Αρχική σελίδα The Republic of Plato

The Republic of Plato

0 / 0
Πόσο σας άρεσε αυτό το βιβλίο;
Ποια είναι η ποιότητα του ληφθέντος αρχείου;
Κατεβάστε το βιβλίο για να αξιολογήσετε την ποιότητά του
Ποια είναι η ποιότητα των ληφθέντων αρχείων;
James Adam (1860-1907) was a Scottish classics scholar who taught at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. A strong defender of the importance of Greek philosophy in a well-rounded education, Adam published a number of Plato's works including Protagoras and Crito. This two-volume critical edition of the Republic (1902) was another major contribution to the field. Though his preface claims 'an editor cannot pretend to have exhausted its significance by means of a commentary,' Adam's depth of knowledge and erudite analysis of the Greek text ensured that his edition remained the standard reference for decades to follow, and it remains a thought-provoking evaluation of one of the great works of Western thought. Volume 1 is devoted to Books 1-5, which discuss justice and the ideal society.
Volume 1
Cambridge University Press
ISBN 13:
Cambridge Library Collection - Classics
PDF, 8,43 MB

Ίσως σας ενδιαφέρει Powered by Rec2Me


Φράσεις κλειδιά

1 comment
Lavos asbozi ñtd
14 October 2020 (08:17) 

To post a review, please sign in or sign up
Μπορείτε να αφήσετε σχόλιο για βιβλίο και να μοιραστείτε την εμπειρία σας. Άλλοι αναγνώστες θα ενδιαφέρονται να μάθουν τη γνώμη σας για τα βιβλία που διαβάσατε. Ανεξάρτητα από το αν σας άρεσε το βιβλίο ή όχι, εάν θα πείτε για αυτό ειλικρινά και λεπτομερώς, οι άνθρωποι θα μπορέσουν να βρουν για τον εαυτό τους νέα βιβλία που θα τους προκαλέσουν ενδιαφέρον.
Cambridge Library CoLLeCtion
Books of enduring scholarly value

From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, Latin and Greek were
compulsory subjects in almost all European universities, and most early
modern scholars published their research and conducted international
correspondence in Latin. Latin had continued in use in Western Europe long
after the fall of the Roman empire as the lingua franca of the educated classes
and of law, diplomacy, religion and university teaching. The flight of Greek
scholars to the West after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 gave impetus
to the study of ancient Greek literature and the Greek New Testament.
Eventually, just as nineteenth-century reforms of university curricula were
beginning to erode this ascendancy, developments in textual criticism and
linguistic analysis, and new ways of studying ancient societies, especially
archaeology, led to renewed enthusiasm for the Classics. This collection
offers works of criticism, interpretation and synthesis by the outstanding
scholars of the nineteenth century.

The Republic of Plato
James Adam (1860-1907) was a Scottish classics scholar who taught at
Emmanuel College, Cambridge. A strong defender of the importance of
Greek philosophy in a well-rounded education, Adam published a number of
Plato’s works including Protagoras and Crito. This two-volume critical edition
of the Republic (1902) was another major contribution to the field. Though
his preface claims ‘an editor cannot pretend to have exhausted its significance
by means of a commentary,’ Adam’s depth of knowledge and erudite analysis
of the Greek text ensured that his edition remained the standard reference
for decades to follow, and it remains a thought-provoking evaluation of one
of the great works of Western thought. Volume 1 is devoted to Books 1–5,
which discuss justice and the ideal society.

Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing of
out-of-print titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of
books that are ; still sought after by scholars and students but could not be
reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library
Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still of
importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material
they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline.
Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge
University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area,
Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines
in its own Printing House to capture the content of each book selected for
inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image,
and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press
is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology
ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders for
single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied.
The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books of enduring
scholarly value (including out-of-copyright works originally issued by other
publishers) across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social
sciences and in science and technology.

The Republic of Plato
Volume 1: B o oks I-V
E dited by James Adam
P l ato

C A m B R I D G E U N I V E R SI T y P R E S S
Cambridge, New york, melbourne, madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paolo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New york
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108011914
© in this compilation Cambridge University Press 2009
This edition first published 1902
This digitally printed version 2009
ISBN 978-1-108-01191-4 Paperback
This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect
the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated.
Cambridge University Press wishes to make clear that the book, unless originally published
by Cambridge, is not being republished by, in association or collaboration with, or
with the endorsement or approval of, the original publisher or its successors in title.



ffilaggoto: 50, WELLINGTON STREET.

an! Calcutta: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.

[All Rights reserved."]






1' L*




eh cKflvov

TOP /3ioi>, orav



€VTV%<ofi€v Xoyotff.





HE Republic of Plato touches on so many problems of
human life and thought, and appeals to so many diverse
types of mind and character, that an editor cannot pretend to
have exhausted its significance by means of a commentary. In
one sense of the term, indeed, there can never be a definitive or
final interpretation of the Republic: for the Republic is one of
those few works of genius which have a perennial interest and
value for the human race; and in every successive generation
those in whom man's inborn passion for ideals is not quenched,
will claim the right to interpret the fountain-head of idealism
for themselves, in the light of their own experience and needs.
But in another sense of the word, every commentator on the
Republic believes in the possibility of a final and assured interpretation,-and it is this belief which is at once the justification
and the solace of his labours. Without desiring in any way to
supersede that personal apprehension of Platonism through
which alone it has power to cleanse and reanimate the individual
soul, we cannot too strongly insist that certain particular images
and conceptions, to the exclusion of others, were present in the
mind of Plato as he wrote. These images, and these conceptions, it is the duty and province of an editor to elucidate, in
the first instance, by a patient and laborious study of Plato's
style and diction, divesting himself, as far as may be, of every
personal prejudice and predilection. The sentiment should then
be expounded and explained, wherever possible, by reference to
other passages in the Republic and the rest of Plato's writings,
and afterwards from other Greek authors, particularly those who
wrote before or during the lifetime of Plato. The lines of
Wer den Dichter will verstehen
Muss in Dichters Lande gehen,
apply with peculiar force to the study of the Republic, a dialogue
which more than any other work of Plato abounds in allusions



both implicit and explicit to the history, poetry, art, religion and
philosophy of ancient Greece. By such a method of exegesis,
provided it is securely based on a careful analysis of the
language, we may hope to disentangle in some degree the
different threads which are united in Plato's thought, and thus
contribute something towards an objective and impersonal interpretation of the Republic, as in itself one of the greatest literary
and philosophical monuments of any age, and not merely a
treasure-house of arguments in support of any school of thought
or dogma.
I have done what in me lies to make an edition of the
Republic in accordance with these principles. Although it has
sometimes appeared necessary, for the better exposition of
Plato's meaning, to compare or contrast the doctrine of the
Republic with the views of later writers on philosophy, any
systematic attempt to trace the connexion between Platonism
and modern political, religious, or philosophical theory is foreign
to the scope of this edition. I am far from underestimating the
interest and importance of such an enquiry: no intellectual
exercise that I know of is more stimulating or suggestive: but it
is unfortunately fraught with danger for anyone whose object is
merely to interpret Plato's meaning faithfully and without bias.
The history of Platonic criticism from Proclus to the present
time has shewn that it is difficult for a commentator who is
constantly looking for parallels in contemporary thought to
maintain the degree of intellectual detachment which the study
of Plato's idealism demands; and although it is true that the
genius of Plato outsoars the limits of time and place, the best
preparation for following its flight is to make ourselves coheirs with him in his intellectual heritage, and transport ourselves
as far as possible into the atmosphere in which he lived. The
influence of Plato on succeeding thinkers from Aristotle down
to the present day is a subject of extraordinary range and
fascination, but it belongs to the history, rather than to the
interpretation, of Platonism. If ever that history is fully told,
we shall begin to understand the greatness of the debt we owe
to Plato, not only in philosophy, but also in religion. In the
meantime we can only rejoice that Platonism is still a living
force in both : en ^Xto? eVt


6pe<n ical oinrco SeSvtcev.

One of the most toilsome duties which an editor of the
Republic has to face is that of reading and digesting the



enormous mass of critical and exegetical literature to which
the dialogue, particularly during the last century, has given
rise. I have endeavoured to discharge this duty, so far as
opportunity allowed; and if the labour has sometimes proved
tedious and unremunerative, it is none the less true that in some
instances the perusal of obscure and half-forgotten pamphlets
and articles has furnished the key to what I believe to be the true
interpretation. In many other cases, where the thesis which a
writer seeks to prove is demonstrably false, the evidence which
he accumulates in its support has served to illustrate and enforce
a truer and more temperate view. But in spite of all the learning and ingenuity which have been expended on the Republic
during recent years, there still remain a large number of passages
of which no satisfactory explanation has hitherto been offered,
and a still larger number which have been only imperfectly and
partially explained. I have submitted all these passages to a
fresh examination, partly in the Notes and partly in the Appendices, and although I cannot hope to have placed them all
beyond the pale of controversy, I have spared no amount of
time and labour to discover the truth, and in many cases I have
been able to arrive at views which will, I hope, command the
assent of others as well as myself. Wherever I have consciously
borrowed anything of importance from previous commentators
and writers, I have made acknowledgement in the notes ; but
a word of special gratitude is due to Schneider, to whom I am
more indebted than to any other single commentator on the
Republic. Since I began my task, the long-expected edition of
the Republic by Jowett and Campbell has made its appearance,
and I have found their scholarly and lucid commentary of service even in those places where it has seemed to me inadequate
or inconclusive. Professor Burnet's text of the Reptcblic was
not available until the larger part of this edition had been
printed off, but I have been able to make some use of his work
in the later books.
I have to thank a number of friends for assistance rendered
in various ways, and above all my former teacher, Dr Henry
Jackson, of Trinity College, who has read through all the proofs
and contributed many corrections and suggestions. Mr ArcherHind, of Trinity College, and Mr P. Giles, of Emmanuel College,
have also helped me with their criticisms on some portions of the
work. To Professor J. Cook Wilson, of New College, Oxford,



I owe a special debt of gratitude for undertaking in response
to my appeal an exhaustive discussion of the astronomical
difficulties in Book X, and unreservedly placing at my disposal
the full results of his investigations. It is due to the kindness of
Professor Campbell that I have again been able to use Castellani's
collations of the Venetian MSS II and B, as well as Rostagno's
collation of Cesenas M. The late Mr Neil, of Pembroke College,
to whose memory I have dedicated the work, read and criticised
the notes on the first four books before his untimely death,
and often discussed with me many questions connected with the
interpretation of Plato in general and the Republic in particular.
Nor can I refrain from mentioning with affectionate gratitude
and veneration the name of my beloved friend and teacher,
"Sir William Geddes, late Principal of the University of Aberdeen, to whose high enthusiasm and encouragement in early
days all that I now know of Plato is ultimately due.
The coin which is figured on the title-page is a silverdidrachm of Tarentum, dating from the early part of the third
century B.C., and now in the British Museum. It represents
a naked boy on horseback, galloping and holding a torch behind
him : see the description by Mr A. J. Evans in the Numismatic
Chronicle, Volume IX (1889), Plate VIII 14. I have to thank
Mr Barclay V. Head, of the British Museum, for his kindness in
sending me a cast of this appropriate emblem of the scene with
which the Republic opens.
My best thanks are due. to the Managers and staff of the
University Press for their unremitting courtesy and care.
It is my hope to be able in course of time to complete this
edition by publishing the introductory volume to which occasional reference is made throughout the notes. The introductory
volume will deal inter alia with the MSS and date of composition
of the dialogue, and will also include an essay on the style of
Plato, together with essays on various subje'cts connected with
the doctrine of the Republic.
September 5, 1902.


















T H E materials for the text of the Republic will be discussed
in the introductory volume to this edition: but it is necessary
here to make a brief statement of the rules by which I have
been guided in the selection of readings, and in the formation of
the apparatus criticus.
The fundamental principle to which I have endeavoured to
conform in the constitution of the text is as follows :—
"By reason of its age and excellence, Parisinus A is the
primary authority for the text of the Republic, but the other MSS
are valuable for correcting its errors and supplying its omissions "
(The Republic of Plato, 1897, p. x).
The MS which stands next in authority to Parisinus A is
admitted by all to be Venetus I I ; and in those cases where
A is wrong, and the right reading occurs in II, either alone,
or, as happens much more frequently, in common with other
MSS, I have been content to cite in the apparatus criticus
merely the authority of II, adding, of course, the discarded
text of A.
In those cases where neither A nor II can be held to represent what Plato wrote, I have considered, in the first instance,
the reading of all the other available MSS; secondly, the
evidence of ancient writers who quote or paraphrase parts of
the Republic; and, thirdly, emendations; but in the critical notes
I have as far as possible restricted myself to Venetus S and
Monacensis q, partly because I have found by experience that
they come to the rescue oftenest when A and II break down, and
partly because they are among the few MSS of the Republic,




besides A and II, of which we possess thoroughly trustworthy
collations. It is difficult to overestimate the debt which
Platonic scholarship owes to Bekker, but the accuracy and completeness of his collations leave much to be desired, and it is
safest for the present to cite, as far as may be, only those MSS of
Bekker in which his work has been revised and supplemented by
subsequent collators.
It sometimes, though comparatively seldom, happens that
the reading which appears to be correct occurs only in MSS
other than A, II, 3 or q. In such instances, if the reading which
I approve is found in Angelicus v, I have sought to lighten
the apparatus criticus by citing that MS only, even where its
testimony is supported by that of other MSS. My experience
has been that, next to II, 3 and q, Angelicus v is on the
whole the most useful of Bekker's MSS for correcting the errors
of A.
In the small number of passages where A, II, 3 , q and v
appear all to be in error, I have named the other MSS which give
the reading selected, confining myself in the first instance to the
MSS collated by Bekker, and quoting the MSS of de Furia and
Schneider only where Bekker's afford no help. Cesenas M has
seldom been cited in the critical notes unless it appears to be the
sole authority for the text adopted, but occasional reference is
made to it in the commentary.
If the reading in the text is due to an early citation of Plato,
or to an emendator, I mention the authority on which it rests.
Considerably fewer emendations have been admitted than in my
earlier edition, and in this as in other respects the text will be
found to be conservative; but there are still some passages
where all the MS and other authorities are unsatisfactory, and in
these I have printed the emendations of others or my own, when
they appear to me either highly probable or right.
In all cases where I have deserted both A and II in favour of
a reading found in 3 (or q), the readings of A, II and q (or H)
have also been recorded in the apparatus criticus; and when it
has been necessary to desert not only A and II, but also 3 and
q, I have given the readings of each of these four MSS for the
information of the student.




