James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

μετέχοντα. Cf. Phaed. 100 D. The words by which Plato describes the relation of Ideas and particulars are of necessity figurative. κοινωνία is the vaguest, and least metaphorical; side by side with it comes παρουσία (of the Idea) and μέθεξις (of the particular). A somewhat different figure is involved when the Idea is regarded as the Original (Urbild), and the particular as its likeness. Plato does not scruple to use both figures side by side: here, for example, the Idea was a παράδειγμα just above (αὐτὸ—ᾧ ἔοικεν 476 C: cf. VI 500 E ff., X 596 B).

οὗτος. Dümmler (Antisthenica p. 42) supposes that Plato means Antisthenes. There was undoubtedly no love lost between the two philosophers: see the authorities cited in Urban Ueber die Erwähnungen der Phil. d. Antisthenes in d. Pl. Schr. (Königsberg 1882), and Zeller^{4} II 1, p. 296 note 2. Antisthenes was in particular a bitter opponent of the Theory of Ideas. The passage of arms between Plato and him is well known: ὦ Πλάτων, ἵππον μὲν ὁρῶ, ἱππότητα δὲ οὐχ ὁρῶ, καὶ ὃς εἶπεν ἔχεις μὲν ᾧ ἵππος ὁρᾶται, τόδε τὸ ὄμμα, ᾧ δε ἱππότης θεωρεῖται, οὐδέπω κέκτησαι (Simplicius in Schol. Arist. 66^{b} 44 ed. Brandis, and other authorities quoted by Urban l.c. p. 3). It is no doubt true, as Stein observes in his Geschichte des Platonismus, that Plato's “Kunst verallgemeinert nicht bloss das Historische, sondern individualisiert auch das Allgemeine”; but Antisthenes himself could scarcely deny that the cap fits. The deictic οὗτος is in favour of Dümmler's view, which certainly adds point to the whole passage; note in particular χαλεπαίνῃ, παραμυθεῖσθαι, πείθειν ἠρέμα (allusions perhaps to the ferocity of his opponent: Antisthenes had nicknamed Plato Σάθων! cf. Ath. V 220 D), οὐχ ὑγιαίνει (‘is barely sane’), οὐδεὶς αὐτῷ φθόνος, and the delightful innuendo ἄσμενοι ἂν ἴδοιμεν εἰδότα τι. Antisthenes himself wrote a work περὶ δόξης καὶ ἐπιστήμης (D. L. VI 17), and Plato may well be thinking of it here: see next note. But we must be careful to note that Plato, even if we allow that Antisthenes is in his mind, does not refer to Antisthenes alone; he merely individualizes the type in him.