James Adam, The Republic of Plato

Appendices to book 4

I hope my note has proved that this sentence is sound in the main; but Madvig's emendation has obtained such a wide currency, owing to its adoption by Baiter, that the text has fallen under grave suspicion, and it may be well to record the different conjectures.

They are as follows:

(1) εἶεν οὖν: ἡμεῖς κτλ. (Orelli, cited by Schneider): (2) ἡμεῖς μὲν οὖν φύλακας κτλ. (Ast in his third edition): (3) ᾗ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς <λέγο>μεν, φύλακας κτλ. (Herwerden, with whom Hartman agrees so far, although Hartman goes further and expunges καί before ὥσπερ as well as the entire clause ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν λέγοι): (4) εἰ μὲν οὖν—ἑστιάτορας, εὔδαιμον ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν λέγοι (Madvig): (5) εἰ [μὲν] οὖν ἡμεῖς—λέγων ἀργούς (or κακούργους) τινας—εὐδαίμονας, ἄλλο δή τι ἢ πόλιν λέγει (Richards).

It should be mentioned also that Wyttenbach (quoted by Stallbaum) had conjectured ἑστιάτορας καὶ δαιτυμόνας instead of ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας (ἑστιάτορας καὶ εὐδαίμονας in a few inferior MSS).

A glance at these proposals will shew that the difficulties felt have been chiefly in connexion with a εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς μέν, b γεωργούς, c ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας and d ἄλλο ἄν τι ἢ πόλιν λέγοι. I can see no reason for Richards' correction of d: ‘mixed’ conditional sentences of this kind are surely common enough.

For ἑστιάτορας εὐδαίμονας cf. III 420 A οἱ εὐδαίμονες δοκοῦντες εἶναι and especially X 612 A τῶν εὐδαιμόνων λεγομένων ἑστιάσεων. The μέν after εἰ is omitted in one Florentine MS, but μέν without δέ occurs tolerably often in Plato (cf. V 475 E note). Here it has the effect of italicising the preceding word by suggesting a possible antithesis. The only real difficulty is in γεωργούς, and in view of 419 A to which ὁ δ᾽ ἐκεῖνο λέγων refers, some may doubt whether even γεωργούς is not also genuine. For my own part I am inclined to think that Plato wrote λεωργούς.