The upshot of these rules is that unless the apparatus criticus
states the contrary, the text of this edition follows Parisinus A,
and that the value of the other MSS of Bekker, de Furia, and
Schneider has been estimated by the assistance which they give
whenever A is at fault. I have tried to give a full account1
of the readings of the great Paris MS, which I collated in 1891,
and afterwards examined again in order to settle the few
discrepancies between the results of Professor Campbell's collation and my own. The scale of this edition has permitted me
to give a tolerably complete record of the traces of double
readings in A, so far at least as they point to variants affecting
the sense or interpretation, and in such cases the rules by which
the apparatus criticus is constructed are analogous to those
already explained, as will appear from an inspection of the
critical notes on 327A 3, 328 E 34, 330 E 33, 333 E 28 and elsewhere.
It may be convenient to subjoin a table of the MSS cited
in the notes, together with the centuries to which they have
been assigned, and the authors of the collations which I have

I have however as a rule refrained example in <f>i\6viKos versus <pi\6veu<os.
from chronicling in the notes those cases Otherwise, in doubtful cases, where no
in which I abandon the punctuation, ac- sure guidance comes from Inscriptions,
centuation, breathings, or spelling of A. such as the addition or omission of v ^0cAQuestions of orthography are most con- KVGTLK6V, etiira&ia versus evird$€ta and the
like, I have invariably aimed at following
veniently treated in a separate discussion,
the practice of the first hand in A. I
and something will be said on this subject
have also deferred to Inscriptions so far
in the Introduction. In the meantime I
as to exclude those grammatical forms
may be allowed to borrow from my edition
which have conclusively been shewn to
of the text a statement of the rules which
I have endeavoured to observe in matters be unattic, such as 'daraaav (352 A et al.),
tf/evSiadoiffav (381 E), tipijo-ffcu (for tjvpijorthographical. "As regards the spelling,
A 1 preserves several traces of the true trffai.), and a few others; but when there
Attic orthography, such as airoKTelvvjAi. seems to be some room for doubt, the read(for example in 360 c), Ms and a few ing of A has been retained. In general,
others. These I have sedulously pre- the cases where it has seemed necessary to
served. In general I have silently aban- abandon A on these and similar grounds
doned the spelling of A wherever the are few and insignificant." The orthoevidence of Inscriptions appeared con- graphy of this edition will be found to be
clusive against it, and sometimes also in practical agreement with that adopted
(though rarely) on other grounds, as for by Schanz in his Platonis opera.







Ven. C)



Ven. B)
Mon. B)



Angelicus v (

Ang. B)



Vaticanus © (

Vat. B)
Vat. H)
Vat. M)
Par. D)
Par. K)
Vind. B)



Parisinus A (Schneider's Par. A)
Venetus n


» s
Monacensis q (



l» (

t (

Parisinus D 3 (
K (
Vindobonensis * ( „

Florentinus A (Stallbaum's a)
C (
R (
T (
U (
V (
Vindobonensis D 6







Bekker and
de Furia









Monacensis C
Cesenas M



?XIV or earlier



I hope to siiv something on the relationship between these
MSS in my introductory volume.

I have also recollated this MS for Books I—III of the Republic.
From Book n onwards. I owe my information as to the date of this and the
following MS to a communication from Dr Mercati.
iv 429 c—442 D is missing.
Contains only 1—n 358 E, followed by the rest of n in a later hand.
Flor.B is usually assigned to the twelfth, and Flor.C to the thirteenth, century.
The dates here given are due to Dr Guido Biagi, who has been good enough to
re-examine at my request these and the other Florentine MSS.
Contains only I—V.
II 379 B—III 399 B is missing.
Contains only VII and X (up to 604 c).



St. T.
II. p.

I. K.a,Te/3r)v %#e? et? Yleipaid yuera Y\avK(ovo<; TOV 'ApL<7T(ovo<;,
•7rpoaev^6fj.ev6<i re Tjj 6em ical apa TT)V iopT-rjv /3ov\6fievos Oedaaadai
Tvva Tpoirov iroL7]aov(Tiv, are vvv TrpwTov ayovTe1;. tcaXr] fiev ovv

are A 2 II: wore A1.

HXCLTCOVOS IIoXiTeCa. On the name,
characters, and date of action of the
dialogue, see Introd. §§ I, i, 3.
3 2 7 A—328 B
Socrates describes
how he visited the Piraeus in company
with Glauco, and was induced by Polemarchus and others to defer his return to
3 2 7 A I KaTep-qv KT\. Dionys. Hal.

is possible that he too has the same story
in view in de Sen. V 13, where he says
of Plato "scribens est mortuus." The
anecdote may well be true, but does not
of course justify any inference as to the
date of composition of the Republic. See
Introd. § 4.
2 TTJ 8€<1. What goddess? Bendis or
Athena? The festival is the Bendideia
(354 A) and it is perhaps safest to acquide comp. verb. p. 208 (Reiske) 6 de H\desce in the usual view that Bendis is here
Twv, TOVS eauTou dtaXoyovs KTtvifav /cat
meant. "Alii Minervam intelligunt, quae
v, KOX Travra rpb-wov avair\tKwv,
oySotfKovTa yeyovois I-TT}. ira<7L vulgo rj debs appellabatur; neque mihi
Socrates in ista Panathenaeorum
yap &•/] irov TOIS ^1X0X67015 yvwpifia ra
propinquitate de Minerva veneranda cogiTrepl TTJS (piXotrovias ravdphs iaropotifxevo.,
tare non potuisse : sed quod simpliciter
TO T ' SXKa, Kai 8TJ Kal TO Trepl TTIV
rr\v eopTT\v dicit, numina diversa statuere
b£\rov T\V TeXevTTjtTavTos aurou \eyovo~LV
non sinit" (Schneider). We hear of a
evpeffrjvai iroiKiXois /xeraKei/^PTiv rriv aptemple of Bendis in the Piraeus in 403 B.C.
XV" Trjs wokirelas lxoil<ra>' TfySe "KO.T4fiiriv x^^s «'s Ileipaia fieri. F\aiiKuipos TOV

'AplffTiovos." See also Quint. VIII 6.
64, and Diog. Laert. Ill 37. The latter
gives as his authorities Euphorion and
Panaetius. As Cicero was tolerably familiar with the writings of Panaetius, it
A. P.

{TT)V bhbv rj (pepet irpbs re rb iepbv TT\%
Movvv%las 'Aprefiidos Kal TO BevdiSeiov

Xen. Hell. 11 4. 11). See also Introd. § 3
and App. I.
3 vCv irpwrov. Perhaps 410 B.C.
Introd. § 3.


[327 A

jiot Kal f) rwv etri'xwpiwv irofiirr) eho%ev elvai, ov jj-evroi tfrrov
5 ecfyalvero Trpeireiv rjv oi ®paKe<; eirefJ/irov. trpoaev^dfievot
oe Kai
6ecoprjoavTe<; ' d.7rfjfiev 777909 TO dcrrv. Karuhmv ovv iroppoadev rjfias B
o'tKaSe copfir)fj,evovs UoXe/j,ap%o<; 6 Ke^aAov ixeXevae
rov iralha 7repi/j<eiva!, I KeXevcrat,. Kal, /j,ov oiTLcrdev 6 7ral<; \afiofievos rov ifjuariov, KeXevei v/ia?, e(f>rj, TloXefiapj(p<; -irepipuvai,.
10 Kal iyoo /xeTeaTpd^Tjv re Kal qp6/j.r)v oirov avrb1; e'lt}. OUTO?, e<f>r),
o-niadei' irpocrepxeTaiaX\a Trepi/Mevern. 'AXKci -irept,fj,evov/j,ev,
>7 8' 09 6 VXavKccv. Kal oXiyip varepov o re IloXe/aap^o? ' i)K€ C
ical 'ASeifiavTOs 6 rod TXavKtovos dBe\.<f>b<; Kal Nj/cjjpaTos o NIKLOV
Kal aWoi rtve<}, a>? dirb TJ79 iro/jLTri]<;. 6 ovv IIoXe/Mapy^o9 e<f)r)
15'O Stw/Cjoare?, SoKelri poi Trpof aarv mpfjufjcrffai, c!)9 aTnov-res.



S o ^ a f e t ? , jyv 8' e^co.

'Opa<? o5i( ijfia<i, <=<f>V> oaoi

ia-fiev; Ua><; yap oil; *H roivvv TOVTWV, e<pr), Kpe(,Trov<; yeveaOe
rj /xever avTOV. OVKOVV, fjv b" iya>, en ev Xebirerai, TO r/v
•7ret(T(0/j,ev vfiat;, a>? XPV Vf1^ cujtelvai; T H Kal Svvaiad' dv, r) S'
20 09, Trelcrai fit] aKovovra<i; OrSa/AW9, €<f>r) 6 TXavfcov.
fjbrj a,Kov<TOfiiva)V, ovra hiavoela8e.
Kal 6 'A8et/U.ai'TO9, *Apd ye,
ri 8 09, ov$ 'iare on Xafnra<; earat, irpos eairepav a'(/>' ITTTTCOV Trj 328
6ew ; 'Afi'tTnrav ; tfvS'eydo' Kaivov ye rovro.

T) TWV A 2 I I : TJTTUV A 1 .

18. lt> \elirerat S? et yp in mg. A 2 : ^X\e(7rerai A1!!.

5 01 0paK£S. Probably resident aliens
(as opposed to the irnxdpiot or natives),
living for commercial purposes in the
Piraeus, which at all times contained a
large admixture of foreign population.
It was part of Athenian policy to encourage commercial settlers by allowing
them to exercise their own cults (Foucart




Us Grecs

p . 131).

Foucart holds that the worship of the
Thracian goddess Bendis was brought to
the Piraeus by Thracian merchants (p. 84).
Others have supposed that ol Qp^Kes refers
to envoys from Thrace, or Thracian mercenaries, the survivors of those who came
to Athens in 414 B.C. (Thuc. VH27); but
the other view is more probable.
3 2 7 B 6 T6 S.a-rv or aorv 327 c is
regular for Athens itself as opposed to
the Piraeus. Hartman would omit the
arlicle (cf.


13. 88 TOI)S iv


ev TI} Ueipatu): but it occurs infra 328c,
Phnedr. 230 c, Arist. Pol. Ath. 38. 1
and elsewhere.

10 airds: 'ipse' 'ems' ' the master'
as often: cf. e.g. Prof. 314 D oi ax 0 ^)
avrtfi and the Pythagorean airbs 2<f>a..
With the deictic OUTOS cf. Symp. 175 A
2o)(cp<iT-7]s oiros—JO-TIJKCX, 'there goes
3 2 7 c 18 iv XetirtTCu. See cr. n.
^Mei7reTai (which Hermann and others
retain) is less pointed, in view of the two
alternatives ij—Kpelrrovs yiveade ij f^ver'
atirov. For Xeiirerai said of the neraty
TL (Symp. J O J A ) or third alternative, cf.
Theaet. I 8 8 A SXKO y' otSiv XeltreTai irepl
'inaaTov TT\TJV eidfraL rj ^ eliivai.
20 <Ss—8Lavo€i<r8« : 'well, you may
make up your mind that we shall refuse to
listen.' Cf. (with Stallbaum) Crat. 439 c
diapoT/Sivret—us Ihvrav airavmiv dei Kal
pedmuv. (iij is owing to the imperative:
cf. Soph. O.C. 1154 and Jebb's note.
3 2 8 A 1 \a|i/iras KTX. Xa/iiris was
the official name for a torch-race: see
Mommsen Heortologie pp. 170 re., 282.
TTJ 6eu>: see on 327 A and App. I.

328 c]





OUTO)?, e<f>r) 6 Uo\e/j,apxo<;T)v agiov


Tijv iravvvylBa
B avTodi


e^avaa-Trja-OfieOa yap


teal BoaXe^ofjueOa.

Kal ^vveaofiedd


teal 6 TXavKeov, "Eot/eei>, e<f>r), fievereov
&' 67a), OVTCO ^prj



ical irpos ye TravpvxtBa




fj,erd TO Beiirvov

Kal 5

re iroXKol<; ra>p vemv
tca\ firj ' aXXco<> iroieire.

'AXX.' el BoKel, r\v


ovv oiKaBe el<; TOV TloXe/Aapxov,


/cat Avaiap

ical J^v6vBr]fMOv, TOV<; TOV YloXefidp^ov

re 10

0ow?, Kal Brj ical ®paa-u/ia^oi/ TOV K a X ^ S o w o i / ical Xap/J.apriBrjv
TOV Haiaviea

icab K\et,rocpwvTa

xal 6 Trarrip 6 TOV UoXefidp^ov
C [WL eBo^ev elvai,-


TOV 'A.pi<rT(ovvfiov

r/v S' epSou

Ke<f>a\o<;. ical fidXa


Bid %povov ' yap

XafJuraSia: Harpocratio remarks 17K

vvv 77/ieis Xa/nrdda KaXoSfiev, oiirois tivb-

liafov. But Xo/H7rds was used for ' torch'
even in classical Greek. Plato chooses
\a/j,TrdSiov because he has just used Xa/u7rds in a different sense.
3 SiaSao-owiv KT\. shews that—except
for the novel substitution of mounted
competitors for runners—the torch-race
in question was of the kind alluded to
in Hdt. VIII 98 and elsewhere as held in
honour of Hephaestus. The competition
was not between one individual and another, but between different lines of competitors, the torch being passed on from
man to man. Victory fell to the chain
whose torch, still burning, first reached
the goal. The well-known figure in Laws
776 B Kad&irep Xa/xirdSa rbv fiiov wapadi56vras SXXois e| <SXXaw refers to the same
form of race. Plato nowhere mentions
the simpler form described by Pausanias
(1 30. 2), in which individuals contended
against each other: see BaumeisterDenkmdler d. kl. Altert. p. 522.
5 a£iov 8ed<rao-6ai. Songs and dances
were the leading features in a travvvx^See Soph. Ant. 1146—[152 and Eur.

Kal ecopaKt] ai)TOV. KaOrjaTo 15

phrase, which is tolerably frequent in
Plato, always occurs in combination with
a positive command (here ntvere) except
in II 369 B.
3 2 8 B—328 E The scene at the house
of Polemarchus. Socrates begins to interrogate Cephalus on the subject of old age.
3 2 8 B 10 €is TOV IloXindpxov. Polemarchus was older than Lysias (infra
331 D), and we are to infer that at this
time Cephalus lived with him. There
is no reason why we should (with Blass
Alt. Ber. p. 338) reject Plato's statement
that Polemarchus had a house in the
Piraeus: the words of Lysias (12. 16),
which Blass relies upon as shewing that
Polemarchus lived not in the Piraeus,
but in Athens, refer to 404 B.C. and do
not prove it even for that year. Lysias
probably lived at this time in a house of
his own in the Piraeus, as in 404 B.C.
(Lys. 12. 8): it is to be noted that he is
mentioned along with the visitors, in
contrast with Cephalus {qv 5' Ifdov KT\.



& TT\ ai)X?j

infra c). Cf. Boeckh Kl. Schr. iv p. 475
«. 1 and Shuckburgh Lys. Orat. ed. 2
p. xii.
15 8id xpovou—aiTov. Kai 'indeed'
goes with the whole clause: cf. Soph.

Heracl. 781—783 avenbevn 5£ 70s eir'
&X®V I ' t h e Acropolis) oKoKiyiiara wavvvXtois virb irapdivwv iaicxe? irob^v Kp6rot.<Tiv Ant. 1253 dXX' el&6fj.eada. fir) ri nai /vctrd(in lionour of Athena at the Panathenaea).
GXtTO" I fpwpy KOMTTTU napSLif $vnoufiei>7)

t£avao-Tij<ro|ie6a KTX. The promise, is
nowhere fulfilled.
3 2 8 E J |iij ciXXws irowlre. Schanz
(Novae Comm. Plat. p. 25) shews that this

with Jebb's note. Tucker translates ' for
it was some time since I had so much as
seen him'—throwing, I think, too much
emphasis on KO.1.



