<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<TEI.2><text lang="en"><body><div1 type="book" n="5" org="uniform" sample="complete"><div2 type="section" n="473C" org="uniform" sample="complete">
          <p><lemma lang="greek" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">ἐπ̓ αὐτὸ -- εἶμι</lemma>: ‘well, said
            I, I will enter on the very topic which’ etc. Cf. Thuc. II 36. 4 <foreign lang="greek">εἶμι καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν τῶνδε ἔπαινον</foreign>. I have returned to the
            most authoritative reading, though previously I read (with Richards) <foreign lang="greek">ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ δὴ —εἰμί</foreign>. In point of sense, <foreign lang="greek">εἶμι</foreign> is only a sort of quasi-future, and should be compared
            with <foreign lang="greek">ἀλλ᾽ εἶμι</foreign> in the mouth of characters just about
            to leave the stage (e.g. <bibl n="Soph. Trach. 86" default="NO" valid="yes">Soph. <title>Trach.</title>
            86</bibl>). Cf. also <bibl n="Plat. Phaedo 100B" default="NO" valid="yes"><title>Phaed.</title> 100 B</bibl>
            <foreign lang="greek">ἔρχομαι —ἐπιχειρῶν—καὶ εἶμι πάλιν ἐπ᾽
              ἐκεῖνα— καὶ ἄρχομαι κτλ.</foreign> According to KühnerBlass
              (<title>Gr. Gr.</title> I 2, p. 217) the present use of <foreign lang="greek">εἶμι</foreign> is found only in poetry and late prose; but <foreign lang="greek">ἀνίασιν</foreign> in VII 531 C is a certain case, and so also in my opinion are
              <foreign lang="greek">ἐπίασιν</foreign> and <foreign lang="greek">ἀπίασι</foreign>
            in Thuc. IV 61. 3, 8. It should also be remembered that Plato by no means abjures
            archaic and poetic forms and idioms: see I 330 B note Vind. F reads <foreign lang="greek">ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶ</foreign> (i.q. <foreign lang="greek">αὐτῷ</foreign>）
              <foreign lang="greek">δ᾽ εἰμι</foreign>, and <foreign lang="greek">εἰμί</foreign>
            was the reading of <hi rend="italic">q</hi>^{1}. <foreign lang="greek">ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ δή
              εἰμι</foreign> is highly idiomatic and may be supported (with Richards) by VI 490 D,
              <bibl n="Plat. Plt. 274B" default="NO"><title>Pol.</title> 274 B</bibl>; but it is safer to follow
            the MSS, which are all but unanimous.</p>
          <p><lemma lang="greek" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">εἰ καὶ -- κατακλύσειν</lemma>: ‘even
              al<pb n="330" /> though it is likely—just like a wave with its
            cachinnations—to swamp me with laughter and disgrace.’ Hartman would
            insert &lt;<foreign lang="greek">με</foreign>&gt; before <foreign lang="greek">μέλλει</foreign>, but the object is easily supplied; and <foreign lang="greek">με</foreign> before <foreign lang="greek">μέλλει</foreign> is very cacophonous. For
            other views of this passage see App. VI.</p>
          <p><lemma lang="greek" targOrder="U" from="ROOT" to="DITTO">ἐὰν μὴ κτλ.</lemma> Cf. <title>Laws</title> 709 E
            ff. Plato's famous and often quoted paradox is not in its essence so paradoxical as it
            appears. The abiding truth of Plato's suggestion is “that somehow or other the
            best and deepest ideas about life and the world must be brought to bear on the conduct
            of social and political administration if any real progress is to take place in
            society” (Bosanquet). But it was a paradox in the Athenian democracy, or so at
            least Plato, like Socrates, thought: hence <foreign lang="greek">πολὺ παρὰ δόξαν
              ῥηθήσεται</foreign> 473 E. See for example <bibl n="Plat. Prot. 319A" default="NO" valid="yes"><title>Prot.</title> 319 A</bibl>—323 A and <bibl n="Plat. Gorg. 514A" default="NO" valid="yes"><title>Gorg.</title> 514 A</bibl>—519 D: and cf. Krohn <title>Pl.
            St.</title> p. 93. Political evil is in Plato's view the result of a divorce between
            political power and knowledge of the good; it can only be cured by effecting their
            reconciliation. In the <title>Politicus</title> Plato's remedy is to make the
            philosopher (who is the true king) act through the statesman (305 C ff.: cf. Nohle
              <title>Die Statslehre Platos</title> pp. 82, 88, whose interpretation
            is—wrongly, as I think—questioned by Zeller^{4} II 1, p. 901 note
            5): but in the <title>Republic</title> the union between Thought and Action is complete,
            and the philosopher is himself a statesman. Whether even then he would be strong enough
            to found the perfect city of the <title>Republic</title>, depends upon the amount of
            resistance which he would be likely to encounter: see on VI 499 B and IX 577 A.</p>
        </div2></div1></body></text></TEI.2>