James Adam, The Republic of Plato

The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult, and has given rise to a vast amount of discussion. The only important variants are καὶ διὰ τοῦ πεινῆν καὶ διὰ τοῦ ῥιγοῦν in q and Flor. U, and ὑπομένων καί (A, Π etc.) instead of καὶ ὑπομένων.

On account of ὀργίζεσθαι καὶ πεινῶν καὶ ῥιγῶν καὶ ἄλλο ὁτιοῦν τῶν τοιούτων πάσχων in the previous sentence, it appears to me certain (1) that καὶ διὰ τὸ πεινῆν etc. is right as against καὶ διὰ τοῦ πεινῆν etc., and (2) that these words should be construed with ζεῖ τε καὶ χαλεπαίνει. That which in the first case was represented as the cause of anger should be so represented in the second case also. The same view was held by Schneider. It is more difficult to defend ὑπομένων καί, and Schneider is probably justified in preferring the less authoritative reading καὶ ὑπομένων. The expression πάσχειν ὑπομένων can hardly be a mere periphrasis for πάσχειν, nor is πάσχειν ὑπομένων altogether equivalent to ὑπομένειν πάσχων, as Jowett supposes. If the best MSS are right in placing καὶ after ὑπομένων, it is possible that ὑπομένων is corrupt, and conceals ὑπό with a genitive (cf. πάσχων ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου in the parallel passage just before), but until the right correction has been proposed, we must adhere to the text of Ξ.

The subject of ζεῖ and the other verbs is supposed by J. and C. to be not the man himself, but ὁ θυμός. This is unlikely, on account of πεινῆν etc., and still more of τελευτήσῃ. The parallel with 440 C τοσούτῳ ἧττον δύναται ὀργίζεσθαι κτλ. is also in favour of making the individual the subject.

That the text of A is in the main sound I have no doubt, although I should like to read καὶ ξυμμαχεῖ τῷ δοκοῦντι δικαίῳ after πάσχειν rather than after χαλεπαίνει.

There is an unusually large supply of emendations. That of Madvig is peculiarly unhappy, though adopted by Baiter in his text, and apparently approved by Apelt (Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1895 p. 968): καὶ δἰ αὐτὸ πεινῆν καὶ δἰ αὐτὸ ῥιγοῦν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα πάσχειν ὑπομένων, κἂν νικᾶται, οὐ λήγει κτλ. The other proposals are enumerated by Hartman. They are as follows: καὶ διὰ τὸ πεινῆν καὶ διὰ τὸ— πάσχειν καὶ ὑπομένει νικᾶν καὶ οὐ λήγει κτλ. (Ast): καὶ δἰ αὐτὸ πεινῆν καὶ δἰ αὐτὸ—πάσχειν ὑπομένων διανεκῆ οὐ λήγει κτλ. (H. Sauppe, quoted by Hartman): καὶ διὰ τοῦ πεινῆν καὶ διὰ τοῦ—πάσχων ὑπομένειν νικᾷ καὶ κτλ. (Liebhold): καὶ διὰ τοῦ πεινῆν καὶ διὰ τοῦ κτλ. (Campbell, who in other respects acquiesces in the text of A): καὶ διὰ τοῦ πεινῆν καὶ διὰ τοῦ—ὑπομένων [καὶ] νικᾶν [καὶ] οὐ λήγει κτλ. (Hartman). Richards apparently accepts the suggestion of Madvig as far as it goes, but thinks that τῶν γενναίων ‘is most feeble. Plainly Plato wrote οὐ λήγει ἀγανακτῶν, possibly with some additional word before ἀγανακτῶν’ (Cl. Rev. VII p. 254). The reading printed above is not only more authoritative but also in my judgment infinitely better than any of these rash and unjustifiable alterations.