CRITICAL NOTES

ON PLATO’S POLITEIA

BY

S.R. SLINGS (†)

EDITED BY

GERARD BOTER AND JAN VAN OPHUIJSEN

BRILL
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2005
 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Slings, S. R.
Critical notes on Plato’s Politeia / by S.R. Slings / edited by Gerard Boter and
Jan van Ophuijsen.
p. cm. – (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum,
ISSN 0169-8958 ; 267)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 90-04-14172-3 (acid-free paper)
1. Plato. Republic—Criticism, Textual. 2. Transmission of texts—Greece. I. Boter,
Gerard. II. Ophuijsen, J. M. van, 1953- III. Title. IV. Series.

PA4279.R7S57 2005
321’.07—dc22
2005047100

ISSN 0169-8958
ISBN 90 04 14172 3
© Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
 BOOK SEVEN

b ν τα:τηι κ παδων Yντας ν δεσµο"ς κα τ? σκ2λη κα το[ς

α χ2νας, bστε µ2νειν τε α'το& ε3ς τε τ πρ#σ εν µ#νον (ρν
α το R.B. Hirschig, Aristophanis Vespae cum scholiis et lectionibus codicum […] denuo
excerptis (Lugduni Batavorum ), : α το[ς ADF Iambl. (Protr. ,  des Places;
,  Pistelli)

The transmitted α το:ς is atypical of the language of the Politeia: of the

ca.  instances of bστε with the infinitive in this dialogue, the subject
of the infinitive is expressed only twice when it is identical to that of
the preceding (normally also governing) clause: c– (τν $δικον)
bστε κα εοφιλ2στερον α'τν εHναι µλλον προσ)κειν κ τν εFκ#των 
τν δκαιον, where without α τ#ν the contrast with τν δκαιον would
suffer (and an undesirable generic reading would become possible);
b– τοιοτον εHναι ψυχ!ν bστε πολλBς ποικιλας κα Aνοµοι#τητ#ς
τε κα διαφορς γ2µειν α'τ πρς ατ#, in an idiom common with
reflexives. No similar explanation of α το:ς can be given here, so while
grammatically unimpeachable, it is stylistically suspect.
By contrast, Hirschig’s correction yields an expression typical of
Plato, and more in particular of the Politeia: in four out of the six
instances of adverbial α το it accompanies a form of µ2νω (c;
c; d; c). In other works the tendency is less marked, but
the sum total of α το µ2νω in Plato is still eight, on a total of twenty
instances of α το.
It is easy to see how in majuscule script αυτου became αυτους before
εις. The alternative α τ# ι will not do: in Plato, α το is always ‘on the
spot’, whereas α τ# ι is a non-Focal anaphoric adverb referring to a
place already mentioned. There is no instance of µ2νω α τ# ι in Plato.
And explaining a corruption of αυτο ι to αυτους is much harder than
in R.B. Hirschig’s conjecture.
[See Additional Notes, p. .]

d–e δοκε"ς Gν α τν πι υµητικς α τν χειν κα ζηλον το[ς
παρ’ κενοις τιµωµ2νους τε κα νδυναστε:οντας  τ το %Οµ)ρου ν
πεπον!
ναι κα σφ#δρα βο:λεσ αι ‘π9ρουρον #ντα ητευ2µεν $λλωι,
Aνδρ παρ’ Aκλ)ρωι’ κα "τιο&ν [ ν] πεπον!
ναι µλλον  eκε"ν9 τε
  

δοξ9ζειν κα κενως ζBν;—οaτως φη γωγε οHµαι, πν µλλον πεπον!
-
ναι ν δ2ξασ αι  ζBν κενως.
(τιον πεπον 2ναι scripsi: (τιον Gν πεπον 2ναι AD Iambl. (Protr. , des Places;
, Pistelli): 4τι Gν πεπον 2ναι F

