, KaXXico en

e%a)v eiTreiv iroXiv

[543 D re Kal

avBpa.

Brj TO.? aXXas ^fiapTrjfieva<; eXeyes, el avTij opdrj. iroXiTeiav Xoyov

k'
d^iov

etrj e%eiv Kal IBeiv avraiv

5 e'/ceiWt? av 6/j.oiovs, Xva 7rdvTa<; avrovs TOV apiarov

Kal TOV K&KIOTOV

evBai/iovecnaTOS efxov epopevov, inreXafie

avhpa

TtVa? Xeyois

HoXefiapxos

r
elBrj eivai, wv Kal irepi afiapTq/Mna

Kal TOII?

IBovTes Kal ofioXoyrja-d/jievoi, eiricr KetyaiiJieda, el 6 apt<7To?

Kal 6 KaKio~TQ
rj aXXw? e%of Kal

TroXiTela?, ' iv Tovrcp B

r e Kal 'ABeufxavTOs, Kal OVTCO BTJ ail ava-

10 Xa/3a>v TOV Xoyov Bevp* a(j>l^ai. TldXiv

ra

dXX' | ovv 544

'Opdurara,

elirov, efiv7)/j.6veva-a<;.

Toivvv, axrirep 7raXaiGTi]<;, TTJV avTrjv \a/3r)v Trapeze, Kal TO

avTO ifiov

ipofiivov

ireipS)

'EavTrep, TJV B' eyco, Bvv(i)fj.ac. aKovaai,

elirelv,

Tiva<; i\eye<; TO.? TerTapas

15 S' eyco, oLKOxxrei. elcrl yap Te inro TCOV iroXXwv

airep

TOT6

e/xeXXes Xeyeiv.

Kal, firjv, fj B' 6'?, eiridv^Si TroXiTelas.

Kal avrbs

' Ow ^aXeiroii;, qv C

a? Xeya, airrep Kal ovofxaTa ej^ovaiv, r)

enraivoxj^evt], rj }Lpv)TiKrj Te Kal

Der Dialog pp. 235 ff. Jowett's translation "although, as now appears, you had more excellent things to relate both of State and man" is a defensible construction, but unnatural, and certainly not what Plato meant. The passage has been curiously misunderstood by some critics, through inattention to the force of the imperfect participle txuv. Herwerden, for example, actually proposes to insert before KaMfoj. Schneider and Stallbaum translate the sentence correctly. 5 4 4 A 3 &f>i]0-8a KTX. IV 445 C. On the pronouns wv—airSiv see II 357 B n. Plato is very careful to make it clear that he does not profess, like Aristotle, to give a complete account of faulty States. From his watch-tower he can descry infinite varieties, but only four on which he need expatiate. We may take it that these are, in Plato's view, the four most conspicuous landmarks in the history of political degeneration, as well as the most important and clearly-outlined varieties of existing States. Cf. IV 445 c and infra 544 D TJTLS Kal iu u8ei diatpave't nvi /ceTrat.

5 iva. irdvTas KTX. reminds us of the thread which is the clue to the labyrinthine reasoning of the Republic: cf. 545 A, 548 D and II 368 E n. 1 ?x ot - "^he optative, for. which Ast and Stallbaum needlessly read f%a with Si/ and some other inferior MSS, is due

to the oratio obliqua: cf. VII 515 D n. 8 «po|i.lvov. v 449 A. 5 4 4 B II oio"ir€p iraXawrTiis. The Scholiast remarks ISos yhp TOI)TOIS, fa-aj/ irtaoxTU' 6/ioO—wdXtv eyepdtvrm £
Xd/3)jc. Plato, as Stallbaum points out, uses the same figure in Phaedr. 236 R: cf. Phil. 13 D, Laws 682 E and d^riXa/i(3av6fj.€j'os VI 505 A 71.

