Critical Notes on Plato's Politeia 9781429452533, 9789004141728, 9004141723

Citation preview

CRITICAL NOTES ON PLATO’S POLITEIA

MNEMOSYNE BIBLIOTHECA CLASSICA BATAVA COLLEGERUNT H. PINKSTER • H. S. VERSNEL I.J.F. DE JONG • P. H. SCHRIJVERS BIBLIOTHECAE FASCICULOS EDENDOS CURAVIT H. PINKSTER, KLASSIEK SEMINARIUM, SPUISTRAAT 134, AMSTERDAM

SUPPLEMENTUM DUCENTESIMUM SEXAGESIMUM SEPTIMUM S.R. SLINGS (†) EDITED BY GERARD BOTER AND JAN VAN OPHUIJSEN

CRITICAL NOTES ON PLATO’S POLITEIA

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

Dedicated to the members of the Amsterdam Hellenist Club

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Book One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Six. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Seven. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Book Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 21 37 57 79 99 121 135 155 167 187

List of Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corrigenda to the Oxford text of the Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 197 201 203

PREFACE In 1977, Siem Slings initiated the project ‘Text edition of Plato’s eighth tetralogy’; in March 2003 the new Oxford Classical Text of the Republic appeared. In the meantime Slings supervised two doctoral dissertations concerned with the project;1 he reworked his own doctoral dissertation on the Clitophon into a book;2 finally, he wrote a series of articles on the text of the Republic, published in Mnemosyne between 1988 and 2003. In the autumn of 1998, an incurable cancer of the prostate revealed itself. Slings realized that he would sooner or later succumb to this disease, which made him speed up his work on the text of the Republic. It was a great satisfaction to him and to all around him that he managed to finish the edition and that he could hold the fruit of his 25year long labours in his hands. On 20 May 2003 the publication of his edition was celebrated in what was called a ‘Siemposium’ at the Free University, Amsterdam. After this joyful occasion Slings’s condition deteriorated rapidly. In July his doctors informed him that nothing more could be done to stop the disease. In the first weeks of the new academic year he had to give up teaching. In December he was still able to preside over the Ph.D. thesis defence of his pupil and friend Toon van Wolferen. After this occasion, his last public appearance, he had another six weeks to live, growing weaker by the day. He died in the morning of Sunday, 18 January 2004, at the age of 58. In the OCT Slings announced the publication of a book on the text of the Republic, consisting of the articles he had published in Mnemosyne in the course of preparing his edition. Foreseeing that he would not live to complete this task, he asked us to finish it after his death. The first and most obvious part of our task was to bring the text into accordance with the new edition. This regards the line numbers, which

1 G.J. Boter, The Textual Tradition of Plato’s Republic, Ph.D. diss., Free University, Amsterdam 1986 (Leiden 1989); G. Jonkers, The Manuscript Tradition of Plato’s Timaeus and Critias, Ph.D. diss., Free University, Amsterdam 1989. 2 A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon, Ph.D. diss., Free University, Amsterdam 1981; Plato: Clitophon, Cambridge 1999.

x

preface

in many places differ from those in Burnet’s edition. In a number of places the text of the lemmata had to be changed to accord with the new edition. More importantly, it appeared that in a number of cases Slings had decided to print a reading he had rejected in his notes. In such cases we have decided to leave the text of the note as it stands; the discrepancy between note and edition has been indicated between square brackets. In a few cases Slings opted for a reading he had not discussed in his articles; in such cases we have composed a note ourselves (again, between square brackets), trying to reconstruct the considerations that led Slings to adopt a given reading; the most conspicuous case in point is Slings’s conjecture Κα πς; at 485a9. Slings’s articles appeared over a period of fifteen years, during which he regularly changed his habits with regard to editorial practice. For instance, ‘pp. 116–117’ could be written as ‘116 f.’, ‘116 f.’, ‘116–117’, etcetera. We have aimed at conformity in such matters, but it is more than likely that a number of deviations have escaped our notice. In referring to books and articles we have followed the Harvard convention throughout. Slings discussed the text of all his articles on the Republic with the members of the Amsterdam Hellenist Club, to which he refers in the articles a number of times. It was his wish that this book should be dedicated to the members of this Club, of which he had been an inspiring member for more than thirty years. We trust that this book will be a useful companion to the OCT edition of the Republic. At the same time, it is a monument to a great scholar. Gerard Boter Jan van Ophuijsen