πεπον 2ναι preceded or followed by $ν three times in a row, although

transmitted unanimously by ADF and Iamblichus (Protr. , – des
Places;  Pistelli), is not easy to accept, and it is rather surprising that
we have to wait until Naber (Mnemos.  [], ) for the first
proposed deletion.
Naber wished to delete the first Gν πεπον 2ναι; J.L.V. Hartman
(Mnemos.  [], –) and Wilamowitz (: ) the second;
D. Tarrant (CR  [], –) both—though in case this was thought
too drastic she was prepared to settle for deleting the second. Finally,
Adam (CR  [], –) strangely enough proposed deleting the
first πεπον 2ναι while keeping the $ν that goes with it. This sugges-
tion is repeated in Adam’s edition, but withdrawn, like so many of his
conjectures, in his commentary.
Tarrant gives a useful overview of expressions of the type τ το
%Οµ)ρου, from which it appears that it can be used both in apposition
and as an integral part of the construction—here Adam’s commentary
gives the closest parallel: Smp. c– bστε Aτεχνς τ το %Οµ)ρου
πεπ#ν ηK φοβο:µην µ) µοι τελευτν ( eΑγ9 ων Γοργου κεφαλ!ν κτ=
(λ –). These words refute Adam’s original claim that ‘τ το
%Οµ)ρου must mean “what Homer has experienced.”’ Besides, I don’t
see how deletion of the first Gν πεπον 2ναι yields acceptable Platonic
Greek, as in its appositive use the expression either precedes or, less
often, follows the quotation immediately. There is no parallel in Plato
for a putative  τ το %Οµ)ρου κα σφ#δρα βο:λεσ αι ‘π9ρουρον #ντα
κτ=.’ The first instance of the phrase is therefore sound.
Nobody has proposed to tamper with the third, although Tarrant
remarks that πεπον 2ναι is not essential (but answers in Plato tend to be
full of non-essential material), and I see no reason not to accept it.
Matters are different with the second. Here Richards (: )
was the first to see that $ν is impossible, changed it to δ) as was
his habit, and left it at that. An infinitive plus $ν cannot be used
as complement of βο:λοµαι. Wilamowitz strangely misses the point
when he says ‘was hier stünde, müsste ja von βο:λεσ αι abhängen, was
das Perfektum nicht gestattet.’ βο:λοµαι is occasionally followed by a
perfect infinitive, e.g. Phd. c–. But the infinitive as complement of
   

βο:λοµαι is a ‘dynamic’ one, not a ‘declarative’ one, which alone can

be accompanied by $ν, as in the first instance where it depends on
δοκε"ς $ν—an inconspicuous instance of double $ν, for which cf. my
note on b– (above, pp. –) and De Strycker–Slings on Ap. a
(: –). (In the reply $ν goes with δ2ξασ αι.) Cf. H. Kurzová,
Zur syntaktischen Struktur des griechischen: Infinitiv und Nebensatz (Prag ),
; , on the fundamental distinction between these two uses of the
infinitive.
I do not understand how Adam can say in his commentary that ‘Gν
πεπον 2ναι depends in both cases directly on δοκε"ς.’ The Homeric tag
used here has the construction βο:λοµαι … D, which it is natural to
assume Plato replaced by βο:λεσ αι … µλλον D. Socrates does not ask
if the man would have endured and would still be enduring anything
rather than accepting these opinions and this life, but if the man would
wish to have endured etc. It is immaterial whether µλλον D κτ= is made
to depend on βο:λεσ αι, as seems natural, or on the second πεπον 2ναι.
But the second πεπον 2ναι must depend on βο:λεσ αι and be on a par
with ητευ2µεν.
I must confess to a mistrust of the zeugma that ensues when Gν
πεπον 2ναι is omitted altogether. βο:λεσ αι would then have to govern
first an infinitive ( ητευ2µεν) and then (τιον. Tarrant brings out the
point in her nominalising translation: ‘most radically wish for “servi-
tude, upon earth, with a portionless man” and for anything whatso-
ever.’ Hartman says that ‘Plato scripturus fuerat … π9σχειν s. πα ε"ν;’
I feel that an infinitive of π9σχω is indispensable, and since we already
have one, and we have seen that a perfect infinitive after βο:λοµαι is
possible, why not keep it? From σφ#δρα βο:λεσ αι on, I would trans-
late: ‘and strongly prefer to live on earth while being a labourer for
someone else, someone without property, and to have endured, and still
endure, anything.’ Plato may have written the perfect because it was
still in his mind.
In any case, the perfect infinitive is protected from deletion or change
by Glauco’s answer, which literally means: ‘Yes, I think he would accept
to have endured anything rather than living that way.’ Since πν in the
answer corresponds to (τιον, πεπον 2ναι in the answer must corre-
spond to the πεπον 2ναι that follows (τιον in the question. As we have
already seen, $ν is not similarly protected, because in the answer it goes
with δ2ξασ αι not with πεπον 2ναι.
The remedy is clear: delete the second $ν and leave the rest as
it is. Its insertion may be accounted for as due to assimilation to
  

the other two instances of $ν accompanying πεπον 2ναι. But there is

another explanation. Even in majuscule writing, $ν and ο.ν tend to get
confused (cf. my note on c [above, p. ]). The $ν may therefore be
due to dittography of the last syllable of (τιον, the word immediately
preceding. In this respect it is interesting to note that whereas AD
Iambl. read (τιον Gν, F has 4τι Gν here, presumably a relic from a
less advanced stage of the corruption.
For those who might be tempted by Richards’ remedy it may be
useful to know that δ) follows a form of (στισον once only in Plato
(Lg. d).

e– εF π9λιν ( τοιοτος καταβ?ς εFς τν α τν κον κα ζοιτο,
Vρ’ ο σκ#τους ν[α] πλ
ως σχοη το[ς Pφ αλµο:ς …;
Gν πλ2ως Stallbaum: Aν9πλεως ADF Iambl. (Protr. , des Places; , Pistelli): Gν
Aν9πλεως Baiter

