This text is part of:
τῇ προσέξει τοῦ νοῦ is added as a kind of afterthought or additional specification, precisely like the infinitives in Gorg. 513 E ἐπιχειρητέον ἐστι τῇ πόλει καὶ τοῖς πολίταις θεραπεύειν, infra 407 C, IV 437 B, 443 B, V 450 B, X 598 B, Crito 52 B. The datives τεκτονικῇ etc. depend grammatically on ἐμπόδιον only, and have nothing to do with προσέξει. παρακέλευμα presently is of course the accusative, the subject to ἐμποδίζει being νοσοτροφία, and οὐδέν adverbial. Richter (in Fl. Jahrb. 1867 p. 140) should not have revived the reading of Bekker μελετῶντι ἢ νοσοτροφία: τεκτονικῇ μὲν γὰρ κτλ., which is lacking both in authority and point. ναὶ μὰ τὸν Δία -- εἰκός γε, ἔφην (in C). See cr. n. With the MS reading εἰκός γ᾽ ἔφη, the distribution of the speeches causes difficulty. It will be enough to mention three alternatives, for no one has adopted or is likely to adopt the punctuation of A, where σχεδόν γέ τι —περὶ τοῦ σώματος is assigned to Socrates. We may give either (1) the whole speech ναὶ μὰ—περὶ τοῦ σώματος to Glauco, excising εἰκός γε, ἔφη with II q and some other MSS (so Schneider 1830); or (2) ναὶ μὰ—ἐπιμέλεια τοῦ σώματος to Glauco, and καὶ γὰρ—περὶ τοῦ σώματος to Socrates (Stallbaum); or (3) ναὶ μὰ—δύσκολος to Glauco, and τὸ δὲ δὴ—περὶ τοῦ σώματος to Socrates (Baiter and others, including Schneider 1842). The first view fails to account for the appearance of εἰκός γε ἔφη in A, but is right, I think, in assigning the whole speech to Glauco. Neither at καὶ γὰρ πρὸς οἰκονομίας nor at τὸ δὲ δὴ μέγιστον is it easy and natural to change the speakers. The simple expedient of writing ἔφην for ἔφη appears to me to set matters straight. For the corruption see Introd. § 5. οὐκοῦν ταῦτα etc. is also said by Socrates. ἥ γε περαιτέρω κτλ. ‘This excessive care of the body, which goes beyond what sound bodily regimen permits.’ The Greek has a rhetorical effect like τὸ δεινόν, τὸ μέγα ἐκεῖνο—θρέμμα IX 590 A. With περαιτέρω and the genitive cf. Gorg. 484 C περαιτέρω τοῦ δέοντος. I once conjectured ἥ γε περαιτέρω γυμναστική, ἧς (‘cuius est’) etc. (Cl. Rev. X p. 385), but Plato seems to mean that treatment of this kind has no claim to the name γυμναστική at all, and not that it is γυμναστική run mad. The MS reading is defended also by a reviewer of my Text of the Republic in Hermathena XX p. 252.
The Republic of Plato. James Adam. 1902. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.