[328 C

Be iare^avm/iivo^ eiri TWOS Trpocrice(j>aKaiov re Kal Bicppov redvKW<;
jap irvy^avev ev TTJ av\rj. eKade^o/xeda ovv Trap avrov eiceiVTO
yap Bicppoi. rives avrodi KVKXW. ev8v<; ovv /Me IBcov o Ke(/>a\o?
rja-ird^ero re Kal elirev TD, UtoKpares, ovBe Oafii^eis r\pZv Kara/Saivwv
20 eh rbv Y\eipaia- xprjv fxevroi. el fiev yap eya> eri, ev Bvvdfiei
r\v TOV jOaSto)? iropeveadai irpos TO darv, ovBev av ere eBet oevpo
levai, I «XX' r/fieK av trapa ae fjfiev vvv Be ere XPV TVKVorepov D
Bevpo levaf 0)9 ev laOc on e//,oiye, ocrov al aWai at Kara ro CTCO/MCI
rjBoval airofiapaivovrai, rocrovrov av^ovrai al irepl TOf? \oyovs
25 eiriOvfiiai re Kal r)Bovai. fir) ovv aWa><; Trolei, aWa roio-Be re
Tot? veaviais i;vi'io-6i Kal Bevpo Trap' f)fia<; <f>oira a>? nrapa <£iX
re Kal trdvv otVetoi"?. Kat (irfv, r)v S" iyo>, m Ke^ioXe,
26. ibs irapa <pi\ovs re II et in mg. A 2 : om. A 1 .

8a.fi,ifcis), oil Si (Nitzsch), or ou 5^ (Hartman). off Ti is very unlikely; for 6alii^w is not exclusively a poetic word
(cf. Laws 843 B), and we need not supelaev 5' ^v KKtafioiffL T&TryjffL r e Trvptfovp^ot.pose that Plato is thinking of Homer.
01.V, It is somewhat fanciful to suppose
I agree with Hartman that ov 54 is im(with Hartman) that Plato throughout
probable : Si is not sufficiently explained
this picture was thinking of the aged
by saying thatit is •' adversative to the idea
Nestor seated among his sons (Od. Ill
contained in 7?ff7nifeTo" (J. and C , with
32 ff.). nvos adds a touch of vagueness:
Schneider Additamenta p. 2). None of
' a sort of combination of cushion and
the cases quoted by Sauppe Ep. Crit. ad
chair' (Tucker).
G. Ha-mannum p. 77 (Ar. Knights 1302,
T€0\IKWS ^ap explains iffrefftavwfj^vos:
" coronati sacrificabant, ut satis constat" Hdt. ix 108, Theogn. 659, 887, 1070
Callinus I 2) seem to me to justify
Stallbaum. The God to whom Cephalus
had been sacrificing was doubtless Zci)s the change of ovSi to 01) Si. Hartman's
correction is better: but I believe the
ipKelos, whose altar stood in the auky,
text is sound.
19 oiiik—Ilcipaia.
A negative must
be supplied, "ut amice expostulabundus
3 2 8 D 25 (Hi ovv KTX. TO this sencum Socrate senex hoc dicere videatur:
tence Lach. 181 B c furnishes a near
tu neque alia facis, quae debebas, neque
parallel, veavlats refers to Socrates'
nostram domum frequentas. Simili ellipsi
companions who had come from Athens,
nostrates: Du kommst auch nicht oft zu
as opposed to Cephalus, Polemarchus
uns" (Schneider). niSi is 'alsonot': for
and the others; the emphasis, as often,
exx. see Riddell Digest of Platonic Idioms
being on the /cai clause: ' associate with
§ 141 and Jebb on Soph. O. C. 590 f. oihi these young men, but come and visit us
in ovhk navv pq.diov IX 587 C is another also.' So also Boeckh Kl. Schr. iv p. 475.
instance, in which, as here, the idiom
There is no sufficient reason for reading
has a kind of colloquial effect. StallveavlaKois (with II and other MSS) : see
baum takes oi>5^ with 0a,uifets "ne ventiIntrod. § 3.
tas quidem ad nos, h. e. raro sane domum
27 Kal p)v KT\. : ' Indeed. Cephalus,'
nostram frequentas"; but his equation etc. 7e need not be added (with II and
hardly holds good, and is not justified by other MSS)^ after x<*W : cf. Phaed. 84 D
Xen. Symp. 4. 23, where ovhi coheres Kal fi-qv, w 2u.Kpares, Ta\ri6ij aoi ipQ,,
closely with the emphatic cod. Others
Euthyd. 275 E 304 c al., with Jebb on
have suspected corruption, proposing oS
Soph. 0. T. 749, 1005.
3 2 8 c 16 irpoirK€<|>aXtt£ou rt Kal S£<|>pov: virtually a hendiadys, as Hartman
remarks, comparing Homer //. IX 200

n (Ast, cf. Od. V 88 Trdpos ye /jtzv 06 TL

329 B]


E oiaXeyofievos



a<f)6Spa irpeafivTCLK.


Boicel yap ' fioi


o&cnrep riva, 6S6v irpoeXifKvOoTatv, fjv

Kai rjfid<; tcrw? Se^eret TropevecrOai, iroia

ri<; earuv,


ical 30

•^aXeirr], ij paBla ical ev-iropos' Ka\ Sr) ical aov rjSeco'; av irv6oLfi/r)v,
6 Tt croi (j>aiverai TOVTO, eVetSj) evravda
67Tt yrypaos


(fiao~iv eivai

r) 7TW< crv avTO


77877 el T"/<; r)Xncla<>, b 8f)

01 iroLir)Tal, irorepov

vaXeTrov TOV


'E7W croi, e<f>r], vr) TOV Ala ipca, do Xw/cpaTfi?, | olov ye pot,
TroWaKK yap avvep^ofieOd
e^oi/Te?, SiacroSfoire?


rives et<? ravro

ical dvafii/MvrjcrKofievoi irepi
7TOTOV9 Kai eu&j^ta? icai aW
a>? neyaXwv






KOX irepl 5

a rSiv TOIOITOOV eyerai,

riva>v cnreaTeprjfiivoi

B ^c5j/T69, vvv he. ov&e £a>VTe<;.



%vviovTe<;, r a ? ev 777 veorrjTi rjSovas

r)firov oXotfivpovTai




icai Tore fiev e&

evioi Se ical ra<; TWV ' oiiceicov

airb A 1 !! : aurjs A2.

3 2 8 E 30 Tpa\fta Kal ^aXtirij KTX.
The language (as Ast observes) is perhaps suggested by Hesiod OD. 290 ff.

not agree with Tucker in rendering ' disagreeable in respect of the sort of life.' Ast
takes xa^elroP a s masc. (comparing cases

/xa/cpos 5^ Kai 6p8Los oiftos es aurrjv j KOX
TO irpwrov iirty 8' e/s aicpov
tKrjTai, \ pTjidiT] 5i] ^iretra ir^\ei, ^ a \ e 7 r ? J
wep 4odt7a. Cf- II .^64 D n.

like HI 416 B TT)P fieyiiXTriv TT)% etiXapeias),

VT), 6 /Jios vdpoSof

Hdriu iyw | tfrjv TUVTOV, AW £p.\pvx°>1
ryyoO/xai. veKpbv.
Cf. also Mimn. Fr.
I. 1 ff.: Sim. Fr. 71 ris yiip aSovas dT€p |
BVHTWV jSios woBeivSs: Eur. Fr. 1065.

but O.VT6 shews that he is wrong. Translate simply 'whether it is a painful period
of life.' It is needless to insert (with
Hartman) TI after x<iXe7r6c: still worse is
33 eiri 'yijpaos ovSu. The phrase ocLiebhold's addition of TAOS.
curs first in the Iliad (xxn 60, xxiv 487)
to denote the natural limit of the life of
34 «£ayy€XX€is : like the il-ayye\os in
man. Cephalus is jm\a xpe<r/3i5rj)j 328 E. tragedy, Cephalus is the bearer of news
The same meaning suits also in Od. xv 246
from behind the scenes.
(oi)5' hero y-qpaos ovSdv) 348 and XXIII 212,
3 2 9 A—329 D Cephalus delivers
Hymn. Aphr. 106, Hes. OD. 331, Hdt. his views on old age. It is, or should be,
Ill 14 and elsewhere. Leaf can hardly (I
a haven of peace ; old men have themselves
think) be right in explaining oid(f as = 68$
to blame if they are miserable.
in //. x x n 6o. yqpaos is a descriptive
3 2 9 A 3 irapoi|Ji£av. 17A(£ ^Xt/ca
genitive (like TAUS -yqpaos apyaXtov
T^pirei. (Phaedr. 240 c).
Mimn.Tv', 1. 6, TOV \jyov in hokixov — not
4 ijwiovTes: i-q- Urav ^vvlwaiv 'when5o\ixbv—TOC \6yov Prot. 329 A), old age
ever they come together.' Such a use
being itself the threshold by which we
of the participle is admissible when the
leave the House of Life. We enter as it
main verb is in the present of habitual
were by one door and pass out by another. action. £W6VT€S is a needless conjecture.
The idea underlying the phrase may be
8 oiSeJwvres- Soph.Ant. 1165—1167
compared with Democritus' 6 /c6<r/x«s <TKT)- T&S yap TiSovas OTav trpo8Ci<nvftvdpes,oi)
fjXffes, dSes, aTrrj'KBes

(Mullach Fr. Phil. Gr. I p. 356).
XaXeirov KTX.

x a ^ e7r ^" i s neuter on

account of TOVTO in 6 TL trot (paiverat TOVTO,

Similar sentiments are very common
and TOV filov is a simple partitive genitive: cf. Xen. Mem. I 6. 4 iTLam\j/diiJ.e6a throughout Greek literature, especially
T'L xak&rbv ^o'd'ooai Tovfiov piov. I can-

[329 B

\a,Kio~ei<; TOV yrfpcos oBvpovTai, nal eirl TOVTW 8r) TO yrjpas
10 oo-wv icatcwv <r<f>£o-iv aiTiov.
oi TO airiov



el yap rjv TOVTO OUTIOV, KOLV eycb T O avTa

lizenvovQi) eveKa. ye ytjpws icaX oi aXXoi irdvTes

rjXQov rfKucias.
Kai aWois,



vvv $' eywye

oo~oi evTavua

fjBi) evTETV^rjKa ov% OVTCOS


ical BT) KOX 'Zo<f>oic\ei TTOTE TW Troir)Tr) TrapeyevofATjv

15 epa>TWf>Lev(p viro rivo? IIw9, e<j>r), a> I 2o^>o«;Xet9, e%et? 7T/00? Tatppo- C

eTi olo<! Te el yvvaiicl

w avdpatire'


Tiva KaX dypiov

heairoTTiv a/7ro<puyd>v. ev ovv fioi

eKelvot elirelv Kai vvv ov% TJTTOV.


20 ev TG> y-qpa TroXXrj elprjvrj yiyveTat



TO TOV So(^o«\eou? yiyveTaiftawojievtov

Kai 6s, Rv<f)i]/iei, e$>r),

ao~/i,eveo'Ta,Ta fievToi avTo airetyvyov,


Tj-po? Toil? OIKSLOV; yla

Tt? aWia



Kai TOTG e8o£ev




Kai yaKacrwaiv,

I SecnroTav






eo~Ti Kai D



ia-Tiv, ov TO yrjpa^,

a> XwKpaTes,

25 dXX." o TpoTTo-i TWV avOpwiTiov.
docnv, Kai TO yrjpas fieTpica



av fiev yap

£O~TIV eTrltrovov

oi Sft)«paT6?, Kai veoTTjs '^aKe-rrrj TW TOIOVTW

3 2 9 c 16 ?TI—(rvyylyve<r<)ai. These
words are rejected by Hirschig, Cobet, and
Hartman, but their genuineness is supported by the singular airb in airb awi(/tvyov and by Plut. irepl 0 i \ o i r \ o i / T i a s
5. 525 A 6 2O0OK\7;S epwT7}6eU el dvvarai
ywcuid Tr\-r)Giuteiv, Ei/0^/uei, &p6puire,
elirev KT\. In such matters Greek realism
called a spade a spade. In spite of the
anecdote here told, few writers have
painted sadder pictures of old age than
Sophocles: see for example O.C. 1235—
1238 and Fr. 684. More in keeping
with the present passage is Fr. 688 01k
fan yijpas TWV <ro0we, iv ols b vovs \ Beiq.
tfrveaTOi rj^pq. TeSpa/ififros.
17 air^vyov—diro^vyiov. Therepetition adds a certain impressiveness to the
sentence. Herwerden is in error when he
ejects airoQvyibv, which seems to have been
read also by Plutarch (referred to in last
2i KaroTeCvouo-ai is intransitive. If
the meaning were (as Ast holds) transitive
—man being conceived as the puppet of
the desires cf. Laws 644 E—we should
expect 4m- or aw- rather than Karareivovtrai: see Phaed. 94 C and 98 D.

Koo-fiiot, Kai evKoXot,
el Be fir], Kai



iravTaircuriv KTX. The impressive
iteration is in keeping with the age and
earnestness of the speaker: cf. 331 A, B.
22 lori. Stallbaum and others eject
this word, but it is not easy to see why
a scribe should have inserted it, particularly in such an idiomatic position. The
asyndeton before S«nro7w is regular in
explanatory clauses. I read inn (with A)
in preference to l<m: the meaning ' is possible' does not suit, and would require
aTraMayTJucu rather than dirqWdxlcu.
Translate'it is the deliverance once and
for all from tyrants full many and furious.'
The grammatical subject, as in English,
remains vague; it is involved in iireibav
— x a ^ " w t ^ i v - For the use of £<rn cf.
Euthyphr. 1 D tpalferai noi—Apxardai
6p8ws- 6pd&s ydp can TGIV viav Trpbrepov
4iri/j.e\riS7Jvai. The sentence-accent falls
on TTOMWI/ and iMivo/itvwi' and not on

£(TTI. The view of old age presented
here recalls the fie\4rri Savdrov of the
3 2 9 D 25 CVKOXOI. Like Sophocles
himself: 6 8' efeoXos \xkv ivtfdS', efooXos
5' e«f (Ar. Frogs 82).



E Xeyecv

K a t iytb ayacr8el<; avrov


7roXXov?, brav







/3ovX6fievo<> ert

*O Ke<£<x\e, ' olfiai

OVK aTroBe^ecrdai,




fjyelcrOal 30

ae paBicoi TO yrjpas <f>ipeiv oil Bia TOV rpoirov, dXXd Bid TO iroXXr/v
ovcriav /ce/CTTJcrdaf TOI? yap



e<f>r), XeyeK-

TI, ov fievToo ye


ov yap

330 ev ej(ei, 09 TW 2,epi<f>la> XoiSopovfievw


teal Xeyovri,

^a.\e7rco<> Be TO yfjpas

X0709, OTt OUT' av 6 6Tri,eiicr)<; irdvv


OUT' av

OWT' i/ceivo<; 'Adrjvalos.