13 cm0v|jLU—rixovcrai: 'lamdesirous also on my own account to hear' sc. apart from the half-polemical motive suggested by the figure. Herwerden remarks "locus vix sanus," but it is sound enough, although the English translators (" I shall particularly wish" etc. Jowett) miss the meaning. 5 4 4 c 15 rj T€—liraivov|ilvr|. The Spartan constitution in its palmy days was widely praised for e&voixla. and discipline (pseudo-Archytas in Mullacli Frag. Philos. Gr. I p. 560, Xen. Mem. Ill 5. 15 f., iv 4. 15, Plato Hipp. Mai. 283 E, 285 B, Laws 692 c and elsewhere), and became on this ground a sort of political ideal in the eyes of many Greeks: see for example Isocr. Panath. 108 ff. 200 ff. 216 ff. and the fragments of Critias' AaxedaitiovLwi' iroXireia in Muller FragHist. Gr. 11 pp. 68 f. Cf. Nohle Statslehre Plat. pp. 108 ff. and Whibley Gk Olig. pp. 57 ff.

TTOAITEIAC H

544

199

avrr]' Kal Sevrepa Kal SeuTepws eTraivovfiivrj, Ka\ovfj,ivr] 8' oXtyap%ia, crv^vmv opos Kal e<j>€^'Pj<; yvyvo/xivT} Brj/MOKparia, Kal fj yevvaia Brj rvpavvl? Kal iraa&v D p6ar)/ia.

TOVTCOV Biacpepovaa, fj r'wa aWrjp

Siaavel nvi 19.

Kelrai;

reraprov

re

Kal

ea-^arov

TTOXCWS 20

e%et? IBeav ' 7roA(.Teta?, J?T(? Kal ev eiBei

Bvvaareiai

Kai iraa&v I I : Kal T\ iraawv A.

jap Kal mvi)Tal fiaaCkelai Kal 20. Siae6yovaa

describes is a 'logical order,' and is 17 oiiTT): ista 'that of yours,' 'your primarily determined by psychological, Cretan and Lacedaemonian constitution.' On their connexion see Arist. Pol. B 10. and not by historical considerations. Although there are many points of con127 i b 22 ff. with Susemihl and Hicks's tact between the development of Greek notes. It is, I think, fanciful to see in aiirr) an allusion to Glauco's sympathies for constitutional history and Plato's arrangement, Plato here employs narration priSparta, in spite of 548 D below. marily and chiefly as a vehicle or inKal 8«VTC'PS- Hermann prints his own conjecture T) Sevripas, but the com- strument for expressing the results of psychological analysis, and not because mon confusion of Kal and T) (Bast Comtn. he believes that political development Pal. p. 815) is, 1 believe, later than the always and inevitably follows the same date of Paris A, and the text is free from lines. See also on 543 A and infra objection: 'and second in order as in esteem, a constitution fraught with many 544 Devils, bearing the name of oligarchy.' 20 8uu|>^pouopos: not of course ' different' 43* I ( 5 ) anc ^ Ficinus [ad his omnibus (as Jowett), but' antagonistic,' adversaria differens). All other MSS appear to have (Stallbaum). 8t.d<popos 'different' gives a Siaipeiyovaa. "Errori—occasionem propoor sense, and would take the genitive, nuntiatio non absimilis dedisse videtur" which Ast erroneously proposed to read. (Schneider). The word does not mean Greek history furnished only too many 'differs' (as Jowett) but 'excels' (ironiproofs of the natural feud between democally, of course, like 7} -yevvala 5^). Father cracy and oligarchy: see Greenidge Gk Rickaby has suggested to me that we Const. Hist. pp. 208 ff. and Gilbert Gr. should read Kai 17 iraffujv TOUTWV SLCC.Staatsalt. 11 p. 285 n. 2. £povE£TJS 'Yi'Yvo|i€VT|. From this KT\. The conjecture is an attractive one, and other indications it would appear both on other grounds and also because it on a first perusal that the sequence of enables us to retain the article which commonwealths in VIII and ix is intended appears before ircuroiv (see cr. n.) in A: by Plato to be not merely logical, but but it is perhaps safer to follow 3 . historical also; but there is no question 21 v<5(TT|(ia. Greek political theory that the political evolution of Greek conregards tyrants as vocrrifiaTa TWV woXeoiv stitutions was far more complex than (Isocr. Hel. 34: cf. Henkel 1. c. p. 156). would appear from Plato's description. •fj T£VO. Ast and others write rj TWO. See on 543 A. We must above all things (with slight MS support), but rlva is perremember that it is in order to furnish a fectly good: cf. ix 573 A. picture of the worst city and the worst tv ctScL $iaav€i TIVI. See on 544 A. man that the whole of this enquiry is 5 4 4 D 22 8wa
TTAATftNOl

