previous next
12. τῶν τί σοφῶν. τῶν πρὸς τί σοφῶν would be more precise, but the accusative of reference is preferred for brevity. For the construction Kroschel compares Theages, 125C τῶν τί σοφῶν συνουσίᾳ φῂς σοφοὺς εἶναι τοὺς τυράννους, where, however, σοφῶν is masculine. The neuter of σοφός is not here used ironically as in Theaet. 157C παρατίθημι ἑκάστων τῶν σοφῶν ἀπογεύσασθαι.

15. δὲ σοφιστὴς τῶν τί σοφῶν ἐστιν. Heusde suggested ἐπιστήμων after ἐστιν, but the sense can be supplied out of the -ιστής of σοφιστής, according to the derivation of the word just given: the full sense is as it were δὲ σοφιστὴς τῶν τί σοφῶν ἐστιν (σοφιστής.

16. τί ἂν ἀποκρινοίμεθα αὐτῷ. There is no need to change the verb to ἀποκριναίμεθα, as was done by Bekker to suit ἔροιτο: cf. below, 354Aεἰ ἐροίμεθαφαῖεν ἄν and Phaedr. 259A εἰ οὖν ἴδοιενδικαίως ἂν καταγελῷεν.

17. ποίας ἐργασίας ἐπιστάτης. These words are not of course part of the imaginary questioner's interrogation, but are spoken by Socrates to help out Hippocrates' answer. Socrates suggests that Hippocrates should say that the sophist is ἐπιστάτης of some sort of ἐργασία, but in order that the answer should come from Hippocrates himself, he substitutes for the desired answer: ‘(The sophist is) ἐπιστάτης—of what kind of ἐργασία?’ Hippocrates then replies by explaining the ἐργασία, viz. τὸ ποιῆσαι δεινὸν λέγειν. The full grammatical construction would be ποίας ἐργασίας ἐπιστάτης (ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀποκριναίμεθα ἂν αὐτῷ; If we take this view, it is not necessary to insert ἐστίν after ἐπιστάτης (with Hirschig).

Note that ἐπιστάτης is substituted here for ἐπιστήμων: it is clear from Crito, 47B, that Plato connected the two words— probably because both contain the syllable -ιστ- as in ἵστωρ: he frequently plays on the similarity of form between ἐπίσταμαι ἐπιστήμη and ἐπιστατεῖν: see the Editor's note on ἐπιστάτῃ καὶ ἐπαΐοντι in the Crito, loc. cit.

17. τί ἂν εἴποιμεν Σώκρατες; Hippocrates is on the verge of ἀπορία, and merely throws out his suggestion ἐπιστάτην τοῦ ποιῆσαι δεινὸν λέγειν for what it is worth. The words ἐπιστάτην τοῦ ποιῆσαι δεινὸν λέγειν are strictly speaking a reply to the question of Socrates ποίας ἐργασίας ἐπιστάτης; for τοῦ ποιῆσαι δεινὸν λέγειν answers ποίας ἐργασίας, and but for the intervening clause (τί ἂν εἴποιμεν αὐτὸν εἶναι;) the word ἐπιστάτην would have been in the nominative.

Thus explained, the MSS. reading need not be changed. The next best view is to read (with Schanz) τί ἂν <εἰ> εἴποιμεν αὐτὸν εἶναι, Σώκρατες, ἐπιστάτην τοῦ ποιῆσαι δεινὸν λέγειν;

22. ὥσπερ κιθαριστὴς κτλ. Cf. Gorg. 449E and 451A ff., where much the same reasoning is employed to discover τί ἐστι τοῦτο τῶν ὄντων, περὶ οὗ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι εἰσίν, οἷς ῥητορικὴ χρῆται (Gorg. 451D). Rhetoric and Sophistic were regarded by Plato as sisters: cf. Gorg. 464B ff. The clause ὥσπερ κιθαριστὴς κτλ. is logically the protasis to εἶεν: δὲ δὴ σοφιστὴς κτλ.: see on 311Eabove.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: