Gonzalez Lodge, Commentary on Plato: Gorgias

ἡ σεμνή: viewed in the light of the result which Socrates deduces, this word as well as θαυμαστή may be considered ironic. But tragedy was regularly designated σεμνή, “venerated,” as being the most noble presentation of poetry before the public mind, both from its sage maxims and from the moral effect which was ascribed to it. Socrates' actual view of poetry is well stated in Apol. 22 b, c ἔγνων οὖν καὶ περὶ τῶν ποιητῶν τοῦτο, ὅτι οὐ σοφίᾳ ποιοῖεν ἃ ποιοῖεν, ἀλλὰ φύσει τινὶ καὶ ἐνθουσιάζοντες ὥσπερ οἱ θεομάντεις καὶ οἱ χρησμῳδοί.

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐσπούδακε: the order of the whole sentence is involved; τί δὲ δή (ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο) ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐσπούδακεν. After giving the general question, Socrates follows it by a disjunctive special one. The repetition of the art. ἡ is illustrated by Stallbaum from Symp. 213 e τὴν τούτου ταυτηνὶ τὴν θαυμαστὴν κεφαλήν. It is not common. For the construction ἐπί τινι, cf. Lach. 183 a ἐκεῖνοι μάλιστα τῶν Ἑλλήνων σπουδάζουσιν ἐπὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις, Xen. Mem. i. 3. 11 σπουδάζειν . . . ἐφ᾽ οἷς οὐδ̓ ἂν μαινόμενος σπουδάσειεν. We find περί τι in Phaedo 64 d φαίνεταί σοι φιλοσόφου ἀνδρὸς εἶναι ἐσπουδακέναι περὶ τὰς ἡδονάς. For the pf. equiv. to a pres., cf. the passage from Phaedo just quoted.

25 f.

πότερόν ἐστιν . . . ὥς σοι δοκεῖ: the more usual idiom would require πότερον δοκεῖ σοι εἶναι.

27 ff.

ἐὰν μέν, εἰ δέ: this variation in the employment of the cond. particles has come to be a rule; i.e. the negative of an ἐὰν μέν clause is introduced by εἰ δέ. If the condition is particular, we find εἰ with the fut. indic.; if generic, εἰ with the pres. indic., which latter is frequently omitted. In the earlier usage the custom was to give the favorable condition first; hence εἰ δὲ μή comes to have an unpleasant or unfavorable connotation, as here. Cf. also 481 b. The omission of μέν after ἐάν is probably due to its employment with ἡδύ. On the repetition of μέν and δέ with both clauses, see on 512 a.

ἀηδὲς καὶ ὠφέλιμον: the connexion of these two words with καί seems somewhat strange, when one considers both the relation of the ideas themselves and the fact that they are preceded by ἡδὺ μὲν . . . πονηρὸν δέ. The design is probably to emphasize the co-existence of the two ideas, and not their distinctness. There is no contradiction to ἀηδές in the following ἐάν τε χαίρωσιν κτἑ.; it refers to the manner in which the spectators will receive his words, concerning which the poet has no reason to trouble himself, provided what he says is correct.—On the omission of ὄν, see GMT. 902; H. 984 a.

λέξει καὶ ᾁσεται: viz. in the dialogue and choruses.