2OO roiavral ris

avras

rives

iroXireiai

25 IloXXal yovv II.

fiera^v

ob/c iXdrrovs

ri rovroov irov eicriv, evpoi 8' av

irepl robs

Kal aroiroi,

Olo-8'

[544 D

ftapftdpovs

e
ovv, rjv 8' i, on

Kal dvOpwiroov etBrj roaavra

avdyKt] rpo-Kwv elvai, oaairep Kal iroXireiSsv; rj eK Trerpas ras iv

rals

iroXeaiv,

30 OvBa/Acos eycoy,

TroXireoas yiyveadai, ' a

av

av elev.

Ti firfv ;

rj evrevdev.

T w fiev Br) rfj dpiaroKparia

Ap' ovv TO fxera rovro

Bureov

OVKOVV

el ra T<W

rrjs o/xoiov 1

6p8a>s a/u.ev elvai.

\ AieXr/XvOafiev. 545

robs j(eipovs, rbv (J>IX6VIK6V re Kal

<j)iX6rifJ,ov, Kara rrjv A.aKwviKr)v earoira 28.

eK rwv r)6wv rw

raXXa icpeXKiKrrjrai;}

IBMOTWV KaraaKeval

rjBr], bv dyaQov re Kal BUatov T

rj olet eK Bpvot nrodev

aXX' ovyl

eocnrep pe-^ravra

e
iroXewv irkvre, Kal at rwv

rj robs "EXXr)va
2

1

Tflur TQV A n : -?)6Qv A .

vided by Thessaly (Thuc. IV 78. 3) and (about 480 B.C.) Thebes (Thuc. Ill 62. 3 : cf. Gilbert Griech. Staatsalt. II pp. 10, 46). See Whibley Gk Olig. pp. 124— 126. wvi)Tal (3a
aiav^.fqTtta, and the other specific varieties (as Aristotle reckons them) of Plato's typical 7roXire?cu : see Pol. T, A, Z passim. «vpoi 8' av KTX. : whereas Plato confines himself to Greek history throughout VIII and IX. 26 Kal dvSpairuv KT\. Cf. IV 445 c, and on the principle here laid down see IV 435 E ;/. The present passage is a clear and emphatic statement of the psychological basis on which Plato's philosophy of History rests. Political aSiKia, like political biKato
iroXneiav, 33.

Kal o)

•fjSr, A?U: S^ A 1 .

as a single word, and should be repeated with TroXiTeiwp : cf. iv 445 c 6Vot iro\iTeiu>v rpdTroi. elalv elSri ix0VTeh ToffodroL KivdvvetiovcTL Kal ipvxqs rpinroi

dvai (a passage which proves, I think, that Schneider and Stallbaum are wrong in supplying only ei'Si? with tiaairep KT\). 27 (K Spuos KTX. Horn. Od. XIX i6if. dXXa Kal u s /xoi etirt rebv ytvos, 6irw6tev t&ai' I oO yap airb dpvos eaai Tra\at
oi>5' awb ir^Tpr,s, i.e. you have a 7^05 (cf. Ap. 34 D) and are not miraculously sprung dyeveaXoy-qTus out of tree or stone, like the fabled men of old (see Preller-Robert Gr. Myth. p. 79 n. 4). In Plato the saying is used much like the German ' es ist doch nicht aus der Luft gefallen' (Schiick de scholiis p. 32, where the proverb is illustrated). 5 4 4 E 29 a av KT\. of av was read till Schneider on the authority of S; but a av (AIT and a large majority of MSS) is quite satisfactory. " Reipublicae formae eos dicimtur sequi mores, qui in quavis Bcivitate veluti pond ere praegravantes ad se suamque regionem attraxerint reliqua" (Schneider, comparing for pt-tytuna. Hdt. VII 139). The word peicravra (S and some other MSS) is unattic (Lobeck Phryn. p. 738): Plato's form is puirra e.g. VI 495 B. 33 op6us is more naturally taken with cpa/xiv (Jowett etc.) than with the adjectives (as Schneider). We rightly call him 'good' etc., because he is woim d i

nOAITEIAC H

545 c]

av Kai OTj/MOKpariicbv Kal TOV rvpavviKov, avTid&fiev

201 'iva TOV dBiKWTaTov tSoi>T6?

