Appendices to book 4
IV 421 A, B. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς μὲν φύλακας ὡς ἀληθῶς
ποιοῦμεν, ἥκιστα κακούργους τῆς πόλεως, ὁ δ᾽ ἐκεῖνο λέγων γεωργούς τινας
καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν πανηγύρει ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πόλει ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας, ἄλλο
ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν λέγοι
I hope my note has proved that this sentence is sound in the main; but Madvig's
emendation has obtained such a wide currency, owing to its adoption by Baiter, that the
text has fallen under grave suspicion, and it may be well to record the different
They are as follows:
(1) εἶεν οὖν: ἡμεῖς κτλ.
(Orelli, cited by
Schneider): (2) ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν φύλακας κτλ.
his third edition): (3) ᾗ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς
<λέγο>μεν, φύλακας κτλ.
(Herwerden, with whom Hartman agrees
so far, although Hartman goes further and expunges καί
as well as the entire clause ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν λέγοι
): (4) εἰ μὲν οὖν—ἑστιάτορας, εὔδαιμον ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν
(Madvig): (5) εἰ
] οὖν ἡμεῖς—λέγων
) τινας—εὐδαίμονας, ἄλλο δή τι ἢ πόλιν λέγει
It should be mentioned also that Wyttenbach (quoted by Stallbaum) had conjectured
ἑστιάτορας καὶ δαιτυμόνας
instead of ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας
in a few inferior MSS).
A glance at these proposals will shew that the difficulties felt have been chiefly in
connexion with a εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς μέν
, b γεωργούς
, c ἑστιάτορας
and d ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν
. I can see no reason for Richards' correction of d:
‘mixed’ conditional sentences of this kind are surely common enough.
For ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας
cf. III 420 A οἱ εὐδαίμονες δοκοῦντες εἶναι
and especially X 612 A
τῶν εὐδαιμόνων λεγομένων ἑστιάσεων
. The μέν
is omitted in
one Florentine MS, but μέν
occurs tolerably often in Plato (cf. V 475 E note). Here it
has the effect of italicising the preceding word by suggesting a possible antithesis.
The only real difficulty is in γεωργούς
, and in view of
419 A to which ὁ δ᾽ ἐκεῖνο λέγων
refers, some may
doubt whether even γεωργούς
is not also genuine. For my
own part I am inclined to think that Plato wrote λεωργούς