Sept'^to? wv dvo/j,aaTo<; eyivero



TT)V TTOXIV evBoKi/j.ol, aireicpivaTO,

BT) /J,rf TrXovaiois,



ical TOK

<f>epovcriv, ev e^ei 6 ai)T09

TI paBiws


/J,erd TrevLas

ovd* 0 fir) eTriei>cr)<i 7rXovrrj(ra<; ev/coXo1; TTOT av





aov A II: <re corr. A .

3 2 9 D—331 B Socrates further questions Cephalus. ' Most men will say that
it is your riches which make you happy in
old age.' C. l Character has more to do
with happiness than uva/th.' S. ' What
is the chief advantage of money ?' C. 'It
enables the good man to pay his debts to
gods and men before he passes into the
other world.'
i<) «KCVOWV. Kiveiv 'rouse' is technical
in the Socratic dialect for the stimulating
of the intellect by interrogation: cf. (with
Stallbaum) Lys. 223 A, Xen. Mem. iv 2.
2. See also Ar. Clouds 745.
3 2 9 E 34 ov (jie'vTOi •ye. The collocation fiei/Toi ye, which rarely occurs in
good Greek, is condemned by Porson (on
Eur. Med. 675) and others. In Plato it
is found only here and in Crat. 424 c,
[Sisyph.] 388 A. Here some inferior MSS
omit ye. It would be easy (with Hoefer
de particulis Plat. p. 38, Cobet, and
Blaydes) to write ov ixivToi baov ye, but
•'notanda talia potius quam mutanda."
The idiom, though exceptional, is (in my
judgment) sufficiently supported (see the
instances cited by Blaydes on Ar. Thesm.
709). It should also perhaps be remembered that the speaker, Cephalus, was not
a native Athenian. Cf. 331 B E nn.

Oe/uo-ToK\ea—us Sia ras 'AB-qvas ?X"' TA
ye'pea rb. irapb. AaKeSaifJ.ovlaii', a\\' ov 5i'
euvrbv. 6 Si—etire' oiira lxel T < " ' °^T' &"

iyu i&ip BeX^iyirijs (Belbina was a small island about 2 miles south of Sunium) eTurqf)T\v
oOrto Trpbs "Z-jrapTtriTewv, oifr' b\v o~ij ivvdpwire
e&v ' A&T}VCUOS. The changes are not due

to Plato: for rip in TI? ^.epuplip—for which
Heindorf on Charm. 155 D wrongly suggests Tip, like Cicero's Seriphio cuidam
(Cato Mai. 8)—shews that Plato's form of
the story was also familiar. The Platonic
version, in which Belbina has become
Seriphus, and Themistocles' detractor a
Seriphian, afterwards held the field.
33O A 3 Kal TOts Srj. Kafis'also'
and Sri illative.
6 €UKOXOS—lavTw. The dative is used
as with eb/xevris : cf. Ar. Frogs 359 ^ 5 '

T O suit

the application precisely to the story we
should require (1) neither would the eineiKTJS easily endure old age with poverty, (2)
nor the fir/ e7rieiKi}s easily endure old age
with riches. For (2) Plato substitutes 'nor
would the bad man ever attain to peace
with himself by becoming rich'; thereby
conveying the further idea that the bad
man is not CUKOXOS eavrq under any circumstances or at any time. Richards'
suggestion ev aOry (i.e. yqpq-) for eavry is
TO TOU 6E|UO-TOK\&>VS. The story as
neat, but loses sight of this additional
told by Herodotus v n i 125 is probably
more true, if less pointed : iis Se £K TTJS point. The allusion to old age in the
clause, so far as it is necessary to
AaKeSatfj-ovos awiKeTO (sc. QefjLiaroK\ijs) £s
allude to it, is contained in wore.
rd.s 'A8j)va$, ivBavra Tifi6Si]fj.os 'A<pio'vaXos—<t>6bvip KaTaf/.apy4ojv evelnee T6V

[33O A


Ylorepov Be, r)v 8" iyw, to Ke<paXe, wv Ketcrrjaai


rj iireicrrjo-co;

/i6O"o? Tt? yeyova



%pr]fiario~rr)<; rov

ra TrXeito

I e<f>rj, cJ z.d>icpare<i; B

re ird-Ktrov fcal rov


10 o fiev yap TrdinTO<j re Kal o/McovvfiOf ifJiol cr^eBov ri ocrrjv iyoo

iceicrriiiat, irapaXaficbv

vva<; Be 6 Trarrjp en iXdrrco

7ro\Xa/w> roaavrt]v

eirolrjcre rrj<; vvi' ovarj'i'

dyairaiy iav f*r) eXdrras KaraXiirco rovroicriv,
TrXeiw r) irapeXafiov.

irot' II 2 : TTOI All'Sy.





Avcraeyu> oe

dXXd (3paj(el yi


eveica rjpbfirjv, rjv B' eya>, on


14. ou TOI unus Flor. B : 06V01 A : OCTOI (sic)


Blumner, Gr. Privatalterth. p. 284. [Plut.]
vie. Lys. 835 c also calls Cephalus son of
13 TOISTOKTIV. Bekker and others read
Men. 87 E ffKe\f/(i/ie6a ST] KO.9' £KO.O-TOV
dvaXafifidvovTes, Troia iimv a ^ S s li^eXet.
TOVTOUTI, but there is no reason for deserti/yietd fpctfiev KOX iaxfts Kal /cdXXos Kal
ing the MSS. The archaic dative in -oto-t
TT\OVTOS drf' TCLVTO. \^yofj.(v Kal ra roiavra is tolerably often used by Plato. In the
ib<)>4\ifia, and in t h e usual ra iro'ia. ravra; Republic alone it recurs in 345 E, 388 D,
There is no derision implied, as in TOTOS 389 B, 468 D (Homer), 560 E, 564 c, 607 B
KT7J<ri7T7ros (Euthyd. ig 1 A) and the like:
(-ai<ri) (poetic): see also Schneider on i n
had Cephalus desired to pour scorn on the 389 B, and for the usage of inscriptions
suggestion, he would have said TroSev iir- Meisterhans 3 p. 126. In this particular
eKTr)<ra/Ai]i>; (cf. Cral. 398 E) : and it wouldpassage the archaic ending suits the age
be absurd to deride a charge to which you
of the speaker; but it should be rememat once plead guilty (yiyova xMlxaTl'TT^s
bered that Plato's style (at least in his
KT\.). If Socrates' question had been not
more mature dialogues) is not a mere
irdrepov—ra 7rXefw 7rape\a/3es 17 eireKT^iroj,
reproduction of the vernacular Attic, but
but Troia iireKTijau}, Cephalus would have also in no small measure a literary language
said oTrofa iireKTi)aait.riv: but this idiom is or 'Kunstsprache,' in which Ionisms and
inadmissible, except where the same inpoetic and archaic forms are occasionally
terrogative occurs in its direct form in the employed: see especially Hirzel Der
original question. In view of the answer
Dialog l pp. 246—250 nn. Hirzel {id. p.
(/*6ros Tts KT\.) which Cephalus gives,
34 n. 1) gives reasons for holding that a
7r6<ra for 7rola would be too precise. Of
the various emendations which have been sort of KOLVT) Sid\eKTos, resembling the
dialect of Herodotus, was actually spoken
suggested, the only plausible one (in point
of sense) is Richards' irbrepov for Trot' or in certain cultivated circles at Athens in
the Periclean age, e.g. by Anaxagoras
TTOI: this would assimilate the original
and his group, by the Ionian sophists and
and the repeated question, but is less well
their followers etc., and some of Plato's
adapted to Cephalus' reply. Cephalus in
Ionisms may be inherited from this source.
point of fact uses an old man's privilege
Cf- VII 533 B n.
and accommodates his interrogator's
14 ou TOI ?V€KO—on. The reading
question to his own reply. See also V
TOI)TOU for ov, though supported by Sto465 E n.
baeus (flor. 94. 22), is a correction made
33O B 11 AwravCas 8e. Groen van by some one unacquainted with the idiom,
Prinsterer's suggestion (Piaton. Prosopogr. which is common enough in conversap. i n ) Awrias for Avaavlas is at first sight
tional style: cf. infra 491 ]( 8 fitv wavrav
plausible, since it is in harmony with the
BaufxaarbTaTov aKovo~ai, on KT\. and Ar.
well-known Greek custom of calling grand- Frogs 108. Hartman's TOD TOI (interrosons after their grandfathers: but the gative) is ingenious, but unnecessary.
fashion was by no means invariable : see
3 3 O A, B 8

ITOl' tT7€KTT)Crd(lT|V KTX. :

*do you want to know what I acquired,
Socrates?' voia is simply 'what' as in



C eSol;a<; ov crcpoSpa dyairdv
TO iroXv

01 ai> fir) avrol

01 aWoi


rd ' ^prifiara.

TOVTO Be iroiovutv




ol TTotTjral rd

TroitjfjLaTa Kat, 01 7raTe/3e? TOU? 7ratSa? dyairwo-iv,
Kai oi -^prjixaTicrafievot irepl TO ^pr/para

Kai Kara rrjv ^peiav,

%vyyevecr6ai, elaiv,


&>? 15

KTrjGwvrai • oi he KTUjcrdfjievoL BtirXrj r)


f/Trep oi aXXou.

ovhev ideXovres




re Brj

C09 epyov


oiiv Kai 20


e<frr}, Xeyeis.

fiev ovv, I 171; S' iyco.


fioi en TOcrovSe elire- TL


olei dyaObv d-rroXeXavKevai rov TroXXrjv ovaiav KtKTrjo-Oai.;

" O , 77 8

o?, ia(o<; OVK av 7roWoi)? •Ke'taaijxi Xeyuv.

e<f>rj, tu 2a)«/3aTe9, on, iTretSdv Tt? iyyvs

e5 yap

'icrdi, 25

y TOV o'leadai, reXevTrjaeuv,

eia-epxerai, aiTM 8eos Kai (frpovTls irepl wv efiirpocrOev OVK elcryei.
o'( re yap




TG>V iv "AiBov,


TOV evddhe

Set eKel Bi&ovai SiKrjv, KaTayeXco/j,evoi rea)?, Tore &r)

E arpe<povaiv I avrov



fir) dXrjOel'i mcnv

icaX avrbi; TJTOI 30

$7rep I I : ijirep A.

33O c 16 SiirXfj TJ 01 aXXot. The
re axdofiat {///.as re rods iraipovs
meaning is simply 'twice as much as the eXecij, 6Vt oieade rl iroietp ouStv iroiovvres.
others': cf. e.g.- Laws 868 A SLTTXT/ rb
3 3 O D 26 lirsiSdv — TeXeimjVeiv :
|3Xd/}os eKTeur&Tw and 928 B frqfuovTW—
' when a man faces the thought that he
SiirXtf. The ij is like ft after 5iir\d<rio5,
must die,' not (with Jowett) 'when a man
7ro\XairXd<nos etc. If 5iirXiJ meant simply
thinks himself to be near death,' which
'on two grounds,' it could not be followed
would be iireid&v nt €771)5 eTvat. otijTat rod
by if, and we should have to regard 7} ol TcXeurjJo*at, as Herwerden proposes to read
d\\oi as an interpolation. Cephalus ex(cf. Laws 922 C b'rav ffit\ pJKknv riydfieda
presses himself somewhat loosely, as if
reKevrav). " Senum, non iuvenum rb
loving a thing on two grounds, or in two oUaBau rcXevTrio-etf est" (Hartman): the
ways, were equivalent to loving it twice
weakness of old age convinces us at last
as much. raiiT-ri below is denned by the that we too must die. Cf. Simon. 85.
wffTrep clause, and is preferred to ucrxep, 7—10 6vr}r<2v 5' 6<ppa rts avdos HxV TTOXUpartly in order to correspond to 5nr\fj but
•qparov 7//???? j Kovtpov ex^f Ovjxbv, TT6XX'
still more to suit /caret TT\V xpaap. The
voei- \ ofre yap i\xiS'
present passage is through Aristotle (Eth.
Nic. iv 2. ii2o b 14, cf. ib. ix 7. n 6 8 a
6'ra.f 77, tppovri.5' @xet Kafxdrov.
1—3) the source of the proverb about
29 dSucrjcavTa—SiSovai SCKTJV. Plato
'parents and poets.'
is fond of this verbal play: cf. EiUhyph.
8 B and 8 E r(p 7e ddiKovvrt SOT4OV 5LKT)V.
21 |uyy€v^o-8ai: 'to meet'in social inHe who does not render justice in deeds
tercourse, as in Ap. 41 A. ^vyylyveadai
must render justice in punishment: for the
(suggested by Richards) would express
tale of justice must be made up. Note
habitual intercourse, which is not what
that we have here in aSiKia. and SLKTI the
Plato means to say. With the sentiment
cf. Symp. 173 C ortxv iiiv Tivas Trepl <pt\o- first casual allusion to the subject of the
<ro0/as X670US •)) airbs woi&iicu yj SXKav Republic.
&KOIJ(0—virepfivws ws xa'lPw ' ^Tav ^ aWovs
3 3 O E 30 avTos KTX. avr6s = ipse
Tivas, aXXws re Kai rods i/ierdpovs rods s. ultra as opposed to ol \eyt>ixevoi )*v8oi..
The verb is to be supplied by a kind of




V7r6 rrjs TOV yrfpio* daOevelas rj Kal axrirep r/Br] eyjvrepco (ov T<av
eicel fidXXov n KaQopa avrd.
V7ro^jrl,a<s 8' ovv Kal Bei/MaTO<; /ieffTOS
yLyvercu Kal dvakoyl^erai
rjBrj Kal a/coirel, e'i Tivd ri r/BiKr/Kev.
6 fiev ovv evpiaKwv eavTov iv TG> y8tfc> iroXXd dhucrffiara Kai eic
35 TWV VTTVWV, uicnrep ol 7raiSes, dafid



Kai Qfl

fierd KaKT]<; eXirbSof • TO> \ Be fiijBep eavrS dSiKov gvvei&oTt rjBeia 331
eXiTi? del irdpeo-Ti Kal dyaOr), yrjpoTpo<f>o<;, ft)? Kal Yluvoapos

%apievT(o<; yap TOI, 3> ^.(OKpares, TOVT


enrev, ort,

os av St/cat&)9 Kal cxriax; TOV ^LOV Siaydyrj, yXvKeld
5 drdXXoicra
yr]poTp6(j>o<; avvaopei
eXTri';, a fidXicrra
7ToXv<TTpo^>ov yvwfiav
ev ovv Xeyei

o-<f>68pa. 7rpos S») TOVT

eyayye TL07)/M

TT)V T&V %pr)fiaTa>v

KTTJQ-IV irXeiarov d^iav elvai, ov TC ' iravrl dvSpb, aXXa TU> eirieiKel. B
TO yap firfBe aKowd nva e^aTrarrjaai, rj •tyevcraaQai, fir)8 av
io otyeiXovTa rj Qeu> 6uo~l,a<; nvd<; r/ dvdpa>7ra> %pr)/j,aTa eireiTa eKeiae