Tft) hiKabOTcurw Kal rj/xtv TeXea r) av<:ei|ri? y, TT&J? iroTe r\ 5

oiKaioo-vvr] Trpos dBiKiav TTJV aKpaTov

fyei

evBaifiovia^

TOV e%ovTO<; Kal dBXtoTrjTO?, 'iva rj %paavp,dya B BiaiKcofiev ' dBtKbav rj T&> VVV Trpo^aivojMeva) Xoyq> /Mev ovv, e'^77, OVTW iroirjTeov.

YiavTairaai

Te

ireidofxevoi BiKaiocrvv^v;

*Ap' ovv, Savrep r)p%a-

/ie6a iv r a t ? TroXiTeiais irpoTepov aKoirelv TO. rfit] i) iv TOI? tS &>
ov, Kai

iroXiTeiav

TifiOKpaTiav

tj

C TOIOVTOV dvBpa

vvv

OVTCO vrpcoTOV fiev TTJV

ovofjba yap

Tip,apyiav

ai/rrjv

OVK eyca Xeyo/x,evov aXXo' KXrjTeov

crKeyfro/Aeda, eVeiTa oXiyap-^iav

ov, av6i
rj

7T/3O? Be TavTrjv TOV Kal ' dvBpa 0X1-

Br)fM>Kpa,Tlav d-7ro/3XetjravTe
645 A 4 tvo KTX. See 544 A n. shortest period of gestation in the human 545 6 9 Tip^a(ie0a. 11 368 E n. kind, Socrates builds up a ' geometrical 12 ovo|j.a ^dp KTX. : 'for I have no number,'' which he calls ' the lord of other name in our language for it: we better and worse births' When, through must call it either " timarchy " or " timoignorance of these, couples are tmited incracy " ' (" Ehrenherrschaft oder Ehrenobopportunely, as one day they will be, a macht" Schneider). Plato called the degenerate race of offspring arises. The constitution in question 0tX6rtjttos 7ro\tbest of these in due course become rulers; Tela, which may be cumbrous, but is but the mixture of races—golden, silver, certainly Greek. If we want a single copper, iron—waxes greater, and sedition name, we must, he says, invent: and The contending parties is the result. either rt/iap^ia or Tip.oKpa.TLa will do. finally, by means of a compromise, effect The Oxford editors erroneously suggest the transition to Timarchy—a form of that rj—K\T]T£OV is interrogative: nor is commonwealth standing midway between there any reason to suspect the text, as Aristocracy and Oligarchy. W. H. Thompson did. Both of Plato's 5 4 5 c ff. I have discussed the famous coinages survived, but they never be' Number of Plato' at length in Appencame popular, and were used in another dix I, and must refer the reader to that sense from Plato's — Ti/xo/c/xn-ia with the Appendix for a fuller justification of views meaning of the vox nihili TwrifxaTOKparLa which considerations of space preclude or 17 dwb Tifi.r)fj.6.Twv apxv (Arist. Eth. Nic. me from defending totis viribus throughVIII 12. u 6 o a 36) and Ti/xapxia for the out the notes. The connexion of the epiRoman censorship (Stephanus-Hase Thes. sode with the argument of the Republic s.v.). may be expressed as follows. In accord13 irpds—Ta\iTqv='ad h a n c ' : cf. IX ance with the form of a historical narra577 B and Tim. 24 A TOI)? fxkv ovv v6fxovs tive which he employs throughout these S TrjSe (Schneider). two books, Plato invites us to conceive of his perfect city as having actually existed 545 C—547 C How does Timarchy long ago, just as in the Timaeus (23 c ff.) arise out of Aristocracy ? We may lay it and Critias (109 Bff.) the Platonic Utopia down as a universal rule that constituappears as prehistoric Athens. In making tional change is originated by dissension this demand upon the imagination of his within the governing class. Socrates invokes the Muses to tell ' how first sedition countrymen, Plato could count upon the support to be derived from the prevalence entered.' Like everything else, our perfect of the view that mankind had degenerated city is subject to Nature's universal law, that whatever is created perishes. Out of the from an age of innocence and bliss in the elements of the number which expresses the far-distant past : see the references in my

