James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

ὑπολαμβάνειν δεῖ τῷ τοιούτῳ: ‘we must reply to’—(or ‘retort upon’） ‘such a person’: cf. (with J. B. Mayor in Cl. Rev. X p. 110) Prot. 320 C πολλοὶ οὖν αὐτῷ ὑπέλαβον κτλ. The antecedent of τῷ τοιούτῳ is τις. The words have been strangely misinterpreted by Schneider(“bei dem muss man annehmen” etc.), J. and C. (“we must understand by such a statement”) and others, forgetful of the parallel expression in the Protagoras. Vermehren actually goes so far as to conjecture ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ (Plat. Stud. p. 119).

γόητί τινι. Cf. Soph. 234 C.

διὰ τὸ αὐτὸς κτλ. In agreement with Dümmler (Antisth. pp. 23 ff.), Stählin (Stellung d. Poesie etc. p. 26) takes this as a specific reference to Antisthenes. Antisthenes, in the first place, denied the Ideal theory and held that there could be no knowledge except of particulars: so that Plato might well insinuate that he was incapable of distinguishing knowledge from ignorance: cf. V 476 D note In the second place, Antisthenes was a champion of Homer, and discovered a sort of moral philosophy in his works (see Frag. 24—28 in Winckelmann Antisth. Frag. and Zeller^{4} II pp. 330 ff.). On the strength of these two facts Stählin has evolved the ingenious theory that Plato's motive throughout this part of the discussion is a purely polemical one, and that he did not seriously consider Poetry only ‘third from Royalty and Truth.’ Plato, thinks Stählin, says in effect: ‘Antisthenes holds that poets have knowledge of and copy particulars; but there is no knowledge of particulars, and particulars are copies of Ideas, so that on Antisthenes's own shewing Poets are ignorant, and Poetry is thrice removed from Truth: whereas Antisthenes thinks Homer was omniscient.’ The dagger is only lath: for Antisthenes was not an Idealist. Yet it is tolerably clear that Plato is refuting a view of poetry which found enthusiastic advocates in his own time, and Antisthenes may have been one of these, though the evidence falls far short of proof (see next note): but the purpose of this investigation is certainly not polemical and nothing more, and in spite of other passages in which Plato takes a more generous view of Poetry (see on 598 E), there is no good reason to suppose that his hostility is otherwise than serious here. See also on line 28.

598D - 601B We hear it said that tragedians, including Homer, have knowledge of that whereof they write; but it is not so. No one would seriously give himself to the production of copies if he could make originals. If the poet possessed true knowledge of what he imitates, he would rather do great deeds than sing of them; and Homer rendered no services to his fellow men in the sphere of action, invention, or even education, as the neglect he suffered in his own lifetime abundantly proves. The fact is that the Poet writes without knowledge. His productions are but images of images, and owe all their charm to their poetic setting.

τὸν ἡγεμόνα αὐτῆς Ὅμηρον κτλ. See 595 C note In τινων Dümmler and Stälhlin (ll. cc.) again recognise Antisthenes, but although Antisthenes seems to have believed in Homer, there is no evidence that he was a champion of Tragedy (note ὅτι οὗτοι κτλ.); and he was certainly not the only person in whose eyes Homer was regarded as at once a universal genius and the educator of the whole of Greece. It is not necessary to suppose that Plato has any individual person in his mind: there must have been many such apologists of Homer and dramatic poetry in Plato's day, and Plato as usual individualizes the type. See for instance the Ion of Plato and Ar. Frogs 1008 ff. It will, no doubt, help us to appreciate Plato's attitude towards Poetry if we remember that she was the de facto rival of Philosophy, and that (as Munk observes, die nat. Ordnung d. Plat. Schr. pp. 313 ff.) the Republic is in a certain sense a demand that Philosophy shall take the place which Poetry had hitherto filled in educational theory and practice: see especially the address to poets in Laws 817 A ff. ὦ ἄριστοι—τῶν ξένων, ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν τραγῳδίας αὐτοὶ ποιηταὶ κατὰ δύναμιν ὅτι καλλίστης ἅμα καὶ ἀρίστης: πᾶσα οὖν ἡμῖν ἡ πολιτεία ξυνέστηκε μίμησις τοῦ καλλίστου καὶ ἀρίστου βίου, ὂ δή φαμεν ἡμεῖς γε ὄντως εἶναι τραγῳδίαν τὴν ἀληθεστάτην. ποιηταὶ μὲν οὖν ὑμεῖς, ποιηταὶ δὲ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ὑμῖν ἀντίτεχνοί τε καὶ ἀνταγωνισταὶ τοῦ καλλίστου δράματος κτλ. Cf. also infra 600 A note But it is surely absurd to suppose that Plato was actuated by any feeling of personal jealousy towards Homer, and aspired to supplant him in the admiration of his countrvmen: ‘there is no envy in the choir divine’ (Phaedr. 247 A). There is something almost pathetic in Dionysius' inability to understand and appreciate Plato when he assures us with monotonous and feeble iteration that ‘there was, there really was in Plato's nature, with all its excellences, something of vainglory. He shewed this particularly in his jealousy of Homer, whom he expels from his imaginary commonwealth after crowning him with a garland and anointing him with myrrh’ (Letter to Pompeius § 756, translated by Roberts).