I can do nothing better than quote Cobet (: ): ‘πλ2ως et Aν9-
πλεως quid differant colliges ex Ruhnkenii annotatione ad Tim. v. eΑν9-
πλεως pag. , qui docuit Aν9πλεως et Aναππληµι polluendi et foetandi
potestatem habere. [Cf. Phd. d; Tht. e; Smp. e; in all these
passages there is an opposition with κα αρ#ς.] Itaque Plato ταραχBς
πλ2ως dixit et λ) ης πλ2ως de Rep. p. c[] et c[] … Eodem
igitur modo Pφ αλµο[ς dixit esse σκ#τους πλ2ως, non Aν9πλεως.’

a– κα τν πιχειροντα λ:ειν τε κα Aν9γειν, ε3 πως ν τα"ς χερσ
δ:ναιντο λαβε"ν κα $ποκτενειν, $ποκτειν%ναι (ν;

Aποκτειν:ναι $ν depends on a verb of thinking that is not expressed

in the sentence. Such verbs are found in c and d; from e on
the questions were asked in the optative with $ν. I have discussed the
anacoluthon extensively in Slings (b: –), and dealt with a
possible parallel, Smp. b–d, at –. Another parallel of a dou-
ble anacoluthon caused by return to the more embedded structure is
R. c–e, where the plaintive mother is first brought in in a genitive
and participle within a 4ταν clause of which the son is the subject (c
4ταν … τBς µητρς Aκο:ηι Aχ οµ2νης); next the genitive and partici-
ple becomes a genitive absolute (d (ρ/σης); then the mother becomes
subject of the second subjunctive in the 4ταν clause (d αFσ 9νηται);
finally with d Aχ οµ2νης τε κα λεγο:σης the mother is again in the
genitive and participle construction, the son having to be mentally sup-
   

plied as subject and Aκο:ηι as the predicate (the whole speech consists
of one 4ταν clause given in reply to the question πBι δ! φη γγνεται;
c). There, all attempts to tamper with the text have failed, and I have
no doubt that it is sound, as it is in our passage. I shall not waste space
on attempts to restore the optative.
Another solution deserves to be mentioned briefly. Drachmann
(: ) proposed to delete Aποκτενειν as a gloss on Aποκτειν:ναι
(this is the correct spelling; AD Iambl. have Aποκτινν:ναι, F Aποκτει-
νναι [sic]) and to print a comma after λαβε"ν. This was adopted by
Des Places in his edition of Iambl. Protr. (, ; but Des Places does
not print the comma, so his text is clearly impossible Greek). I find the
resulting function of κα ‘actually’ too artificial.
But there is the alternative of keeping the anacoluthon and delet-
ing κα Aποκτενειν, which would then be a gloss (Aποκτενειν) being
further integrated into the syntax by means of κα—a well-known phe-
nomenon. I raise this possibility because the tense of Aποκτενειν wor-
ries me, as it did Drachmann, especially given its coupling with the
aorist λαβε"ν. After verbs denoting ability Plato uses the aorist infinitive
Aποκτε"ναι four times (Ap. d; R. b—note κβ9λλειν  Aποκτε"-
ναι; e; Lg. e). The present infinitive (Aποκτενειν or Aποκτειν:-
ναι) is also used four times, but three times in clearly generic contexts
(Plt. d; Prt. b; R. c). Only once is there a good parallel:
Cri. a οMο τ2 εFσιν @µς ο7 πολλο Aποκτειν:ναι, and I would have
been glad to have more confirmation, even though obviously Drach-
mann’s claim ‘es müsste notwendig heissen Aποκτε"ναι’ seems too bold
a statement. Prof. Ruijgh suggests to me that Plato may have written
Aποκτε"ναι, changed in the transmission to Aποκτενειν under the influ-
ence of Aποκτειν:ναι. Possible, but this leaves the Cri. passage unex-
plained. Did Plato wish to avoid the cacophony in Aποκτε"ναι Aποκτει-
ν:ναι $ν?
The present tense in Aποκτειν:ναι $ν is a different matter, whether
one takes it as iterative-generic, as Drachmann does, or as ‘conative’, as
I would prefer myself. And in any case, as Drachmann aptly remarks,
‘[e]s ist wohl überhaupt klar, dass man durch eine Änderung von
Aποκτειν:ναι den Ast abschneidet, auf dem man selbst sitzt.’

d α7 µ5ν τονυν $λλαι Aρετα καλο:µεναι ψυχBς κινδυνε:ουσιν

γγ:ς τι τενειν τν το σ/µατος
d τενειν Plot. VI , , : εHναι ADF Iambl. (Protr. ,  des Places; , Pistelli)