202

FIAATQN02

[545C

avhpa Brj/j.0Kpariic6v, TO Be Teraprov els Tvpavvovfievr]v irokiv eKdovTes teal lB6vre<;, irdXiv els TvpavviK-qv yjrvxw fiXeTrovT^ TreipaaofieOa vepl wv irpovdefieda iicavol Kpiral I I I . Qepe rolvvv, r/v S' eyd>, TreipcofAeOa Xeyeiv, riva Tpovov edition of the Protagoras p. xxiii and Rohde Griech. Roman pp. 216 ff. What, then, was the originating cause of degeneration ? Plato finds the cause, not in anything peculiar to the Ideal city, but in a law which prevails throughout the whole of Nature—the law that everything created is doomed to decay. There cannot be any i'Sios /lerafloX^ (to quote the phrase of Aristotle Pol. E 12. 1316s 12) of a perfect City ; for a city which carries within itself the seeds of decay is not perfect, but imperfect. In the sequel Plato first describes the manner in which degeneration begins to take effect (ov jxbvov —deov 546 A, B), and afterwards proceeds to construct a Number which is the expression of that law of inevitable degeneration to which the Universe and all its parts are subject. The substance of what he has to say on the first head is that a psychologically inferior offspring gradually makes its appearance because children are sometimes begotten inopportunely. It is noteworthy that here, as everywhere in Books v i n and IX, the decline of the constitution or soul of the State (543 A n.) is traced to the decline of the soul of the individual. In the words dvdpwireiif] 8e—rpiaSos (546 K, c), Plato, copying the method of the Pythagoreans, and closely following their calculations, at all events in the first part of the reckoning, attempts to give an arithmetical expression to the Law of Change in that which he calls the yeoifierpiKos &pi8/i6s. According to the view which I have endeavoured to establish in Appendix I, the arithmetic, in which each of the factors and processes involved was full of significance to ancient speculators on the theory of numbers, may be thus expressed in modern arithmetical notation : (1) 3 3 + 4 3 + 5 3 =
days, the duration of a Great Year in the life of the Universe. Expressed in years, the number is 36,000, if we count, as Plato here does, 360 days in the year. The two ' harmonies,' 3600* and 4800 x 2700, are the two cycles described in the Politicus, each of which is a Great Year. In the first i6rj)s prevails, in the second i.vojMi.brtji: the World ' waxes' in the first, and ' wanes ' in the second, without, however, suffering dissolution. In what sense the whole number 36,000 years, which astronomers sometimes called the Platonicus annus in the middle ages, is at once the numerical Cause of Change, and the ' lord of better and worse births,' is pointed out in App, I, Pt ii § 7, and also in the notes on 546 c. How far Plato attached a serious value to his Number and the calculations from which he derives it, I have briefly discussed at the end of App. I, Pt ii. Here it must suffice to say that the episode, like many other passages in Plato, is half-serious, and half-playful. The setting of the whole is mythical, for it is only for literary and artistic purposes that Plato pictures his ideal city as historically true : and the meaning of the latter part of the Number is deciphered by the aid of one of Plato's myths. Moreover, the style of the whole passage, though extraordinarily rhythmical and highly-wrought, acquires a touch of fantastic humour from the bewildering parade of mathematical terms, at some of which even Plato's own contemporaries would probably have smiled. On ils serious side, the Number affords an interesting example of the application of Number and Mathematics to explain the life of the Universe and Man ; and, as I have said in the Appendix, finds its fittest apology in the saying Sebs del 7«>lierpct. It is of some importance in the history of philosophy because of its connexion with Pythagorean embryology and physics, and its employment by the Neoplatonists to justify the wildest astrological vagaries. The extreme difficulty of the Greek has made the Platonic

