James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

μεμιγμένην and μέμικται sound half-technical, and it is clear from Laws 712 D ff., 691 E, 693 D, Isocr. Nicocles 24 (with Areop. 61) and Arist. Pol. Δ 9. 1294^{b} 18 ff. that Greek political theorists were in the habit of viewing the Spartan constitution as a ‘mixed polity,’ although they did not always analyse the μῖξις in the same way: cf. Henkel Studien zur Gesch. d. Gr. Lehre v. Staat p. 62 notes 35, 36, and Whibley Gk Olig. pp. 14, 19. The analysis which is attributed to Archytas may serve as a specimen: δεῖ δὴ τὸν νόμον τὸν κάρρονα καὶ τὰν πόλιν ἐκ πασᾶν σύνθετον ἦμεν τᾶν ἄλλαν πολιτειᾶν, καὶ ἔχεν τι δαμοκρατίας, ἔχεν τι ὀλιγαρχίας, ἔχεν τι βασιλῄας καὶ ἀριστοκρατίας, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τᾷ Λακεδαίμονι. τοὶ μὲν γὰρ βασιλέες τᾶς μοναρχίας, τοὶ δὲ γέροντες τᾶς ἀριστοκρατίας, τοὶ δὲ ἔφοροι τᾶς ὀλιγαρχίας, ἱππαγρέται δὲ καὶ κόροι τᾶς δαμοκρατίας (Stobaeus Flor. 43. 134). On mixed polities in ancient political science see Henkel l.c. pp. 85 ff., 102, 106 ff., 112, 115 and Greenidge Gr. Const. Hist. pp. 74—121.

ἕν τι μόνον. For τι μόνον Apelt conjectures τιμώμενον: but Plato expresses himself emphatically in case the oligarchical features of the Spartan polity should make us forget that after all it is and must be essentially θυμο-κρατία—the expression of θυμοειδές and not φιλοχρήματον (547 C note).

φιλονικίαι κτλ. Cf. Plut. Ages. 5. 4. Plato is not thinking of ‘divisions in Sparta between the partisans of the ephors and kings’ (as J. and C. suppose), but of the passion ὑπείροχον ἐμμέναι ἄλλων: for this and not ‘quarrelsomeness’ is the distinctive feature of timarchy. We are in danger of misconceiving the whole position of ‘timarchy’ and the ‘timarchical’ man if φιλόνικος (or φιλόνεικος) is connected with νεῖκος instead of with νίκη. On the spelling and derivation of the word see IX 581 B note