This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
καὶ εὖ γ̓ -- ἐξαρκέσει. The difficulties connected with this passage have led to much discussion: see for example Rettig Proleg. pp. 126 ff., Krohn Pl. St. pp. 128 ff., 144, Pfleiderer Zur Lösung etc. pp. 25, 73, Hirmer Entst. u. Komp. etc. p. 618. τοῦτο in ἀκριβῶς μὲν τοῦτο and in ἡ ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἄγουσα ought, so far as grammar goes, to mean the question whether the soul has τρία εἴδη or not. But the μακροτέρα περίοδος in VI 504 B ff., where Plato expressly refers back to this passage, eschews the psychological problem altogether. The μακροτέρα περίοδος of Books VI—VII is in harmony with the present enquiry in so far as it seeks to determine the nature of Justice and the other virtues (VI 504 D, 506 A), but it is nowhere in the Republic expressly used either to confirm or to overthrow the triple division of soul which is here propounded. (The analysis of mental faculties in VI 509 D—511 E is introductory to the μακροτέρα περίοδος, not a result obtained by it; nor has that analysis, strictly speaking, any bearing on the question whether soul has three εἴδη or not: cf. Pfleiderer Zur Lösung etc. p. 25.) Krohn accordingly holds that the ‘longer ways’ of IV and VI are different and distinct (Pl. St. p. 128); and Schleiermacher supposes (Einleitung p. 71) that the πλείων ὁδός of IV is to be found in the psychology of the Timaeus; but that Plato meant the two ways to be identical is certain, for he explicitly says that they are (VI 504 B ff.). The only way out of these difficulties is to suppose that τοῦτο here was not intended by Plato to refer to the psychological, but to the ethical question, to which the psychological enquiry is introductory. τοῦτο must then be taken as δικαιοσύνης τε πέρι καὶ σωφροσύνης καὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ σοφίας δ ἕκαστόν ἐστι (VI 504 A). This view becomes easy if we suppose that the words καὶ εὖ γε—ἐξαρκέσει were not written by Plato immediately after he wrote 435 C, but at a later time, when VI 504 A—D was composed. It is in itself highly probable that the most important passages referring forward or backward to one another throughout the dialogue were either written together, or at all events revised by Plato side by side. Cf. Brandt l. c. p. 13 note 3, where a kindred view is taken. In any case, we must adhere to our explanation of τοῦτο, if we would preserve the artistic unity of the Republic. See also on VI 504 A—D. ἄλλη. See cr. n. ἄλλη is in itself much better, to say the least, than ἀλλά, and is confirmed by ἄλλη μακροτέρα— περίοδος in VI 504 B. The corruption was easy, owing to the frequency of ἀλλὰ γάρ.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.