Difference between revisions of "Plato/Republic/Badiou-Spitzer"

From Monoskop
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 5: Line 5:
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|1.341d-342e}}}|1.341d-342e|
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|1.341d-342e}}}|1.341d-342e|
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
: [T]he doctor and the admiral each has his own particular interest. And the aim of each one’s skill is to seek out and then provide each one with that interest. A skill considered in itself obviously has no particular interest except to be as perfect as possible. So we can...
+
: [..] [T]he doctor and the admiral each has his own particular interest. And the aim of each one’s skill is to seek out and then provide each one with that interest. A skill considered in itself obviously has no particular interest except to be as perfect as possible. So we can...
 
: –Hold on! Not so fast! ''Thrasymachus interrupted him''. What’s all this business about the interest of a skill the only interest of which is the interest of someone who possesses that skill? I can see one of Socrates’ typical dirty tricks coming on.
 
: –Hold on! Not so fast! ''Thrasymachus interrupted him''. What’s all this business about the interest of a skill the only interest of which is the interest of someone who possesses that skill? I can see one of Socrates’ typical dirty tricks coming on.
 
: –Let me be crystal-clear. Suppose you asked me whether the body is self-sufficient or lacking something. I’d reply: “Sure it’s lacking something! That’s precisely why medical skill as we know it today was invented. The body is often in poor condition and can’t get by on its own. Medical skill was developed and organized to serve the interests of the body.” And, knowing trusty Thrasymachus, I’m sure he’ll agree with my answer.
 
: –Let me be crystal-clear. Suppose you asked me whether the body is self-sufficient or lacking something. I’d reply: “Sure it’s lacking something! That’s precisely why medical skill as we know it today was invented. The body is often in poor condition and can’t get by on its own. Medical skill was developed and organized to serve the interests of the body.” And, knowing trusty Thrasymachus, I’m sure he’ll agree with my answer.
Line 19: Line 19:
 
: ''Thrasymachus frowned, sensing a trap. But how could he avoid it? He decided to go for bravura:''
 
: ''Thrasymachus frowned, sensing a trap. But how could he avoid it? He decided to go for bravura:''
 
: –I for one don’t think anyone can deny that.
 
: –I for one don’t think anyone can deny that.
: –So a technique is in the position of a ruler, in other words of a commander, with respect to its object. Medicine rules the body; the admiral is the commander of the sailors. As far as sick bodies and sailors slaving away are concerned, doctors and admirals are the stronger parties. However – and you yourself admitted as much, without the slightest hesitation – they in no way serve their own interest but only the interest of the weaker, of whatever’s ruled by them: the body, whose good health they desire, or the sailors, whom they want to see succeeding in sailing properly. So no technical skill either considers or prescribes what’s in the interest of the stronger. Finally we see that no ruler, no government conceived of as a ruler either considers or prescribes what serves his (or its) own interest. On the contrary, a ruler prescribes what’s in the interest of those he commands or rules and for whom he practices his skill. And it is with those people in mind – the subjects, the people who are ruled over, the sufferers, all of life’s galley slaves – that a true master says what he says and does what he does. (2013:22-24)
+
: –So a technique is in the position of a ruler, in other words of a commander, with respect to its object. Medicine rules the body; the admiral is the commander of the sailors. As far as sick bodies and sailors slaving away are concerned, doctors and admirals are the stronger parties. However – and you yourself admitted as much, without the slightest hesitation – they in no way serve their own interest but only the interest of the weaker, of whatever’s ruled by them: the body, whose good health they desire, or the sailors, whom they want to see succeeding in sailing properly. So no technical skill either considers or prescribes what’s in the interest of the stronger. Finally we see that no ruler, no government conceived of as a ruler either considers or prescribes what serves his (or its) own interest. On the contrary, a ruler prescribes what’s in the interest of those he commands or rules and for whom he practices his skill. And it is with those people in mind – the subjects, the people who are ruled over, the sufferers, all of life’s galley slaves – that a true master says what he says and does what he does. [..] (2013:22-24)
 
}}</onlyinclude>
 
}}</onlyinclude>
  
Line 25: Line 25:
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|1.345e-347a}}}|1.345e-347a|
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|1.345e-347a}}}|1.345e-347a|
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
: –Knowledge is sacred. But knowledge, the lofty discipline of sociology, also teaches us that, when it comes to most government posts – under-secretaryships of this or that, cabinet posts, committees, commissions, bureaux, and agencies – nobody’s willing to head them up for no pay. Inasmuch as they aren’t going to personally profit from this little bit of power and they’ll have to deal with the public, they demand a salary, and a very high one at that. So let’s take a step back. Whenever one of the techniques is different from the others, don’t we say that it’s different because its own particular function is different from the others’ functions?
+
: [..] –Knowledge is sacred. But knowledge, the lofty discipline of sociology, also teaches us that, when it comes to most government posts – under-secretaryships of this or that, cabinet posts, committees, commissions, bureaux, and agencies – nobody’s willing to head them up for no pay. Inasmuch as they aren’t going to personally profit from this little bit of power and they’ll have to deal with the public, they demand a salary, and a very high one at that. So let’s take a step back. Whenever one of the techniques is different from the others, don’t we say that it’s different because its own particular function is different from the others’ functions?
 
: –Wow! ''said Amantha, turning to Thrasymachus''. Be careful you don’t get lost in the maze of what’s different from some other thing, because each of the other things is different from the other thing...
 