BeSiora, fiiya


et's TOVTO rj TUIV xPV/J'aT0}v


e%ei 8e Kal a\Xa<; ^joet'a? T r o W n f dXXd ye ev
dvff" kvh'i OVK iXd^oarov eycoye 8e'ir)v av eh TOVTO dvSpl vovv

•qSlicriKev A ' S :

zeugma from iwXKbv TL KaBopq aura (i.e.
T4 {xeT*; or rather the predicate is accommodated to the second alternative. Cf.
344 B infra and VIII 553 c. To regard
the bodily weakness of old age as in itself
the cause of clearer vision of the world
beyond may be in harmony with the
doctrine of the Phaedo, but Cephalus is
not represented as a Platonist. Tucker
needlessly doubts the text.
34 KOI 6K TWV ilirwwv KT\. xal is
'both,' not 'and,' and balances KOX £>}:
' many a time, like children, awakes out
of sleep in terror and lives in the expectationofill.' For wairep ol xa?Ses compare
Phaed. 77 D, E, and for the general sentiment Arist. Eth. Nic. I 13. iiO2 b 8—11

yap €<TTU/ 6 Hwfos TTJS tj/vx^s rj \£ye-

Hq et corr. A 2 .

added by Plato in contrast to //.era /c

yr\porpo^oi KT\.: 'to nurse him in old
age, as Pindar also says.' yrjpoTpiifios is
best taken by itself and not with ayadi).
5 aTaXXoio-a KTX. ardWu is used of
rearing children, and helps out the idea
of yripoTpl><pos: Ms iralSes oi ytpovTes.


is not clear how the fragment is to be
arranged, nor to what class of Pindar's
poems it belongs. See Bergk Poet. Lyr.
6r. 4 1 p. 452.
6 tv ovv—<r<|>o8pa. The emphasis is
quite in keeping with Cephalus' age and
character; and Hartman is certainly wrong
in condemning the clause: cf. 329 c,
331 B.
3 3 1 B io 6cf>EC\ovTa — 0cu> 6va~£as
Tivas. Phaed. 118 A direv, 8 5^ reXeu-

TOI oirovSaia Kal <pav\Tj, TrXty et irq Kara
[UKpbv duKvovvral rives TOIV Kurfiaeiav, Kal TaTov £</>&4yl;aT0, t5 K.pi,Ttov, f:<pri, r y 'A<rTatirri ^eXriii) yiverai ™ (pavraafiara T&V
KXTJTTUJ} 64>et\ofj.ey akeKrpvbva' dXXd a7r6iTneiKwv q TCJV TVX&TWV.
Sore Kal fii] a^ekria-qTe. W e a l t h is in

3 3 1 A 1 ijSeta—7i]poTpd<|>os. ifSeia
is suggested by Pindar's y\vKeia, and Kal
aya$7i, as presently appears, is not part of
the quotation, but goes with £\irls and is

Cephalus' view the indispensable x°PVyla
12 aXXd "ye h> dv8' Ivos. dXXd ye
is extremely rare in Attic prose: in the



i, to Xw/cpaTes, TTXOVTOV XPVffifMoraTOv elvai.

UajKaXax;, r^v

C o eyco, Xeyew, a> Ke(*!>a\e. I TOVTO S' CIVTO, rr/v Biicaiocrvvqv, irorepa 15
T7}V aKrjOeiav avTo (prfaofiev elvai
av Tt? TI irapd

TOV Xdfiy,

eviore Be aSt/cw? iroceiv;


el Ti? X'tftoi




a7r\&)9 OUTCO? /cat TO diroBiBovai,

rj Kal avrd



olov TowvBe Xeyw

(piXov dvBpbs

on ovre %ptj rd Tooavra

aoHppovovvTOS oirXa,

av eit] 0 aTroBiBow oi/S' av 7rpo9 TOV OVTOJ? eyovTa
D raXr/Or] Xeyeiv.


'OpQcos, ecpt), Xeyet*.

8(,Kaio(rvvr]<;, d\r}6r)

Te Xeyeiv


OVK dpa


fiev ovv, 6077, d) 2fo«paT69, viro\al3wv

ye TC •xpr) ~%ifj,Q)viBr) -rreideffdat.

iviore /Jiev
7rd? av


ovre Si/caio<; 20



OVTOS b'pos eVrt




6 YIoXe/j,ap%o<;, elirep

K a t fievrot,, eiprj 6 Ke<j>aXo<s, Kal 25

vapaBiScofit, vfilv TOV Xoyov • Bel yap p,e ijBr) TCOV [epa>v iTri/j.eXrj6rjvai.

Platonic corpus it occurs—according to
the best manuscript authority—here and
in Rep. v m 543 c, Phaed. 86 E, Hipp.
Maior 287 B, Phaedr. 262 A (d\\d
ye 5?j), Phaed. 116 D (id.). In some of
these passages dXX' 07c has been conjectured— wrongly, as I think (with
Schneider), at all events in the passage
from the Republic : — but dXX' &ye cannot be read in the Phaedrus and Hippias
Maior. There is no a priori objection
to the collocation, which is also implied
in dXXa ydp (7' d.pa); and in later Greek
d\\d ye aroused no objection. The
meaning is 'but still,' originally 'yes,but':
as Schneider says, "ye in his dictionibus
concedit aliquatenus praecedentia, sed
magis urget sequentia." There is perhaps also a dramatic motive for putting
aWd ye into the mouth of Cephalus : see
on oil fxevToi ye in 329 E. Against the
reading of Stobaeus \Flor. 94. 22) dXXi
l» ye dv8' ivds, we may urge the further
objection that the idiomatic phrase £v avff'
ev6; ('setting one thing against another,'
as Jowett correctly translates it) seems to
depend for its peculiar force (like /xovos
liMvif and the like) on the juxtaposition of
its two parts: cf. Phil. 63 B (h dvO' ivos)
and Laws 705 B (dv6' evbs &). The passage quoted by Stallbaum from Euripides
Orest. 651 iv fi,ev rbS ij/uv dvff evbs Sovval

ae xfii is quite different and does not
mean ' hoc praecipue,' but ' one thing in
return for one thing,' as is clear from
lines 646 f.

OUK IXdxurTOV is not adverbial (as

Hartman and others suppose), but belongs to TOVTO: 'setting one thing against
another, I should regard this as not
the least important object for which
wealth is most useful to a man of sense.'
The emphasis is characteristic: cf. 329 c,
331 A.
3 3 1 c, D The question 'What is
yustice ?' is for the first time raised. Is
it simplv to speak the truth and pay what
you owe? Polemarchus succeeds to Cephalus1 part in the conversation.
3 3 1 c 16 Tiiv ctXrjBeiav KT\. This
theory of justice or righteousness is deduced from the words of Cephalus: TO


a.KOi>Td Tiva

ei-airaTTJo-cu rj ij/eij-

aa.aBai being generalised into dXrjdeiav
(truthfulness, cf. TiXifiij \eyei.v below),
and /XJ/8' av 6<pel\ovTa 17 detf Svaias Tivds
7) dvdpitjiriti xpTj[j.aTa into dirodidopai dv TIS
TI irapd TOV Xd/3fl. Cf. (with Wohlrab)
M i m n . Fr. 8 d\r]$el7i Se Tape<rTio | aoX
Kal €/AOL, irdvTOjv xpi}^a

It is simply Truth and Honesty, the two
chief ingredients in the popular conception of morality.
dirXws OIITWS '. * quite without qualification.' For this idiomatic oihus cf.
pqSias oiino II 377 B «.
18 otov ToiovSe \«7<o. Similar points
of casuistry are raised in Socrates' conversation with Euthydemus ap. Xen.
Mem. iv 2 12 ff.
21 01I8' aS KTX. I have removed the
comma before ovb~i, because the 6 in 6
dTrodidois covers both participles, the
person in both cases being the same.




Ov/covv, e<jyr], iyco 6 U.oXefiap^o<i TWV ye a&v KXripovofio*;; Uavv


17 S' 09 ye\dcra<;' Kai afjua fjei irpb<i ra iepd.

ral terms it is that which is suitable or
3 3 1 D 27 &|>T). There is not sufficient
appropriate. Simonides in fact meant
reason for changing the best supported
reading t-<pr], iyii to (<pi)v cyii. Polemar-that Justice consists in doing good to
chus is throughout the introduction re- friends and ill to foes.
presented as a vivacious person: e.g. in
3 3 1 E ff. By SiKtuocrtivi), it should be
6/>£s ovvtyuas—6V01ia/iiv (327 c), and in noted, is here meant man's whole duty to
the lively emphasis with which he breaks his fellows, as OO-IOTTJS is right conduct in
in just above: fl-dci; /j£v ofo—eiwep yi n
relation to the gods. In this wide sense
Xpv StfiioviSy Trdfftcrffai. True to his the word was commonly understood by
name, he is first to mingle in the fray.
the Greeks (cf. Theog. 147 i" Si SIKOIOIt is this (piXoXoyia on the part of his son aivg (rvWrj^drjv iraa' aperi] hi); and even
which draws a smile from Cephalus:
in the scientific study of ethics, the word
over-much irpodv/ila always struck the still retained the same wider connotation,
Greeks as laughable: cf. e.g. Eur. Ion side by side with its more specific meanii72ff. The words in which Socrates ings (Arist. Eth. Nic. v 3. ii2O.b 11 ff.).
addresses Polemarchus <ri 6 TOV X6you
The view that Justice consists in doing
K\i)poi>6fios are also somewhat more ap- good to friends and harm to enemies, is
propriate if the title was self-chosen. a faithful reflection of prevalent Greek
Cephalus leaves the argument to be car- morality (Luthardt Die Antike Ethik
ried on by the assembled company (for
p. 19). It is put into the mouth of Siufui> does not mean Polemarchus and monides as a representative of the poets,
Socrates alone): whereupon Polemarchus,
seizing hold on the word irapaStSw/u in on whose writings the young were brought
its sense of 'transmit,' 'bequeath,' play- up: cf. Prot. 316 D, 325 E, 338 B ff.
fully claims the right to inherit his \6yos As typical illustrations we may cite: Hes.
OD. 707 ff.; Solon 13. 5 ; Theog. 337 f.;
as Cephalus' eldest son and heir. It
Archilochus Fr.(t-,\ PindarPyth. 1. 83—
may be added that 'ifyri iyii was much
85; Aesch. P. V. 1041 f.; Soph. Ant.
more likely to be changed to iijnfv iya
643 f. ; Eurip. Med. 807 — 810; Meno in
than vice versa. With the Greek compare Phaecf. 89 C dXXd Kai ifni, l</>r;, rbv Plat. Men. 71 E auTtj iffTtp dvdpbs apeTTj,
'IoXewp 7rapa/caXet.

iKavbv elvat ret TTJ$ TTOXCWS irpdrret^, Kai

TrpaTTovTO. TOUS fikv tpLXovs eS iroieTv, TOVS

8' ixBpobs KaKuis : cf. also Crito 49 B, Xen.
Cyr. 1 6. 31 ff. and Hiero 11 2. Socrates
editors quote Cicero Epp. ad Alt. IV 16. himself in Mem. II 3. 14 represents the
3 " credo Platonem vix putasse satis con- same principle as generally accepted in
sonum fore, si hominem id aetatis in tam
Greece : KOX y.T\v irXcL&Tov ye doKei avijp
longo sermone diutius retinuisset." Cf.
ewaivov S£ios etvai, 8s av <pB6.vg rois piv
the words of Theodoras in Theaet. 162 B woXefJiiovs KaK&s TTOI&V, roi)s 5£ (piXovs
olfJ.a.1 VIMLS irelffetv 4/x£ /xev ear deaadai Kal etiepyeTuv : cf. also ibid. II 6. 35. These
fiij %\K€IV irpbs TO y\>[Lvatrtov, fXKXyjpbv ydy] references, which might easily be multioPTtx, Tip 5t Sr) vttiiTepip re Kai vypoT^ptp
plied, shew that Plato is not, as TeichOVTL wpoawaXaUiv. It is worthy of note muller supposes (Lit. Fehd. I p. 22M.),
that the entrance and exit of Cephalus specifically refuting Xenophon, but rather
are alike associated with the services criticising an all but universal view. See
of religion: see 328 c and Introd. § 2.
Nagelsbach Nachhom. Theol. pp. 246 ff.
3 3 1 E—332 B The second half of
It is seldom that a voice is raised in
the definition of Justice which Socrates protest, as by Pittacus (according to
deduced from Cephalus' remarks is now D. L. I 4. 78) in the memorable words
taken up and discussed in the form in
<pLXov fx^ Xtyetv /caffti;?, aXXa fj.r}5^ £"x&pbv.
which it was expressed by Simonides—
Plato was the first Greek who systemati'rendering to each man his due.' In the
cally protested against the doctrine, and
present section Socrates co7ifines himself to supported his protest with arguments
eliciting the meaning of 'due.' As bedrawn from a loftier view of man's nature
tween friends, it is something good; as and work.
between enemies., something evil; in gene28 d(i.a fjairpos T<i Upd. Soph. Fr. 206
•ffipq. irpeir6i>Tws cryfe TT)V ebfy-qfdav. T h e

332 A]



V I . Ae'7e Brj, I eiTrov eyco, cri) 6 TOV \6yov /cXrjpovopos, T'U <prj<;
TOV AificoviBrjv Xiyovra opOdos Xeyeiu irepl BiKaiocrvvrjt;; "On, ff B' 30
o<?, TO TO. o^ieiXo/xeva eKaaru) d-iroBiBovat, BLicaiov icm- TOVTO ~Keya>v
Boicel e/j,oiye /ca.Xw? Xeyeiv.
'AWd fievTOt,, r\v S' iyoo, 'ZI/AWVLBT) ye
ov paBiov airicTTelv o-o^o? yap Kal 8elos dvrjp- TOVTO fievToi o T'L
7TOT6 Xeyei, av /j.ev, a> TioXefiap^e, 1'<TO>? ybyva>o~icei<;, iya> Be ayvoSi.
BrfKov yap OTI OV TOVTO Xeyei, oirep apTi ekeyofiev, TO TIVO<; 35
TrapatcaTaOefjiivov TL OTCOOVV fj.rj o~co<pp6va><i drraiTovvTi diroBiBovai332 KCLITOL ye o^>ei\K,6fievov irov icrTiv TOVTO, b irapaicaTkQeTO- rj yap;

