Gonzalez Lodge, Commentary on Plato: Gorgias

οὐ σοῦ ἕνεκα: in this answer we have merely an indefinite contrast between person and thing; which is much more clearly defined below in 457 d κατὰ φθόνον οἴονται τὸν ἑαυτῶν λέγειν and e οὐ πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα φιλονικοῦντα λέγειν . . . ἀλλὰ πρὸς σέ. Socrates guards himself against any suspicion that he may be influenced by personal feelings in his criticism of Gorgias. Cf. 454 c.

ὡς: not to be joined with μάλιστα as a superlative phrase, but correlative with οὕτω.

ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ: introduces frequently, as an illustration of a general principle, a supposed case similar to it. It is easy to add a second hypothetical clause, not coördinated with the first, but which, combined with the apod., has the first as a common protasis. Cf. below, 468 d, and Apol. 27 d. Zeuxis, the celebrated painter and contemporary of Socrates, was a native of Heraclea in Lower Italy. He was the pupil of Apollodorus, who, by a more delicate appreciation and application of the principles of light and shade in painting, greatly furthered the development of the art, and obtained for himself the surname of ‘Sciagraph.’ The paintings of Zeuxis, who belonged to the Ionic school, were noted for their delicacy and fine coloring. Besides the Helena which he painted for the Crotoniates (Cic. de Inv. ii. 1. 1), his most celebrated picture was the Penelope, wherein he depicted with great success pure matronly modesty. The story of his contest with his rival Parrhasius is well known.

ζῷα: a general expression for every kind of pictures.

καὶ ποῦ: Socrates wishes here to make clear that if we wish to define an object exactly, i.e. so as to make it easily recognizable, it is not sufficient to give the characteristic which it has in common with other objects, but rather it is necessary to mention that characteristic which belongs to it alone and distinguishes it from all other objects. So, for example, it is not sufficient to say that Zeuxis is a painter, i.e. one who either paints or has painted pictures; but in order to distinguish him from other painters, who also paint or have painted pictures, we must state more nearly the kind of pictures which he has painted (ποῖα), as ‘he who painted the Helena or the Penelope.’ But even this is not entirely sufficient, for there are still other painters who have painted these same objects; but when we say, ‘he who painted the Helena in Croton (ποῦ),’ we have definitely defined Zeuxis. ποῦ could also, and more naturally, refer to the scene of his labors,—where he had his studio. We must note (1) that ὁ τὰ ζῷα γράφων is only the common designation of all painters, by which they are distinguished from the λόγους or νόμους or συγγράμματα γράφοντες, (2) that ὁ γράφων can and must be understood in the same way in which we so often understand ὁ ἀδικῶν, ὁ κρατῶν, etc., i.e. as a generic word, not limited in time (H. 827), (3) that ποῖος is often scarcely to be distinguished from τίς (cf. Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 14 ἐγὼ οὖν τὸν ἐκ ποίας πόλεως στρατηγὸν προσδοκῶ ταῦτα πράξειν; ποίαν δ᾽ ἡλικίαν ἐμαυτῷ ἐλθεῖν ἀναμένω;). With these points understood, we see that the present example suffices to show that to define rhetoric as πειθοῦς δημιουργός, i.e. ἡ τὴν πειθὼ ἀπεργαζομένη τέχνη is insufficient, so long as the πειθώ wrought by it is not more exactly specified in order to distinguish it from that wrought by other arts which come under the same general definition. Cf. moreover the answer of Gorgias, below, 454 b, which corresponds to the example before us exactly, even as far as the ποῦ is concerned.