BOOK ONE 327c10 ο κον ν δ’ γ τι λλεπεται τ ν πεσωμεν μς …; λλεπεται ADF: γρ ν λεπεται A3

Against Adam’s excellent defence of ν λεπεται (λεπεσ αι said of a third alternative, cf. Grg. 510c7: a better man can be no friend to the tyrant, nor can a worse one. λεπεται δ! κε"νος μ#νος $ξιος λ#γου φλος, to wit, the (μο) ης) may be brought forward Phlb. 18d4–6 τ δ’ α τ# μοι το λ#γου … λλεπεται—μν + Φληβε τ τ πρς πος α. τατ’ στν; where the quotation preceded by τ# is exactly parallel to our passage. The slightly abnormal use of τι (‘isn’t there still the possibility left out by you’) may have caused the correction to ν λεπεται (so Jowett– Campbell), but it is equally possible that a non-assimilative spelling (νλεπεται) was misunderstood. It must further be noted that the authority of A3 in the Politeia is uncertain: apart from some scholia and repetitions of phrases in the margin (with σ/ζοντες possibly as a variant for διασ/ιζοντες at 329a1), the only other variant which we owe to this hand in the Politeia is 329e3 σου] σε (falso). In the Nomoi, A3 is very busy recording variants and supplying lacunas: there he had an ancient MS at his disposal. His behaviour in the Politeia suggests the contrary. Therefore, despite the ‘γρ’, ν λεπεται may very well be a conjecture made by A3. Cf. Boter (1989: 85) and my data on A3 in the Clitophon, Mnemos. 40 (1987), 36– 37. 329e7 κα λ2γουσι μ2ν τι, ο μ ντοι γε σον ο3ονται. μ2ντοι γε 4σον ADF Arethas: μ2ντοι 4σον γε Procl. In Alc. 12.10 (p. 5 Westerink): μ2ντοι 4σον Scor.y.1.13 Stob. (IV 50a,31 = IV 1035,5 Hense)

μ2ντοι γε is juxtaposed in Plato here and Cra. 424c9–10 φων)εντα μ5ν ο6, ο μ2ντοι γε $φ ογγα; as a variant for μ2ντοι Phdr. 230d5 (cf. De

Vries ad loc.); Phd. 61c9. Cf. also Sis. 388a5; Alc.II 139e9. Prt. 312d8 the reading ο μ2ντοι γε 7κανς γε (B: ο μ2ντοι 7κανς γε TW) is a conflation of the TW reading with ο μ2ντοι 7κανς; similarly Euthphr. 12c4 ο μ2ντοι 8να γε BDTW Stob. MC: ο μ2ντοι γε 8να C: ο μ2ντοι γε 8να γε