331 E




See on Traides iKehov TOD dp5p6s II 368 A.
dviip. I formerly read avrip, but av$)p
31 Ttt d<{KiX6|ieva—4<TTI. Probably some
(in the predicate) is satisfactory enough:
current saying attributed to Simonides:
cf. Men. 99 D 0e?os avl]p, <f>aaiv, OVTOS.
there is nothing like it in his fragments.
36 irapaKaTa6c|iEvov KTX. Xen. Cyr.
The words do not profess to be a defiI 6. 31 ff. Kal fri Tpoflas (sc. iirl rwv
nition of justice: if they did, TO would
T)IAer£pwv irpoydvwv yevofievos Trore avrjp
appear before Swaiov. It is not likely
Siddo'KaXos TIOV iraidojv) raura idiSaffKev
that Simonides himself explained this
us Kal roi)s <pi\ovs biKaiov etrj €^airarav,
particular saying as Polemarchus does,
iirl ye dyady, Kal KhiTTTeiv ra TCIV <pl\av,
although he would not have disapproved
eiri ye ayaffy: Mem. IV 2. 17 ff.
of the explanation. In Xen. Hier. 11 2
6T<J>OVV is to be taken with irapaKarahe is represented as saying that tyrants
Bepivov and not with airaiTovvTi..
are iicav&TaToi—Ka/cwffcu fiiy exQpotjs, 37 KCUTOI-ye 6(j>et\o[j.evov. There is the
dvrjaat be (piKovs. The words of Socrates
same dispute about Kairoi ye as about
ail fiep, w No\{/i.apxe, foois yiyvw<rKeis,
pivToi ye and dWd ye (see on 329 E,
^yu> Bi dyvow tend to fix the responsi331 B). KaiTm ye has the best MS aubility of the explanation on Polemarchus
thority in its favour here and in iv 440 D :
alone. Probably Simonides (if the saying
elsewhere in Plato it is not well-attested
is his) meant no more than that we should
except in the i>o8ev6/i,evoi, where it occurs
'render unto Caesar the things which are
Min. 318 E, Axioch. 364 B, 368 E. Kafrot
Caesar's.' Plato virtually confesses in
ye is also found occasionally in Aristo332 B that his interpretation is forced.
phanes, Xenophon, Aristotle, and the
orators: see Blaydes on Ar. Ach. 611,
and the Lex. Arist.
Many distinguished
critics would emend the idiom everywhere;
but the instances are far too numerous for
such a drastic policy. The difference between Kalroi 6(pei\bixevbv ye wov (which
Hoefer de part. Plat. p. 38 would read)
and KaiTOi ye d<pei\6fievov would seem to
be that in the former more stress is
thrown on the word dcpeLXo/xevov, in the
latter on TOL. Kairoi ye is 'and surely'
rather than ' quamquam' (as Kugler holds
de part, TOI eiusipie comp. ap. PI. iisii
p. 20), cf. iv 440 D n. The periphrasis
6ipei.X6fj.evov—effri is used of course to
XpTl^l^vSoOs Kal fj.dvTeis Kal TOIIS TTOI7JTI.KO6S
airavras' Kal TOVS TVOXLTIKOVS oi% ijKKTTa correspond to rd 6fpeCS.bfj.eva. in E above :
ro6riov QaijAev av Oeiovs re elvai Kal evdov- such periphrases (the principle of which
is explained in Euthyph. 9 Eff.)are excrid^uv, iiriirvom ovras Kal Karexo/i^ovs
eK TOV 8eou, OTav Karopd&ai \£yovTes iroWk tremely common in Plato. See W. J.
Alexander in A. J. Ph. iv pp. 299 ff.
Kal fteyd\a irpayfiaTa, fitjdev eldores u.v
32 ?(ioi.-ye: said with confidence, as
2t/j.<j)vi$i] ye with emphasis and some
mockery: with you one might disagree,
but not with Simonides.
33 cro<f>os—8eios.
Cf. Prot. 315 E.
ao<p6s and 0eios were fashionable words
of praise: in the mouth of Socrates
they are generally ironical. Plato's own
connotation of the word ffe?os is given
in Men. 99 C OVKOVV, W Mivuv, afioi/
TOVTOVS deiovs KoKeiv Toiis &v8pas, o'lWes
vouv jtf}? e\ovTts TroWa teal fj.eyd\a Karopdovaiv &v TrpaTTOvai Kal \£you<rt.v; 'Op^ws
av KaXocfiev deiovs re, oOs vvv 5TJ (\iyojxev

[332 A


'AiroBoTeov Be ye 01^8' OTTWCTTIOVV Tore, oirore Tt9 fir) traxppo-

va><; cnraiTol;

'AXrjdrj, 7) 8' 09.



eoiKev, Xeyet, %i/A,a>viBrj'; TO TO, 6(j>eiX6/jLeva Bi/caiov elvai
5 " A W o /xevToi vr) At', e<f>rj'
<f>iXov<i dyaffov


T019 yap

(f>lXoi<; o'ierai

"TrapaKaTadefJ-ivtp, ' edvirep

r) cnroBoaK

09 av

<f>rj<; TOP H/ifiapLBrjv;

oK diroBoTeov, o TI av Tvyr)


) , o ye 6(f>eiXeTdi avTois.


r)v B eya> •

TW j^pvcrlov


yuyvrjTai, cftlXoi Be toaiv o Te tiTroXafiftdvcov
10 OVTO) Xeyeiv

6(f)eiXeiv TOV<;

fiev TI Bpav, Kaicov Be fJ,r]Bev. Mav6dva),

TO. 6<f>tiX6fieva diroBiB'^aiv,




rj Xf}i]ft,<; fiXafiepa B

ical 6 aVoStSov9"
fxev ovv.


6<f>eiXo/j,€vov; YiavTairaai





6<f>e!,XeTai Be, olfiat, irapd, ye TOV

e^Opov TU> eyQpas, ovep ical Trpocnjicei, icaieov TI.

dt g : 5^ ye Alfy.

rjKov is a more general term and is the
3 3 2 A 1 diro8oT«'ov—airai-ro!: ' well,
regular word in classical Greek for ' proper
but we were not on any account to make
conduct' or ' d u t y ' (as the Greeks conrestoration at the time when the claimant
ceived it), the Stoic KadriKov being very
is'—according to the Greek idiom ' was'
rarely used in this sense by good authors.
—'mad.' Socrates, as in ovep &pri e\iyo/iev, is appealing to the admissions
3 3 2 c—336 A The definition is
made by the warrip TOV X070U (in 331 c), further elucidated down to 333 B: and
as he is justified in doing when addressthereafter Socrates begins to criticise it.
ing his heir, owire is not—as rdre shews
In the first place, the definition is made
—the particle of 'indefinite frequency,'
more precise by representing justice as an
but stands for ore of the direct: the
art, whose business it is to benefit friends
whole clause T6TC 6ir6re TIS /IT) <ru<j>p6vws and injure foes (332 c, D). The quesdwairoT is thus in the oratio obliqua of
tion is then raised—how does the art of
self-quotation and exactly corresponds to justice do good to friends and harm to
el iiaveU diraiTot in 331 C. Madvig's foes ? By the analogy of other arts PoleaircuTe? for awaiTo? is therefore unneces- marchus is induced to say that Justice
sary. Goodwin MT. p. 213 explains the
benefits friends and harms enemies (1) by
optative otherwise, but not (I think) fighting with them and against them in
time of war, and (2) in connexion with
6 aYaBov |Uv TI Spdv sc. avrovs, for partnerships concerned with money in time
rots <pi\ois depends on 6<pel\ei.v, to which of peace (332 D—333 B). The explanation
of Simonides' saying is now complete.
TOVS <pi\ovs is the subject(lavOdvo—on. STI is 'because,' not
Socrates first directs his attack against
'that,' as always (I believe) in Plato's
(2). In cases where money has to be used,
use of this phrase: cf. Euthyph. 3 B, 9 B it is not justice, but some other art, that is
and infra i n 402 E, v m 568 E. For
useful for the required purpose: in other
the sentiment cf. (with J. and C.) Xen.
words justice is [in time of peace) usejttl
Mem. IV 2 17 ff.
only in dealing with useless or unused
money and other unused objects: which is
3 3 2 B 12 o<^«t\eToi hi. Seecr.n. In
explanatory clauses of this kind S4 and an unworthy view of the art (333 n—
333 E). Further, the analogy of the other
not 64 ye is the correct usage: cf. infra
arts shews that the art of justice, if it is
337 D> 344 A- I therefore follow Bekker
the art of keeping money safe, is also the
in reading 5e.
13 irpotrijKEi. drpeCKbiievov has thus art oj stealing money—always provided
that it does so for the benefit of friends
been equated with ir/.oiriJKOJ' by means of
the special cases TO rdis <pl\ois 6<j>u\biJ.evov and the injury of foes {333 E—334 B). POa n d TA TOIS exSpois 6<pe 1X6fuevov. TO irpotr- lemarchus, in bewilderment, reiterates his

332 c]

HwifaTo apa, r)v B' i<y(l>, o>? eoiicev, 6

C Ktu? TO BUaiov

o e'ir).

Bievoeiro fiev yap,


a>9 I (jiauverai, on

einj BiKaiov, TO TrpoafJKOV 6KaaT(p drroBiBovai, TOVTO Be
o<j>ei\ofjt.evov. AWd

Tt? avrov


TL olei;



TOVT' 15


O TT/30? Ato?, rjp S' iyco, ei

w XL/ACOVLBT), f] T'MTIV ovv



6<f>ei\6fievov ical TrpocrrJKOu re^vr] larpiicr) KaKelrai; TL av o'iei,
7)fuv avTov a-rroKpivacrdai; AijXov on, e<f>T), rj acofxaffiv (f)dp/j,aicd 20

definition in the old form, and Socrates
thereupon starts a fresh line of argument.
By 'friends' and '•foes'' Polemarchus
means those who seem to us good and bad,
not those who are so. But as bad men
often seem to us good and good men bad,
fustice will often consist in benefiting bad
men, and harming good, i.e. in wronging
those who do no wrong; or conversely, if
we refuse to accept this conclusion, and
hold that it is just to benefit the just and
hurt the unjust, it will often be just
to hurt friends and benefit enetnies, viz.
when our friends are bad, and our enemies
good (me—334 E).
Polemarchus hereupon amends his explanation of 'friend' and ' enemy' into
'him who both seems and is good,' and
' him who both seems and is bad': and the
definition now becomes, ' It is just to benefit a friend if he is good, and injure an
enemy if he is bad (335 A).'
To this amended definition Socrates
now addresses himself. He first proves
by the analogy of the other arts that to
hurt a httman being is to make him worse
in respect of human excellence, i.e. Justice,
in other words to make hivi more tinjust,
and afterwards by means of similar analogical reasoning, that no one can be made
more unjust by otie who is just.
Simonides' saying, if Polemarchus has explained
it aright, was more worthy of a tyrant
than of him (335 A—336 A).
3 3 2 B ff. The seventh chapter is a
good example of Plato's extreme care in
composition. A careful study will shew
that the structural basis consists of two
illustrations followed by an application:
this occurs seven times before the conclusion of the argument is reached. Similar, but less elaborate, examples of symmetrical structure are pointed out in my
notes on Crito 49 B, Prot. 325 D.
3 3 2 B I4TJV£|O.TO—iroi.T)TiKus. Theaet.

present passage is no more serious than
that in the Theaetetus: Plato knew that
Simonides merely meant to say 'it is just
to render what you owe.'
3 3 2 c 17 dXXd T£ oto.; is a rhetorical
question, which needs and receives no
answer, like rl p.i\v; and rl fj.r)v SoKeis;

(Theaet. 162 B). It is equivalent to 'of
course.' For the use of H Stallbaum
compares Gorg. 480 B TI yap Si] cpwfuv;
to which there is also no reply. This
explanation is preferable to that of Madvig, who gives dXXd ri oiei to Socrates,
and takes $<pr) as equivalent to avv£<pri—
a harsh usage in a narrated dialogue,
and not likely to have been intended by
Plato, because sure to be misunderstood.
Liebhold's dXXo TL otei; <OUK> t-rptj has
everything against it.
<o irpos A1.0S KT\. 'In the name of
heaven, said I, if any one then had asked
him' etc. ' what reply do you think he
would have made to us?' u> before irpos
Ai6s is (as Schanz holds) an interjection,
and does not require a vocative to follow
it: cf. Euthyd. 287 A, 290 E. It is tempting
(with Tucker) to take w irpbs Aios as part
of the address to Simonides (cf. Euthyd.
294 B co irpbs TQJV Bewv, r\v 5' ^yc&, c5 Aiovv<r68o}pe—avrw T$ OVTL irdvTa ^Trl&Ta-

adov). But on this view the presence of
el oftv—TJpero forms a difficulty, and u> irpbs
Aids may very well go with TL av oi'ei—

19 6<j>ei\6|i.evovKalirpocrfJKov. It is characteristic of Plato to combine the thing
explained and the explanation itself in this
way: see my note on Prot. 314 A. Here
6(pei\6/jt.evov is necessary to enable Simonides to recognise his own saying.
iarpiKr)—iia.7ap1.KT]. In Gorg. 463 A ff.
Plato refuses the name of 'art' to 6\poTrouK-fi : it is but an ifiiretpia or Tpi/3i), a
sort of bastard adjunct to iarpucli, as KO/IfUOTiKri is to yvixvaaTiKT).

Here, where

less precision is required, both are reva
abiTTdfievos TTJV rod KTjpov ofioiiTTjTa. T h e garded as Tix <194 C TO TTJS fvxn*

K^fS 8 ty-q "Opripos



Te icai avria


' H Be TIO~LV TL diroBiBovaa


Kai •jrpoa-rJKOv Teyyt) fiayeipiKt) KaXelrai;
' H TOt9 ' otyoLS TO D
7)Bvcrfiara. ~Elev r) ovv Br) Tiaiv Tt, airoBiBovaa Te%vr) BiKaiocrvvrj

E t fiev TI, e<f>r), Bet aKoXovOelv,

(6 StuKpare?,


25 e'fnrpocrdev elpr/fievois, 77 T019 <£iXot? T6 Kai i%dpoi<> axpeXtas re Kai
/3\a/Sa? ciTroBoBovcra. To TOU? (frlXovs

dpa ev iroielv

Kai 7-07)9

e%6poi><; KaKW'i Sucaiocrvvrjv Xeyei; Ao«6i fioi. Tt? ovv BvvaTa>TaTo<i
Kcifj-voVTas (f>lXov<; ev iroielv Kai e%0pov<; KaKax; 77750? vocrov Kai



Tt? Be irXeovras

I Trpof

TOV TTJ<; 6aXuTTT)<; E

K.v/3epvriT7)<;. T t Se; 0 St'/cato? «V TtVf -rrpd^ei Kai

Trpo? TI epyov BvvarcoTaTOs <f>i,Xov<; axfreXelv Kai ej(dpov<i fiXdrmeiv;
' E ^ TOU TrpoairoXepielv Kai ev T » ^vfifiayelv, e/j,oiye BoKei. E i e v
yti^ Kafivovcro ye fxr)v, & <piXe YloXe/xap^e, larpos a-^prjO'TO';. 'AXijOfj.
Kai fir) TrXeovffu Br) Kvfiepvr/rrj'i. N a t . ' A p a Kai Tot? fir) 7roXe35 fiavaw

6 BiKaw; a%p7)<TTo<i;

Ov irdvv fioi SOKSI TOVTO.


apa Kai ev elprjvr] BiKaio\o-vvr); XprjGifiov.
K a t yap yecopyia • 333
7) ov; N a t . n p d ? ye Kapirov KTrjcnv. N a t . K a t fir)\> KaiaKvroTOfiiKT); N a t . TIpo<? ye viroBr)fiarctiv av, olfiat, <f>alr)<; KTrjcriv.
Tldvv ye.

