James Adam, The Republic of Plato

Schneider's explanation of the words οἴου γε σύ (sc. ἡμᾶς σπουδάζειν ὅ τι μάλιστα φανῆναι αὐτό） would probably have met with wider acceptance if he had taken more pains to justify his view. The key to the meaning is to be found in the affirmative οἴεσθαί γε χρή which sometimes follows a fortiori reasoning of this kind in Plato. Two examples will suffice: Prot. 325 B, C τὰ μὲν ἄλλα ἄρα τοὺς υἱεῖς διδάσκονται, ἐφ̓ οἷς οὐκ ἔστι θάνατος ἡ ζημία ἐὰν μὴ ἐπίστωνται, ἐφ̓ ᾧ δὲ ἥ τε ζημία θάνατος αὐτῶν τοῖς παισί—ταῦτα δ̓ ἄρα οὐ διδάσκονται οὐδ̓ ἐπιμελοῦνται πᾶσαν ἐπιμέλειαν; οἴεσθαί γε χρή, and Phaed. 68 A ἢ ἀνθρωπίνων μὲν παιδικῶν—ἀποθανόντων πολλοὶ δὴ ἑκόντες ἠθέλησαν εἰς ἅδου ἰέναι—φρονήσεως δὲ ἄρα τις τῷ ὄντι ἐρῶν—ἀγανακτήσει τε ἀποθνῄσκων καὶ οὐκ ἄσμενος εἶσιν αὐτόσε; οἴεσθαί γε χρή. If in place of the imperative μὴ γὰρ δὴ οἴου, Plato had used an interrogation (as he generally does in sentences of this kind), writing let us say ἢ οἴει instead of μὴ γὰρ δὴ οἴου, he would have added οἴεσθαί γε χρή. The same way of writing, dictated of course by the desire to emphasize the δέ clause, causes him to say οἴου γε when the sentence is in the imperatival form. σύ is of course necessary on account of ὦ φίλε. For the affirmative sense of οἴου cf. infra 346 E ἆῤ οὖν οὐδ̓ ὠφελεῖ τότε, ὅταν προῖκα ἐργάζηται; Οἶμαι ἔγωγε, and X 608 D. Of the various suggestions made on this passage that of O. Apelt ἰού, ἰού, ὦ φίλε “aber wehe, o Freund, unsere Kraft, glaube ich, reicht nicht aus dazu” (Fl. Jahrb. 1891, p. 557) deserves mention for its ingenuity; but except for the corruption of γε to τε (see cr. n.), the text is sound. There is certainly no occasion to follow q and Stallbaum in writing μὴ οἴου σύ for οἴου γε σύ.