2

book one

V, Stob. S. The juxtaposition is rare throughout classical Greek (Denniston [1954: 405]), but there is no good reason for doubting it (statistics in Blomqvist [1969: 30]). Here, μ2ντοι γε may have been used to avoid 4σον γε, which commonly means ‘only inasmuch as’ (cf. however below, on 331b5, for another explanation). At Cra. loc.cit. the particles were probably juxtaposed for euphonic reasons, to avoid $φ ογγ9 γε. There is no good reason for assuming γε to be interpolated: in Hellenistic prose μ2ντοι … γε almost disappears and μ2ντοι γε becomes the norm, yet ο μ2ντοι γε is rare. The Atticists revive ο μ2ντοι … γε (Blomqvist [1969: 29; 32]). I would rather assume that the rareness of μ2ντοι γε in Plato brought about the variants μ2ντοι and μ2ντοι … γε (the latter had been conjectured by H. Hoefer, De particulis platonicis capita selecta [Bonnae 1882], 39; Blaydes ad Ar. Thesm. 709; Hartman [1914: 221]. Hartman [1914: 11] ascribes the conjecture to Cobet in Mnemos. 1884. I haven’t found it there or in any of Cobet’s works, though there is a general rejection of μ2ντοι γε in Mnemos. 11 [1883], 138 in a note on Hdt. 2.93,2 and 98,2. But Hartman’s wording seems to refer to a more specific treatment.). Other authors borrow this dictum, but usually rephrased in such a manner that it loses its value for the text of Plato (e.g. Choric. 157,24 Foerster–Richtsteig λ2γει μ2ν τι … ο μ!ν 4σονπερ ο3εται). Arethas is fond of it; six times out of seven he gives a κα before or (once) after 4σον, which must be his idea of elegant Greek, and should not be used for Plato. The fact that he has μ2ντοι γε κα 4σον three times (Scr.min. 1.117,10; 335,2–3; 2.57,28 Westerink) as opposed to one μ2ντοι κα 4σον (1.292,17), indicates that his text was identical to that of ADF. 330c5–6 τα:τηι τε δ! κα ο7 χρηματισ9μενοι τ χρματα σπουδ9ζουσιν ιπερ ο7 $λλοι. τ? χρ)ματα F Stob. (IV 31d,118 = V 775,4 Hense): περ τ? χρ)ματα AD || κα κατ? AD Stob.: κα ο κατ? F

Both σπουδ9ζω τι and σπουδ9ζω περ τι are found in Plato. Contrast Phd. 114e3–4 τ?ς … περ τ μαν 9νειν (sc. @δον?ς) σπο:δασε and 64d2– 3 σπουδακ2ναι περ τ?ς @δον?ς καλουμ2νας. But the construction with the simple accusative (cf. Sph. 251c3; 259c2–3) is definitely lectio difficilior: it is far easier to explain how περ was inserted than how it was omitted. If the preposition is left out, as I think it should be, there is a slight ambiguity: τ? χρ)ματα may also be taken as internal accusative

book one

3

with χρηματισ9μενοι (cf. X. Cyr. III 3,5). This is not a valid counterargument: in fact, it is probable that τ? χρ)ματα, given its position between χρηματισ9μενοι and σπουδ9ζουσιν, should be taken Aπ κοινο with both. The negative in F was conjectured independently by the 16th-century humanist H. Wolf (cf. Philol. 10 [1855], 347), and endorsed by J.C. Vollgraff (Mnemos. 44 [1916], 4; his statement that it is in Stobaeus is false). It may be attractive at first sight, but it leaves τε unexplained. Besides, the entire sentence is meant to explain (cf. γ9ρ c3) the statement ο7 δ5 κτησ9μενοι διπλBι  ο7 $λλοι Aσπ9ζονται α τ9. I see absolutely no reason for Vollgraff’s omission of the article in his proposal ο  κατ? χρεαν; it may be sheer carelessness. 330e5 ποψας δ’ ο.ν κα δεματος μεστς γγνεται κα Aναλογζεται Dδη κα σκοπε" ε3 τιν9 τι δκηκεν. Eδκηκεν AF Stob. (IV 31d,118 = V 775,20 Hense): Eδκησεν Asl D Iustin. (Coh.Gr. 26 = 59,19 Marcovich)