Tt Be Brj; TT)V BiKaioavvr)V 777)69 TLVO<; ^peiav

5 ei> elpr/vrj ^airji

17 KTrjcnv

av xprjo-tfiov elvai; IIpo? TO, %vfifS6Xaia, a>
Be Xeyet,? KOivcovrjfiara, r\ TI aX\o; Kot-

3 3 2 D 23 etev according to Timaeus
of the two illustrations. So also below
(Lexicon s. v.) expresses (rvyKaraBeais fih
in 333 A T£ di 5TJ ; TT\V 5iKaxoaivt]v K T \ .
TWV elpTjfj.4vo3v, iTuvatpi] de irpbs rcfc fx4\32 irpo<nroX€|«iv explains ix^poiis /3\d\ovra.
I t rarely expresses <rvyKa.T&ffe<Ti.s •wTetv as £vu.fj.axeij' explains <pl\ovs (iHpeXeiv.
('assent') and no more: see on iv 436 c. Ast's npoiro\eij.ew (a conjecture of SteThe word was pronounced elh with interphanus) would leave £x0p°bs p\&vTeiv unvocalic aspiration (Uhlig in Fl. Jahrb.
represented. Stephanus' conjecture was
1880 pp. 790 ff.) and may possibly be a
natural enough with the wrong reading
compound of eta and £v fused as in £v n&v Kai £vfL)i.axelv, which Ast also followed.
TbS1 ijSy TGIV rpidv TraKato'fj.dTwi' Aesch.
For £|iorye SOKEI Hartman demands S/jioiye
Eum. 589). tlkv is the usual orthography
Soxelv; but cf. 333 B, Crito 43 D, Phaed.
in Paris A, and has left some traces also
108 D, Menex. 236 B. These cases shew
in the Bodleian MS e.g. Gorg. 466 c.
that So/tei can be used without u s : and
T4 vt
X l SiKauxrivt). The Socratic view
efwl (Ifwiye) SOKCIV does not occur in the
that Justice is an art—a view that domiRepublic (Grunenwald in Schanz's Beitr.
nates the whole of the conversation with
zur hist. Synt. d. gr. Spr. 11 3 p. 12).
Polemarchus—is thus introduced quite
3 3 3 A 5 gvpfioXaia. are contracts
where money is involved. Polemarchus
16 T&—\iyti. Cf. Xen. Hiero II 2 (cited
(as in els apyvplov in B below), in harmony
above on 331 E).
with the natural meaning of Simonides'
3 3 2 E 30 T£ 8e; 6 SIKCUOS KTX. This
saying, thinks first of pecuniary dealings
punctuation throws more emphasis on 6
as the sphere in which Swaioativri acts.
SUatos than H Si 6 Skaios; which appears Socrates substitutes for gviipSktua the more
in some editions. It is therefore to be
general term KOLvwvq^ara, in order once
preferred in introducing the application
more to introduce the analogy of the arts.



B vwvrjfiaTa BfJTa. T Ap' ovv 6 BUaios ' dya06<; Kal
ets TT€TTWV Qkcriv, r) 6 ireTTevTiKo?; 'O ireTTevTLKos. 'AXX' eh
TTXIVUWV Kat, Xoacov veo~iv o BiKaios xpr)o~iyb<isTepb<s Te Kal dfieivcov

OvSafidJ*;. ' A X \ ' et? TtW Br) KOivwviav 10

o BiKaios afieivcov Kowavos TOV KiOapuaTiKov, &airep 6 Kidapio-TiKo1;
TOV Biicaiov eh KpovfiaTav;
Et? dpyvpiov, eftotye BOKBI. UXrjv y'
icr&)9, ft) UoXefLap^e, 7rpo? TO xP^a^aldpyvpiq), OTav Ber) dpyvpiov
C KOivf) irpiaaQaL r) diroBoaOai, ' Xirttov
TOTB Be, w<; eya> olfiai,
o nnriicos' r) yap; <£>aiveTat. K a t fxrjv orav ye irXolov, 6 vav- 15
TTTjyos 7) o Kv{3epvr)Tr)<;. "EoiKev. "OTav ovv TL Ber) dpyvpia)
i) %pvo~ia) KOLVJ) ^prjaOab, 6 BLKaios ^p^crtyUWTepo? TWV aXXayv;
OTav TrapaicaTa8eo~6ai Kal <JWV elvai, a> Sca/cpare?.
Xeyeis, OTav /j,r)Bev Berj axiTw Xpr/aOai dXXd KeiaOai; TIdvv ye.
' OTav apa d^prjaTov fi dpyvpiov, TOTe %prjcrifio<i e V avTw r) I 20
D BiKaiocrvvr); K-ivBvvevet,. Kal OTav hr) Bpe7ravov Ber) <pvXaTTeiv,
7) BiKaioavvrj ^p^o-;/io? Kal KOIVTJ Kal IBiq- OTav Be ^prta-dai,
r) dfjLrreXovpyiKij ; <£>aiveTai. ^rjcret? Be Kal dairlBa Kal Xvpav
bWav Ber) <f>vXaTTeiv Kal firjBev ^prjaOai, xprjo-if/.ov elvai Tr)v BiKaiocrvvrjv, orav Be %pr)o-8ai, Tr)v birXiTiKrjv Kal Trjv fiovaiKrjv; AvdyKr). 25
K a t Trept TaKXa Br) irdvTa r) BiKaiocrvvt) eKaaTov ev fj,ev xprjaei
axpr)o~TO<;, ev Be dxpr)o~Tiq j£pr)o~ifio<i; HivBvvevei.



' OVK av ovv, (3 (j>iXe, irdvv ye TI o-irovBalov elt) r)

dirj q : deoi AIIS.


O{IK av ovv S et corr. in mg. A 2 : QHKOVV A}q :


3 3 3 B 10 els T^va 8i} KoivuvCav is
i.xpt]STia xp^c/J-os in D). It is noticeable
idiomatic for els rivos drj KOLVCOVLCLV. Comthat Plato does not take into account the
pare VIII 556 C i) iv odQv wopeiais i) iv
possibility of money being deposited at
dXXais rial Koivwvicus and TT\V Tifirfv interest: in this case the money could not
TOLVTTJV (where the English idiom would
be said to be useless.
3 3 3 D 22 Kal Koivjj Kal. I8£a: not
expect TT)V Ti^v rainris) in II 371 K. In
spite of eh Kpov^drav and eis apyvpiov, it
'to the individual and to the state,' but
is not necessary to read (with Richards)
'both in dealings with others, and in
personal concerns.' The words Kal tSla
3 3 3 c 18 irapaKaTafleVBai Kal <r<3v
are, strictly speaking, irrelevant, for it is
elvai. The double expression is necessary
with Koivuvr/fiaTa (in the widest sense)
that we are concerned. They are to be
to explain KOU/TJ xPwSai.: the Koivuvia
arises because one deposits the money and
regarded merely as a rhetorical amplifiby the other it is kept safe.
cation for the sake of emphasis: cf. infra
20 dxp»l<Tov—xpii<ri(ios. axpycTOS 350 A, 351 A nn.
fluctuates between'unused'and'useless':
3 3 3 E 28 01k av ovv KTX. See cr.
the latter sense is predominant here and
n. Some may think that we should read
OVKOVV (with the majority of MSS) and
gives an epigrammatic tone to the sentence (cf. iv /J-iv x/)i}<rei axpri<rTos, iv Sk
cancel eti) after <nrov5awv (so also Vind.
A. P.


[333 E



Bixaiocrvvr], el irp6<; ra a^prjara



30 o-KeijrcbfAeOa. ap ot/% 6 Trardljai

bv Tvy")(dvei.

Setv6raTo<; ev fidxV

e'lre T O T teal aXK-rj, OVTOS Kal <pvkd%acrdaL;
ical voaov

OCTTIS Seivbs <j)v\d^ao-0ai,




Kal \a6eiv




(fiwp Setj/o?.

5 Set,vo<; (fivXarreiv,




10 opK(p re.
Kal Kara






eoiKev ovv fj hitcaboavvr) Kal Kara
Hi//,(ovl8r)v K\€TTTIKI]

Kai yap eK
I dyana

re B



ere Kal KaO' "Ofirjpov

TK etvau, e V dxpeXia


6 X070?, efyrj,


TrdvTas dv9pdiTrovs


6 SUaios

/j,e/MaOrjKevat, avro.

<f>i\a>v Kal eirl /3Xa/Sj; TOiv ej^OpGiv.



Tt? dpa Secvof (f>v\af;,


Tt? o St/cato?, to? eoiKev,

TOV 'OSucueai? 7rpo? fnjTpbs

Kai (fcrjaiv avrbv


Kal Kke-rrTeiv Seivo<;. ' O ? yovv

K\eTTTi)<i dpa

rn UKTlK

'AXAa p,rjv arTpa,TOiri\8ov ye 6 UVTOS 334


Kal KivBvveveis Trap' 'Ofirfpov

Tobe be

T e


96<;, b'vrrep Kal rd rmv iroXepicav tcKey^rau icai

Kal T a ; dXXa<; 7rpa^et?.




OVTCOS eXeyes;

t/nrorftms coniecit Schneider: ifiiroiijaai A I I ^ : KO.1 i




D), understanding eon. The accidental
3 3 4 A 1 o-TpaTOireSou y« KT\. The
omission of av is however not uncommon
0rpan/"y6s must be both <j>v\aKTiKbs re Kai
in Plato's MSS : see on iv 437 E.
KKtirTris according to Socrates in Xen.
Mem. i n 1. 6.
31 OIITOS Kal <|>vXd|a<r8ai. Because
knowledge of anything implies know1 KXeirreiv and K\e'|x|xa were used
ledge also of its opposite, according
(especially by Spartans) with reference
to the usual Socratic view. See Phaed.
to military operations involving surprise
97 D ouS^f aWo ffKoireiv wpoo"i]KeLv avdpw- and stealth (Classen on Thuc. V 9. 5).
irov—aXh' 17 rb apiarov Kal TO fifkruTTov'
6 KX«ITTT|S—avair&J>avTcu. Cf. Hipp.
avayKCUov d£ eTvat rbv avrbv TOVTOV Kal T6 Min. 365 c ff., where this view is worked
Xetpov elS&vai, Charm. 166 E, Hipp. Min.
out at length, ib. 369 B avaiv£<pavTai. b
367 A ff. See also Stewart's Notes on the
airbs ui> \j/evdii$ re Kal dAij^^s and Xen.
Nicomachean Ethics Vol. 1 p. 378.
Mem. IV 2. 20 ff. &vawi(f>a.VTai, as J. and
C. remark, expresses an unexpected re32 <|>vXa£a(r8ai KT\. Seecr.n.
sult—here a paradox. Like 6 £KWV a/j.apthe emendation in the text, the argument
afielvuiv, the conclusion is a logical
is as follows: (1) he who can irard^ai,
can 0v\d£ct<r0£u: (2) he who can <pv\d- inference from the Socratic identification
|a<r0cu (i>6<roi>), can XaSe'lv lfi.iroi-i)aas (v6-of virtue and knowledge, made without
regard to experience.
aov): (3) he who can K\tyai. (Ta TSIV wo\efiioiv), is a good <pi\a^ of an army. Thus
3 3 4 E 8 a-yainj, 'esteems,' is said
the predicate of each step in the argument
with reference to itrd\bv in Horn. Od. x i x
corresponds to the subject of the step next
395 f- MTpbs fi?s iraTtp' io8\bv, 8s avBpdifollowing: for \adelv ^iro«i<ras (vbaov) is TTOVS iKttcao-TO I KXewToavi/rj ff' SpKqi re.
to be taken as parallel to KXefai (TO, TWV The suggested dyarai. for d7a7ra re would
wo\e/j.tav). The argument is unsound, and
be too strong: see Symp. 180 B fia\\ov—
not intended to be serious: it is enough
6av/u.dfov<ri.i' Kal ^ C U - T C H — S r a v 6 epdifievos
that it suffices to bewilder Polemarchus.
rbv ipao-TT)v dyavq., where t h e meaning
For a further discussion on this passage
of dyairq. is shewn by OBTU irepl 7ro\XoO
see App. I I .
^TroieiTo in 180 A.




TOV At , k<f>ri, dXX' ovKeTt. olb~a eycoye 6 ri eXeyov TOVTO fiivToi
efiotye Bo/cei ert, axpeXeiv fiev TOW <j>!,Xow r/ BiKaiocrvvrj, ftXairTeiv
C Be TOW ixOpovs.
QiXow Be Xeyei? I elvai iroTepov TOIK; BoKovvTa<; 15
XPVa"r°v<; elvai, rj TOW ovTas, Kav fir) BOK&GI, Kal ix&pow
Et«o? fiev, e<f}rlt oft? dv Tt? r}yr}Tai ^p^crToi;?, cpiXeiv,
ow B av Trovrjpov*;, fiiaelv.
*Ap' ovv ovx d/iapTavovaiv
ol dvdpcoTTOI irepi TOVTO, ware BOKCIV ai>Tol<; rroXXow fiev ^prja-Tow elvai
fir) SvTat, 7roXXow Be TovvavTuov;
TOVTOK dpa 20
ol fiev ayadol exdpoi, ol Be KaKol <f>iXot,; TLdvv ye. 'AXX' o/xco?
D BiKaiov TOTe TOVTOIS, TOW fiev Trovqpow w<f>eXeh<, ' TOW Be ayadovs
<&aiv€Tai. AXXd firjv o'l ye ayadol BUaiol Te Kal
oloi fir) dBiKelv. 'AXTJOTJ. K a T a Brj TOV O-OV Xoyov TOW firjBev


/caKcos Troielv.

M?7Ofltw.&)9, e&m, w Xft)/cpctT69' 25

Trovr/pof yap hoiKev elvai 6 Xoyos.
T01/9 dBiKov<> dpa, r)v b" iydi,
BiKaiov ftXdiTTeiv, TOVS Be BiKalovs axf>eXeiv. OWTO? eKeivov KaXXiwv (f>aiveTai. IloXXot? dpa, do UoXifiapxe,
%vfif3r}creTai, oaob
E Bir/fiapTTjKaaiv Tmv dvOpw-rrmv, BiKaiov elvai I TOII? fiev <f)lXow
fSXaTTTeiv Trovrjpol yap avTols elcriv TOI)? §' i%0pov<s mipeXeiv 3°
ayadol yap • Kal OVTCOS epoijfiev aiiTO TovvavTiov rj TOV 1,ifia)viBr)v
etyafiev Xeyeiv.
K.al fidXa, e(f>7), OVTCO £vfif3aivei.
aXXd fieTadcofieda- KivBvvevofiev yap OVK opdws TOV (j)iXov Kal ex@pbv deadai.
13 TOOTO—STI. SO Euthyphro (15 B)
harks back to his first definition of

immorality of the conclusion: the second
alternative is expressed in full as the airb

piety (6 E) after he has been refuted by
TOVVOVTIOV TJ TOV 2L/J.O)V15TIV ^tpafAev Xeyeiv.
Socrates. Cf. also VII 515 E n.
3 3 4 D 28 oo-oi KTX. : not 'those of
14 SOKCI does double duty, first with
mankind who are in error' (J. and C.)
TOVTO and then with SLKCUOO-VVT) : cf. v i
but'those who have mistaken their m e n ' :
493 A, VII 517 B, 525 B, 530 B and
cf. Phaedr. 257 D TOV eTaipov <TVX"OV Sia(with Stallbaum) Ap. 25 B. Hartman
fiapTaveis. So also Schneider, and Davies
needlessly doubts the text.
and Vaughan.
15 <|>CXoiis Se X£yei.s KTX. The same
3 3 4 E 30 irovr)poi ^dp KTX. Stallmode of argument recurs in 339 B ff. Cf.
baum (followed by D. and V.) wrongly
also Hipp. Maior 284 D.
takes aiTois as 'in their eyes.' The reason3 3 4 c 21 <j>£Xoi. KTX. Schneider
ing is difficult only from its brevity. If it
rightly observes that /card 5<) TOV crdv is Sliauov fiXdirreiv ddtKovs, and men some\byov below tends to shew that dXX' bfias times suppose that a man is good w/ien he
—pXatTTeivis interrogative. The argument
is dad (irovqpoi yap airoZs elfflv 'for they
is in the form of a dilemma: either (a) it
have bad friends'), then since friend has
is just to injure those who do us no inbeen defined as one whom we suppose to
justice (and benefit those who do), or (b) be good (334 c), it is sometimes SiKaiov
it is just to injure friends and benefit foes.
fHXaTrreiv <pi\ovs. Stallbaum's view is quite
The first alternative is immoral (irovT]p6s), inconsistent with the definition of friends
and the second directly opposed to Siin 334 c as oils dv TIS TjyrJTCu xpyvrovs.
monides' view. Socrates suppresses the
33Tovi)>iXovKai4x8p6v. Hartman (with
words which I have put in brackets, besome inferior MSS) wishes to insert T6V
cause they lessen rather than increase the
before ixSpov; but cf. infra in 400 D and



ws ffifievoi, u> YloXe/u-ap^e;
35 elvai.


