James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

δἰ ὅλης -- διὰ πασῶν . δἰ ὅλης sc. τῆς πόλεως, not λύρας, as J. and C. strangely suppose. διὰ πασῶν sc. τῶν χορδῶν should be taken with ξυνᾴδοντας (so also Schneider). ἡ διὰ πασῶν συμφωνία is the octave (Arist. Probl. XIX 35. 920^{a} 27 ff.), the καλλίστη συμφωνία, according to the Greeks (Arist. l.c.), readily sounding to the ear as absolute unison; hence the point of ταὐτόν, which is an accusative depending directly on ξυνᾴδοντας. See Arist. l.c. 14. 918^{b} 7 ff. διὰ τί λανθάνει τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ δοκεῖ ὁμόφωνον εἶναι, οἷον ἐν τῷ φοινικίῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; The whole expression διὰ πασῶν ξυνᾴδοντας ταὐτόν therefore means that the concord of the citizens on the matter in question is absolute and complete. Further than this I do not think the comparison is to be pressed. If we seek to find analogies between ἀσθενεστάτους, ἰσχυροτάτους, μέσους and the ὑπάτη, νήτη and μέση of the scale, we are met by the difficulty that the μέση cannot be said to produce the same (ταὐτόν) note as the ὑπάτη and νήτη, and we are not at liberty to suppose that Plato is thinking of ἡ δὶς διὰ πασῶν in the face of his own words, which refer only to a single octave (διὰ πασῶν παρεχομ νη κτλ.). In talking of σωφροσύνη Plato usually distinguishes only between two classes—rulers and ruled: 431 D, E and infra χείρονός τε καὶ ἀμείνονος. See also on 443 D.

φρονήσει -- ἰσχύϊ -- πλήθει define ἀσθενεστάτους, ἰσχυροτάτους, μέσους. The equipoise and measured cadence of this stately sentence may well suggest a chorus of voices singing in unison. Cf. III 401 C. Cobet's excision of the second βούλει is sadly out of tune.

ταύτην τὴν ὁμόνοιαν prepares us for the definition about to follow. There are various ὁμόνοιαι: this one is agreement ὁπότερον δεῖ ἄρχειν etc.

χείρονος κτλ.: ‘concord between the naturally better and the naturally worse, on the question which should rule, whether in a city or in an individual.’ ἐν ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ anticipates 442 C f.; but is justified here by 431 A, B.

We may now sum up Plato's account of σωφροσύνη so far as it is a virtue of the State. It involves three elements: (1) the rule of the better over the worse, (2) the rule of φρόνησις over the desires, (3) the agreement of better and worse as to which shall rule. (1) and (2) are different ways of expressing the same thing; neither is fundamental, for (granted the presence of σοφία and ἀνδρεία) both of them follow from (3), whereas (3) does not follow from either. Plato accordingly admits (3) only into his final definition. It follows from (3) that σωφροσύνη, unlike σοφία and ἀνδρεία, is a virtue possessed by all the three classes of the City. Krohn (Pl. St. p. 372) pronounces σωφροσύνη otiose and “ornamental.” The charge is best refuted by considering whether the City is complete without it. (The part played by Justice will be discussed later.) Apart from σωφροσύνη, what virtue remains for the third class of citizens? and what guarantee is there that σοφία will consent to rule? (see on ἐν ἀμφοτέροις 431 E). Whereas σωφροσύνη not only provides for the third class, but furnishes a point of union in which all the classes may meet, and the City, so far, become μία ἐκ πολλῶν (cf. 443 E). If we bear in mind that the Rulers are only select Guardians, and that φύλακες includes both Rulers and Auxiliaries, we may tabulate the virtues of the three classes thus:—

Virtues of Rulers, σοφία + ἀνδρεία + σωφροσύνη.

Virtues of Soldiers, ἀνδρεία + σωφροσύνη.

Virtues of Farmers, etc., σωφροσύνη.

Hirzel is, I think, mistaken in holding that σωφροσύνη is a virtue of the whole and not of the parts; the fact is that it is a virtue both of the whole and of each of the parts. Strictly speaking, of course, ὁμόνοια or ξυμφωνία implies more parts than one, and concord is impossible to a unit; but the essence of the virtue consists in the view that the best shall rule, and this view is present in each of the three classes. For δικαιοσύνη see 434 C note

Plato's account of σωφροσύνη in other dialogues differs in many respects from this, and is rather a hindrance than a help in elucidating the present passage. Cf. Hirzel l.c. p. 409. The σωφροσύνη of the Charmides is fully discussed by Knuth Quaestiones de not. τῆς σωφροσύνης Plat. criticae (1874): cf. also Hammond l.c. pp. 138 f., 157 f.