This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
439E - 441C There is also a third element or part of soul, that which we call the element of Spirit. It is distinct from the Appetitive element, with which, indeed, it frequently contends. Its function is to support the Rational part of the soul. In a man of noble character the spirited element is quiescent or the reverse in accordance with the commands of Reason. It must not however be identified with Reason; for it is present in children and the lower animals, whereas Reason is not. Homer also recognises that the two elements are distinct. ff. The analogy between the righteous city and the righteous soul is continued throughout this section. It should be noted however that the parallel is no longer quite exact. The difference between θυμοειδές and λογιστικόν in the soul is greater than that between auxiliaries and rulers in the State: for the λογιστικόν is not a select part of the θυμοειδές—as the rulers are of the soldiers—but something generically distinct from it. Otherwise the analogy holds (with the reservations mentioned on 435 A). Cf. Steinhart Einleitung p. 192 and Susemihl Gen. Entw. II p. 166. τὸ δὲ δὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ κτλ. Hitherto θυμοειδές has been chiefly the source of courage and the natural antithesis of φιλόσοφον (II 375 A ff., III 410 D, 411 C). It now enters on a wider sphere as the ally of λογιστικόν, and becomes, thus far, more intellectual, as Krohn points out: note also the ὀρθὴ δόξα of 430 B. Its ethical connotation is also intensified; for it is not now simply spirit, but the sentiment of moral indignation at everything evil— “ein edler Unwille über alles Schlechte” (Krohn Pl. St. p. 55)—everything which tends to destroy the πολιτεία ἐν ἡμῖν. It becomes in short, as Brandt (Zur Entwick. d. Pl. Lehr. v. d. Seelentheilen p. 18) says truly enough though ponderously, “leidenschaftlicher Selbsterhaltungs- und Selbstvervollkommnungstrieb.” Cf. Simson der Begriff der Seele bei Plato p. 110, and see also on II 375 A. ἴσως κτλ. The θνητὸν εἶδος ψυχῆς of the Timaeus includes both the θυμοειδές and the ἐπιθυμητικόν: see 69 C ff. and cf. Pol. 309 C. Similarly in the Phaedrus the two lower faculties are figured as the two horses, and the highest as the charioteer of the soul's chariot (253 D): cf. Simson l.c. p. 109 notes ποτὲ -- τούτῳ. The antecedent of τούτῳ is τι: ‘having once heard something I trust to this,’ i.e. ‘I rely on an incident which I once heard.’ πιστεύω means that he relies on it for a proof; and ὡς ἄρα goes with ἀκούσας. So Schneider correctly explains the Greek. The precise force of πιστεύω τούτῳ has, I think, been missed by most of those who have suspected corruption. For τι there have been various conjectures: ἔτι (Madvig), ἄρτι (Liebhold Fl. Jahrb. 1888 p. 110), τινος (Zeller Archiv f. Gesch. d. Phil. II p. 694)—all superfluous, and the first two very weak; while Campbell suggests that οὐ has dropped before πιστεύω, taking τούτῳ to refer to Glauco's suggestion. But in that case τοῦτο would be necessary. Αεόντιος. “Ad hunc Leontium eiusque insanam cupiditatem spectat depravatissimus Theopompi comici Καπηλίδων locus” (Herwerden Mn. N.S. XI p. 346). The fragment is emended by Kock (Com. Att. Frag. I p. 739) into Αεωτροφίδης ὁ τρίμνεως (trium librarum homo, i.e. levissimus) Αεοντίῳ | εὔχρως τε φαίνεται χαρίεις θ᾽ ὤσπερ ϝεκρός. Bergk was the first to connect the two passages. ὑπὸ -- ἐκτός: ‘close to the outer side of the North wall.’ Cf. (with Stallbaum) Lys. 203 A τὴν ἔξω τείχους ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ τεῖχος. The North wall was the outer of the two walls connecting Athens with the Piraeus; the other, or South wall, was called τὸ διὰ μέσου τεῖχος, because it lay between the βόρειον and the φαληρικόν, which connected Athens and the Phalerum. See Gorg. 455 E and the other authorities cited by Milchhöfer Schriftquellen zur Topographie von Athen pp. CXIII ff., and Curtius u. Kaupert Atlas von Athen Bl. II. παρὰ -- κειμένους: ‘lying by’ or ‘near the executioner’; not of course ‘at the executioner's’ as has been suggested. When seen by Leontius, the hangman was engaged in throwing the bodies into the pit (ὄρυγμα or βάραθρον, from which he was often called ὁ ἐπὶ s. πρὸς τῷ ὀρύγματι). The βάραθρον into which the bodies of executed criminals were thrown, was a deep ravine outside the walls, in the deme Κειριάδαι. Leontius would pass near it, just before entering the city (probably by the Μελιτίδες πύλαι): see Curtius u. Kaupert l.c. Bl. II. The place is still pointed out to visitors to Athens on the western declivity of the Hill of the Nymphs. For the ancient authorities see Milchhöfer l.c. pp. I—II. Various suggestions have been made for δημίῳ. Valckenaer's δημιείῳ is a coinage of his own, and otherwise objectionable; Αυκείῳ (also Valckenaer) is topographically impossible, and so is Διομείῳ (Hemsterhuis), if it has anything to do with the Διομηΐς πύλη. The explanation which I have given seems also to have been held by Milchhöfer, for he quotes the present passage among the authorities for the βάραθρον.
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.