Tov BoKOVVTa xprjcrrov, TOVTOV <pL\ov

Be •nvw?, r\v S' eya), /j.eTa6(o/j,e0a;

ri B' o?, Kal TOV ovra xprj&Tov
Be fir), BoKelv d\Xa



/MTJ elvai <pl\ov

Kal Trepl TOV i^Opov



(plXov ev TTOielv, TOV S' ej(dpov


"Et7Tii> dpa,





TOV f/,ev

/ca«w9, vvv TT/JO? TOUTW woe \e<yeiv,

OTi h'cTTbv BiKatov TOV (lev <f>l\ov dyaObv
ica/cov oVTa j3\a7TTei,v;


Be r/ avTrj

Sr; ij/ua? irpoadelvai

5 BiKalw, rj, a><> TO irpSiTov e\e<yofiev, XeyovTes



<£>l\o<; fiev Brj, w<s eoiice, TOVTQ} T<W \6yq> 6 dyado<;

e%6pb<i Be 6 -jTov^po^.



TOV Be BOKOVVTU \ fiev, OVTO, 335


OVTCL ev -jroieiv, TOV B

fiev ovv, e<f>r}, ' OVT&>9 av fiot B

£760, BiKatov




ws—KaKtos is summed up in ToiTip, and the
whole sentence means: ' do you wish us
to make an addition to our account of
justice, or in other words to say now—in
Kal TOV OVTa. addition to our original definition where
The meaning required—'he who both we said it was just to do good to friends
seems and is good'—would be more cor- and harm to enemies—that it is just to do
rectly expressed by rbv doKouprd re—Kal good to friends if they are good etc.' This
&VTO, (so Ast and others), but "aliquid tri- explanation is (I think) the least vulnerable
buendum interpositis rj 5' os, quae negli- one, if the text is to be retained. With
gentiam repetendi, si est negligentia, irpocrdeivai used absolutely cf. 339 B. For
saltern excusant " (Schneider, who com- other views see App. I I I .
pares also infra 341 B irortpus Xcyets TOV
3 3 5 B 10 ilo-Tiv apa KT\. Cf. Crito

many other examples cited by himself.
To pronounce them all corrupt is to destroy the basis on which our knowledge
of Platonic idiom rests.

apxovTa re Kal TOV KpeiTTOva). I n TOV d£ 49 A ff., Gorg. 469 B, [irepi dpeTrjs] 376 E.
doKovvTa fJ>ev, dvTa. 5£ /«J Polemarchus ex- This chapter contains the only element of

presses himself more accurately.

permanent epical interest and value in
the discussion with Polemarchus—the only
crates unfairly neglects the SOKQV, although element, moreover, which reappears in a
according to Polemarchus' amended defi- later book of the Republic (11 379 B). The
nition the aya66s who seemed irovrjp6$ underlying principle—that /ca/cfis iroiiiv =
would not be a friend, nor the irovripSs KaKbv iroiuv—is in accordance with the
who seemed ayaOSs an enemy. Pole- traditional Greek view of life. For illusmarchus' theory indeed points to a division trations we may cite Od. x v n i 136 f. TOIOS
of men into three classes : friends, enemies, yap vbos icTtv eirixdovliov avdptbiroiv \ olov
and those who are neither (viz. those who eir' ^fiap ayr/ai iraT^p avbpGiv TE BfCiv r e ,
seem good and are bad, and those who Arch. Fr. 70 (Bergk), and Simon. Fr.
seem bad and are good). The somewhat 5- 10—F4 dvdpa d' oiK &rn ^i} ou KOLKOV
ideal view that the aya.66s is (pi\os and the (•pfievai. I Sv afi&xavos GVfupopa Ka0i\or \
wovr/pbs £x9p°s ' s genuinely Socratic (cf. 7rpdfas /A£V eB 7r£s dviip dya#c$s, | KaKbs 6' d
Mem. II 6. 14 ff.): it is part of the wider /ca/cujs < TLS > , I Kawl irXelffTov ajoiffrot,
view that all men desire the good (Symp. rotys KC deal <pi.\(o<nv. T h e same point
206 A, Gorg. 467 C ff.)•
of view is manifest in the transition of
335 A 3


6 &YO.86S—o irovupos.



ij after T<J

meaning in /xoxSripds a n d wovTipbs from

Sixatij) must mean 'or in other words': cf. 'laborious,' 'afflicted' (e.g. Hesiod Fr.
infra 349 E irXtoveKTeiv T) a£iovv ir\iov ?x e '"95. r Gottling) to 'depraved.' Converseand Phaed. 85 D M §t[i(uoT{pov ox^f^aTos, ly, prosperity makes one morally better,
ij \byov ffeiov TIC6S (so the Bodleian, but ij as in Solon 13. 69 f. T<£ b~k KOKUS (pSovri.
is cancelled by many editors). The late #e6s irepi "iravTa T18T}(TIV | O~VVTVXLT]V dyad'qv,
expression QaiSoiv % irepl i/'ux^s involves $Kkwnv dtppoaivris, a n d in t h e frequent
essentially the same use of ij. The clause identification of einrpayta or eiSaifiovta




ovnvovv avdpcoTTWv; K a i irdvv ye, ecfyr), rnvs ye Trovrjpovs re Kal
eydpovs Set ftXaTrreiv. HXaTrrofievoi B' LTTTTOI fteXrlovs rj %eipovs
Xeipou?. *Apa els rrjv r&v KVVO>V dperrjv, r) elf rrjv
ru>v LTTTTCOV ; Et? rrjv rStv ITTTTCOV. *Ap' ovv /cat Kvves fiXairrofievot,
•fteupovs ytyvovTai els rrjv rwv KVV&V, nfOC OVK els rrjv rwv ITTTTCOV 15
'Avdpco-rrovs Be, a> eraipe, firj l ovrw <pa>pev,
dperrjv ^eipovs
f3\aTTTO/j,evov<; els TTJV dvdpwrreiav
Tldvv fiev ovv. 'AXX' r) hiicaLocrvvr) OVK dvdpunreta dperrj;
TOUT avayKt).

Kal TOVS /3\airTOfievovs

apa, eo <j>i\e, TCOV dvOpdywav

avdyKT) dSiKcoTepovs y'vyveadai.
"Eot/cev. ^Ap" ovv rfj fiovaLKrj 20
01 /Movcriicot afjMvaovs Bvvavrai- Troielv; 'ASvvarov.
'AWd rfj
nnrbicfj 01 iirtriKol a<f>t,Tnrovs; OVK earov. 'AWd rij BiKaioavvp
D Sr) ol BiKacoi dSiKOVS; rj Kal gvWrj/3Br)v I apery ol dyadol Kaicovs;
Ov yap 6ep/J-6rt]ros, olfiai, epyov yjrv)^ei,v, dWa
'A\\d dSvvarov.
rov evavriov.
N a t . OuSe ^rjpoTTjros vypaiveiv, dWa rov evavriov. 25
Tldvv ye. OvSe Brj rov dya6ov {3\d"jrreiv, dXXa rov evavriov.
Udvv ye. OVK apa rov
<$>aiverai. ' O he ye hiKaios dyaQos;
Si/calov fiXdrrreiv epyov, m TIoXefMap^e, ovre (ptXov ovr aXXov
[Moi 8oiceTs
ovBeva, dXXa rov evavriov, rov dhtKov.
E dXvjdri Xeyeiv, e<f>ij, do ' 'ZcoKpares- Et apa rd ofaiXofieva eKaarw 3°
aTToBihovai (prjalv ris BiKaiov elvai, rovro Be By voel avrw, rols
fiev e^Bpols /3Xd/3r;v 6<f>eiXeo-&at, -rrapd rov BiKaiov dvBpos, rols
Be (jiiXois GocfaeXiav, OVK TJV aocj>6s 6 ravra elira>v ov yap dXr)6i)
eXeyev ovBafiov ydp Si/caoov ovBeva rjf^lv etfidvrj ov (3Xd-rrreiv.
, rj B' os. M.a%ovfj.e0a apa, rjv B' eyw, Koivf/ eyco re Kal 35
with e5 TTP&TTELV e.g. Charm, 172 A, 173D,
Ale. I 116 E, Arist. Eth. Nic. 1 8. joo.8b
20. It is by the analogy of the arts that
Socrates in this chapter seeks to prove,
first the identification /ca/ews iroieiv = KO.KOV
iroieiv, and second that the good man
cannot harm others : the Socratic conception of right conduct as an art is still
predominant. It is important to observe
that it was by means of this Socratic
weapon that Plato achieved this noble
anticipation of Christian ethical theory
(St Matth. 5. 44 al.).
Cf. also Gorg.
472 D ff.
16 dvOpiiirovs Si KTX. Cf. 352 E—
353 E.
3 3 5 E 33 OIJK ijv <ro<j>os—tlirav.
Teichmiiller (Lit. Fehd. I p. 22 ».) finds
in this an allusion to Xenophon, who puts

into the mouth of Socrates (addressing
Critobulus in Mem. n 6. 35) the words
lyvoiKas avSpbs apeTr/v di/cu, VIKS,V rows )ikv
rpi\ovs ev iroLovvra, TOI)S 5^ ex^povs naKws:
but the reference is only to 331 E aorpbs
ycip Kal deios a.vi\p. T h e presents (p-qaiv
and vod are used in a general way, because such a theory and such an interpretation of it might be held by any one at
any t i m e : in oik rjv <TO<J>&S 6 Tavra Airihv
the time is changed to the past to suggest
oin rjv HiixaviS^ 6 ravra eiwuiv (Simonides
being <ro</>6; 331 E). But for 6 ravra
eliribv, 7]v would be eari. It is a mistake
to take T\V as 'is after a l l ' : ^ is hardly so
used in Plato without apa, nor is Phaedr.
230 A (cited by Goodwin HIT. p. 13) an
example of that idiom,



<TV, idv


Tt? avTO fyfj r) XifjuovLSr/v rj Biavra


r) 7iv aXXov TWV ao<f>6i>i> re Kal fia/capbcov dvBpwv;
€TOI/J,6<; el/u

Koivcoveiv Trj<; fid^Vi-


'Eya> jovv, e<t>rj,

' A W ' olaOa, fjv S' e'y^; | ov 336

fioi Boxel elvai TO prjfia, TO fydvai Siicaiov elvat TOI)? fiev
a><f>e\e2v, TOII? S' e^dpoiis







Hepidvbpov elvai rj HepBiKKOv r) Sep^ou rj 'lafir/viov TOV ®rjfiai.ov
5 77 TIVO<; aKXov /x.eya olofievov Bvvao~8ai ifkovcrlov avSpos.

eyu yovv I I : ^7017' o$v A.

382, when the Spartans had seized the
Cadmea, was condemned on this charge
among others (Xen. Hell, v 2. 35; Plut.
Pelop. 5. 2). Plato implies that Ismenias
kept enough Persian gold to enrich himself, he was no true Greek if he did not.
But what is meant by saying that he had
received the money of Polycratesl This
question has been much discussed. Posyap Kal ffeios av-qp. Ast's view that fiaKapituv means " qui ante nostram aetatem sibly ' the money of Polycrates' (with allufloruerunt," as if 'sainted,' misses the al- sion, of course, to the riches of the Samian
lusion to 331 E, and is a little far-fetched : tyrant) was a sarcastic expression current
it is enough that fi.aiiapi.os conveys the in Athens for 'the money of Timocrates':
this is perhaps the more likely as we are
same ironical commendation as deios: cf.
informed that the Athenians got no share
(with Stallbaum) Men. 71 A.
of it themselves [Hell. Ill 5. 2). Plato
iya •yoxiv. See cr. n. With Hartman,
would naturally avail himself of such a
I adopt Bekker's restoration: cf. v n
527 D. For yovv A everywhere writes political gibe to express his dislike of a
man who took gold from the natural
enemy of Greece (Rep. v 470 c) to stir
3 3 6 A 4 IlcptdvSpou KT\. Periander,
up not war, but sedition (ib. 470 B), and
Xerxes and Perdiccas are taken as types withdraw Agesilaus from fighting with
of tyrants, and no tyrant is ao<p6s (Rep. the barbarian: for his political ideal in
IX 587 D). It is noticeable that Periforeign policy was that of Cimon. See
ander does not appear in the list of the also on v 471 B. It is not however likely,
seven wise men in Prot. 343 A. The exI think, that the present passage was
pedition of Xerxes against Greece is cited
written after Ismenias' death, for Plato
by Callicles in Gorg. 483 D in connexion
is not given to reviling his contemporaries
with the doctrine that might is right.
after their death. -That the other three
In HepdlKKov the allusion is to Perdic- persons cited by Plato were already dead
cas II, father of Archelaus (Gorg. 471 B): would only make his reproof of the living
he died late in 414 or early in 413, three
more marked and scathing. The present
years before the probable date of action
passage—so far as it goes—is on the whole
of the Republic (Introd. § 3), after in favour of Teichmiiller's view (Lit. Fehd.
proving himself a fickle friend and foe to
I p. i~) that the first book of the Republic
the Athenians during the Peloponnesian
was written soon after 395, when the diswar. Ismenias is mentioned again in graceful affair was still fresh in men's
Men. 90 A as having become rich 66«ros minds. See Introd. § 4.

Idv TIS a.iro <(>TJ—ZI|JUI>VIST)V: as

Xenophon virtually does in Hier. II 2:
see 331 E n.
37 TWV o-o4>uvT« Kal (laKapCuv dvSpuv.
liaxdpios is somewhat stronger than 8eios,
which it suggests,