James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

τὸ πρότερον κτλ. The reference is to VIII 567 and supra 576 A, B. ἢ πρότερον might of course have been spared, and Herwerden more suo cuts it out; but the sentence gains in weight by the addition.

, B 7 νῦν ἤδη (‘nunc demum’) is fully illustrated by Jecht de usu part. ἤδη in Pl. dialog. pp. 44 f.

ὥσπερ ὁ διὰ πάντων κτλ. The comparison is borrowed from the Athenian method of judging in musical or dramatic competitions. According to Petersen, who in his Dorpat program über die Preisrichter der Grossen Dionysien zu Athen (1878) has carefully investigated the whole subject, the mode of procedure was as follows. Some time before the festival a number of qualified persons were selected by the βουλευταί in cooperation with the χορηγοί, and their names deposited in 10 urns, one for each φυλή. On the day of the contest, one name was drawn from each urn, and the ten judges thereby constituted, after witnessing the performance, each wrote down in his γραμματεῖον the order in which he arranged the several competitors. Of these ten judges five were next selected by lot, and the final verdict was given in accordance with the votes already registered by these five. The most important piece of evidence in support of this theory is furnished by Lysias 4. 3 ἐβουλόμην δ̓ ἂν μὴ ἀπολαχεῖν αὐτὸν κριτὴν Διονυσίοις, <*>ν̓ ὑμῖν φανερὸς ἐγένετο ἐμοὶ διηλλαγμένος, κρίνας τὴν ἐμὴν φυλὴν νικᾶν: νῦν δὲ ἔγραψε μὲν ταῦτα εἰς τὸ γραμματεῖον, ἀπέλαχε δέ. In none of the ancient authorities, which are fully cited by Petersen, do we find the expression ὁ διὰ πάντων κριτής: but Petersen thinks the phrase may perhaps denote any one of the surviving five, who had lasted through all the stages, having been originally chosen by the Senate, and afterwards by lot on the two remaining opportunities. The singular number, according to Petersen, is generic, as in Laws 659 A, B and elsewhere. It is true of course that the matter could not always be brought to an immediate issue in this way; for, to take a single instance, in a case where there were, let us say, three competitors, the votes of the five judges might result in a tie between two competitors for each of the three prizes. Thus we might have:

In such a case we must, I suppose, believe either that one of the five judges, who will then be ὁ διὰ πάντων κριτής, had a casting vote, or else—and this is the more reasonable view—that C was held to be disqualified for the first prize, and fresh scrutinies began. Petersen's explanation is accepted in the main by Müller (Griech. Bühnenalt. pp. 369— 372), and, though to some extent conjectural, appears to me the best available, except in one point. ὁ διὰ πάντων κριτής can hardly be separated from ὁ διὰ πάντων ἀγών, a phrase which is quoted from Cratinus' Panoptae (Fr. 157 Kock), and explained as ὁ ἔσχατος ἀγών in Bekker's Anecdota p. 91. 10. The διὰ πάντων κριτής must surely mean the judge of the διὰ πάντων ἀγών, and if so, διὰ πάντων should be similarly interpreted in both phrases. In διὰ πάντων ἀγών it cannot mean “der durch alle Stadien oder besser durch alle Collegien hindurchgegangen war” (Petersen l. c. p. 24), but may possibly mean the last and greatest ἀγών, as τὸ διὰ πασῶν is the greatest interval in a scale of one octave. The expression is strangely reminiscent of the musical terms διὰ πέντε, διὰ τεττάρων, διὰ πασῶν etc., and in a competition between χοροί, it is natural enough that musical analogies should provide a name for the decisive struggle in which the claims of the competitors as it were contend with one another for the final victory. It will be seen that I understand ἀγών in the quotation from Cratinus as referring, not to the actual dramatic or musical representation, but to the final struggle in which the lot arbitrates between the rival claims, the earlier ἀγών being presumably that which is decided by the votes of the ten judges: so that the upshot of the whole matter will be that Socrates appeals to Glauco, as the Archon might to one of the five judges in what we may be forgiven for calling the ‘grand finale,’ calling on him to pronounce τίς πρῶτος κτλ. The word ἀποφαίνεσθαι is probably formal: cf. Laws 659 B and Dio Chrys. quoted by Petersen l. c. p. 7. For a further discussion of this passage see App. II.