This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
μὴ ἐν προσηκούσῃ: i.q. ἐν μὴ προσηκούσῃ (which Stephanus wrongly read), by a common hyperbaton: cf. Crito 47 D and other examples in Braun De Hyperb. Pl. p. 15. With προσηκούσῃ it is usual to supply μαθήσει. I think Plato intentionally selects a vague expression, intending ἐν προσηκούσῃ to be taken with σπαρεῖσα—φυτευθεῖσα as well as with τρέφηται: for it is just as important that the philosophic nature should be sown and planted in a proper soil (491 D), as that it should receive proper education. Morgenstern, who formerly proposed προσηκούσῃ <γῇ>, afterwards adopted much the same view as this: see Schneider Addit. p. 46. θεῶν. See on θεοῦ μοῖραν 493 A. ἢ καὶ σὺ ἡγεῖ κτλ. This passage is appealed to by Grote (VIII pp. 200 ff.) in his famous defence of the Sophists. Plato certainly implies that the Sophists did not independently corrupt the young ‘to any extent worth mentioning’ (ὅ τι καὶ ἄξιον λόγου). It is the Demos which is the primary source and fount of corruption; the Sophists are only the mouthpiece of a disgraceful public opinion which it is their profession to flatter and court (493 A—D). But from Plato's point of view this is itself a sufficiently grave indictment to bring against a professional teacher of Morality (see 493 C), so that the present attack on the Athenian people is far from being an apology for the Sophists.
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.