The perfect has a very close parallel in Phd. 113d7–8 κα αιρ#μενοι τν … Aδικημ9των διδ#ντες δκας (cf. supra d8–e1) Aπολ:ονται ε3 τς τι Eδκηκεν (where C Stob. read Eδκησεν); cf. Men. 92b5. I have not found a comparable unambiguously attested use of the aorist in Plato. ‘Le parfait … insiste souvent sur la responsabilité de l’agent’ (P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec [Paris 1927], 177, quoting Lys. 30,24 τς λ9ττω τ!ν π#λιν Aγα ? πεποηκεν  πλεω Eδκηκεν;). Choric. 100,9–10 F.-R. ο δ5ν εFσ)ιει δεινν ο δ5 λογισμς στρεφεν α τBι τ!ν ψυχ)ν (cf. 330e1–2), μ) τινα λελ:πηκεν shows that he is alluding to a text with the perfect, not the aorist. 331b5 χει δ5 κα $λλας χρεας πολλ9ς, Aλλ9 γε ν Aν ’ =νς ο κ λ9χιστον γωγε εην Gν εFς τοτο … πλοτον χρησιμ/τατον εHναι. γε ν ADF: Iν γε Stob. (IV 31d,118 = V 776,17 Hense): γε secl. Stallbaum

The combination Aλλ9 γε is found five times in (some of) the MSS of Plato. At 543c4, Phd. 86e4 and Hp.Ma. 287b4, Aλλ’ $γε is demonstrably better. The remaining two instances are the present passage and Phdr. 262a2 (Aλλ9 γε δ! BD Hermias: Aλλ? δ! TW: Aλλ? μ!ν Galen). Juxtaposition of Aλλ9 γε is rare, not only in classical Greek (where its occurrence has been doubted altogether; cf. Denniston [1954: 23]), but also in later times (contrary to what is suggested by R.A. Neil, comm.

4

book one

on Ar. Eq. [Cambridge 1901], Appendix I, 193). No examples are recorded in Preisigke–Kiessling, only two in the New Testament, two in Polybius (II 33,9 and II 39,9; XII 10,4 γε is Casaubonus’ correction), none in Epictetus and Plotinus. From the Atticists no instances are recorded in W. Schmid’s Atticismus [Stuttgart 1887–1897]—very many of Aλλ9 … γε—, whereas Arr. Cyn. 15,1 is textually uncertain. Neil mentions Pausanias without giving any further information. [Aλλ9 γε is found in Paus. VI 17,9.] However, in classical Greek there are some instances of Aλλ9 γε that merit closer investigation. Arist. EE 1216b20 ο μ!ν Aλλ9 γε stands on its own; Oec. 1343b25 γε is not in the MSS; Archestr. 177,2 SH Wilamowitz’ τι for γε is certainly right. But there is no good reason to doubt Gorg. Pal. 10 and 14, both times answering a hypothetical objection beginning with Aλλ9. Now, when we are confronted with a rare phenomenon established certainly for only one classical author, would we accept it at only one place in another author for whom it is not unanimously attested? (Phdr. 262a2 Aλλ9 γε δ) is absolutely unique and almost certainly wrong, cf. Denniston [1954: 242].) In principle, no. But there are two considerations which may lead one to accept Aλλ9 γε here. First, since Aλλ9 γε is also uncommon in later Greek, there is no convincing case for γε being interpolated (if we follow Stallbaum, who incidentally in the second edition of his commentary recanted his seclusion of γε and adopted Stobaeus’ Aλλ? Iν γε) or transposed (Stobaeus’ reading is lectio facilior). Secondly, it may not be a coincidence that the author for whom Aλλ9 γε is attested unambiguously is a Sicilian, whereas the present speaker comes from Syracuse (this may also account for 329e7 μ2ντοι γε: Adam defends both μ2ντοι γε and Aλλ9 γε on the ground that Cephalus was not an Athenian—he did not know about the passages from Gorgias, but his intuition may be right). Cf. Olymp. In Grg. 37,3–5 Westerink φαμ5ν ο.ν 4τι πειδ! Γοργας ( λ2γων,