546 A]

TTOAITEIAC H

203

D TifioKparia yzvoiT av i£ apMrro/cpaTias. rj ToBe fxlv ' awXovv, on •naaa iroXnela fieTa/3dXXeo e£ avTov TOV e^ovTo? TO.? apj(d. II&J9 ovv Brj, elirov, d> TXavKcov, rj 7roXi? rjfilv Kivr/OijcreTai, Kal "jrfj araaidaovaiv oi eVt- 25 icovpoi Kal oi ap%ovTe<; 7rpo? aX.X77X.01/? re Kal Trpos eavTovs; r) fiovXei, wcnrep"0/j.r)po<;, ev^co/xeda r a i ? MovcraK eliretv rjfiiv, O7ra>9 efjuireae, ical £>fj,ev avras ' TpayiK&s;, uv; E Bfj irpSiTov ardent 7rpo? iralBa<; 77,010.9 irai^ovaa'; Kal epeu^Xoucra?, cb? Srj cnrovErj 54£Xe'yovo-a<<, vifrriXoXoyovfiiva1; Xeyeiv; IIco?; TD,Be 7r&)?. | ^aXeTrbv 30 fiev KLvr)6r)vaL iroXiv OVTCO ^vaTacrav • aXX' eVet yevo/xeva) iravrL <j>6opd ecniv, ovK 77 TouavTrj ^vcrTaai^ TOV 'diravTa /j,evel y^povov, ak\.a XvOrjcreTat,. Xi/crt? Be r}Be' ov fiovov (f>VTot>; iyyeioK;, aXXa Number a favourite hunting-ground of Tim. 300 c ff. on the style of this and successive generations of scholars, and similar passages deserve to be quoted : 6 the works which have been written on 5e xaPaKTVP T&v ^y^v karlv frdouffiathe subject, a few of which are mentioned rats voepaxs ^7ri/3o\ais, in the Appendix, are very numerous. KaOapos re Kal vetivos 54S D 11 dirXow. See on J 351 A. i l / s re opou Kal /cara7rXi?/fTt/c6j Kal xaPl~ For the statement itself cf. Laws 683 E ff. rijiv ava/jie KTX. This is 27 OTTCOS Si} K T \ . An imitation of a universally recognised principle of Horn. / / . XVI 112 f. itnrere vvv /ioi, ixovaai ancient philosophy, alluded to again by —O7T7rws 5?; trpwrov wvp tftiretre vy\vPlato in Tim. 41 A. Cf. Arist. de cael. I triv 'A^ouDe. Homer appeals to the Muses 12. 2 82 b 8 rdyap yev-^Tov Kal rb (pdanrbv 6.Ko\ov9ov(rtP aXAijXois and ib. 10. 279 b 20 at the turning-point of his narrative (see atravra yap ra yivbfxeva Kal u>p.ev KTX. : 'and shall we say that they speak in the lofty tragic vein, as usual, (ri^Kptcrts, and tpdopa. StcUpicris. The point of eirel—eartv is that the cause as if it were all earnest, whereas it is only of decay is not contained in the ideal city the banter of the Muses playing with us itself—the city would be less than ideal as if we were little children?' Instead of Co/iei>t I once suggested dw)uv (cf. Laws if it were—but springs from a universal 6.S4 A and 677 c), but ipQfiev, which is in law of Nature, to which the city, like all MSS, though less picturesque, may everything else, is necessarily subject: see stand. Herwerden's excision of iraifoticros on 545 C and App. I, Pt iii. Kal obliterates a tender touch; for there 4 Xvo-is Si TJ8e KTX. Here begins is of course a play on TratSas (cf. VII Plato's description of the mode of disso536 E «.). The remarks of Proclus in lution. 01) fihvov—evavrias., literally trans-

[546 A

204 5 Kal ev €irtyeioL<; £a>oi<; (popd Kal dcpopia ty\r)(fi
orav TrepiTpoiral eKa
fipayvfiiois vfierepov

fiev evyovlas

^pa^viropow;,

ivavrioi?

ie Kal d^oplaf,

Be evavria<;1

Kaiirep ' ovrei

yevov; U

ao(f>ol ov<; f/ye. j

fiovas TToXeta? eirai&evcrao-Oe, ovSev fxaXXov Xoy tafia) per1 aia-drjam^ 10 rev^ovrai, Beov.

eari

dXXa, irapeuriv

avTovs

Be 6eia> fiev

yevvrjrS

fidvet, reXeios, avdpanreiat

Kal yevvrfcrovcri iraiBds Trore oi 7repioBo
Be ev a> irpa>T