: –Wow! ''said Amantha, turning to Thrasymachus''. Be careful you don’t get lost in the maze of what’s different from some other thing, because each of the other things is different from the other thing...
 
: –My answer, ''Thrasymachus declared, not without a certain pomposity,'' is perfectly clear. It is indeed on account of its function that one technique differs from another.
 
: –My answer, ''Thrasymachus declared, not without a certain pomposity,'' is perfectly clear. It is indeed on account of its function that one technique differs from another.
Line 37: Line 37:
 
: ''Thrasymachus sensed that the jaws of the argument were threatening to crush him. He put on an air of mock deference and said in an ironic tone of voice:''
 
: ''Thrasymachus sensed that the jaws of the argument were threatening to crush him. He put on an air of mock deference and said in an ironic tone of voice:''
 
: –If you say so, Socrates, then I’ll say so, too.
 
: –If you say so, Socrates, then I’ll say so, too.
: –Then you’ll have to accept the consequences. It’s in fact now been established that no technique and no position of authority has its own interest as either its aim or its function. As I already said, a technique, if that’s what we’re dealing with, is only concerned with and prescribes what’s in the interest of whatever its object and stakes are. And, if it’s a position of authority, its aim is only the interest of the people under its authority. That’s why I said a moment ago, my dear Thrasymachus, that no one, of his own free will, wanted to be in charge of anything, let alone commit to treating and resolving other people’s troubles, without getting paid for it. For in that sort of  situation the interest of the weaker, not of the stronger, has to be taken into consideration. The upshot is that everyone demands a wage for it. Of course they do! Someone who practices a technique efficiently and properly when taking care of a client is never concerned with or prescribes his ''own'' good. He only cares about what’s best for the person he’s working for, to whom he’s nevertheless superior, since he’s mastered a technique that the other person doesn’t know a thing about. That’s why, to remedy this apparent paradox – the superior one in the service of the inferior one – a very high wage almost always has to be given to the person who accepts a very senior position, a wage paid in cash or in the form of various honors. As for the person who obstinately refuses to accept such a position, he’ll earn his wages in the form of a punishment. (2013:28-30)
+
: –Then you’ll have to accept the consequences. It’s in fact now been established that no technique and no position of authority has its own interest as either its aim or its function. As I already said, a technique, if that’s what we’re dealing with, is only concerned with and prescribes what’s in the interest of whatever its object and stakes are. And, if it’s a position of authority, its aim is only the interest of the people under its authority. That’s why I said a moment ago, my dear Thrasymachus, that no one, of his own free will, wanted to be in charge of anything, let alone commit to treating and resolving other people’s troubles, without getting paid for it. For in that sort of  situation the interest of the weaker, not of the stronger, has to be taken into consideration. The upshot is that everyone demands a wage for it. Of course they do! Someone who practices a technique efficiently and properly when taking care of a client is never concerned with or prescribes his ''own'' good. He only cares about what’s best for the person he’s working for, to whom he’s nevertheless superior, since he’s mastered a technique that the other person doesn’t know a thing about. That’s why, to remedy this apparent paradox – the superior one in the service of the inferior one – a very high wage almost always has to be given to the person who accepts a very senior position, a wage paid in cash or in the form of various honors. As for the person who obstinately refuses to accept such a position, he’ll earn his wages in the form of a punishment. [..] (2013:28-30)
 
}}</onlyinclude>
 
}}</onlyinclude>
  
Line 43: Line 43:
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|7.533a-c}}}|7.533a-c|
 
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|7.533a-c}}}|7.533a-c|
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
 
====Badiou/Spitzer====
: –There’s one point, at any rate, that no one will quibble with us about. It’s when we say that a thought process, not reducible to  mathematics, exists that, no matter what the domain under consideration, endeavors to grasp, by the end of a methodical procedure, the true being of everything existing in that domain.
+
: [..] –There’s one point, at any rate, that no one will quibble with us about. It’s when we say that a thought process, not reducible to  mathematics, exists that, no matter what the domain under consideration, endeavors to grasp, by the end of a methodical procedure, the true being of everything existing in that domain.
 
: –But aside from your dialectic, ''objected Glaucon'', there’s still a considerable difference between the ordinary techniques and higher mathematics.
 
: –But aside from your dialectic, ''objected Glaucon'', there’s still a considerable difference between the ordinary techniques and higher mathematics.
 
: –Let’s say that current techniques and disciplines are descriptive or empirical in the following way: either they deal with people’s opinions and desires, as is the case with the so-called “humanities and social sciences;” or they’re only concerned with the development and structure of visible things (I’m thinking of geology, botany, or zoology); or else they’re about teaching people how to feed cattle or make plants grow, or even about their learning the rules for making and taking care of manufactured things, which is a matter of technology. As for the genuine sciences – physics, and especially  mathematics – about which we said that they grasp something of being ''qua'' being, we’ve got to admit there, too, that at one level, since they proceed without any need for a thinking of their own process, they’re a bit like the sudden appearance of Truth in a dream, rather than like Truth itself. They don’t shed true light, the light of day, on their own conclusions. We can understand why this is so when we note, as we’ve already done, that these sciences make do with hypotheses or contingent observations that their practitioners say they’ll leave untouched, given that they can’t account for them rationally other than by asserting how very valuable their consequences are. Yet, if the intrinsic value of the first principle is unknown and both the conclusion and the intermediate steps leading to it are thereby  compounded of ignorance, could we call “science,” in the unconditional or absolute tone implied by that word, the conventional organization of all this, however logical it might be?
 
: –Let’s say that current techniques and disciplines are descriptive or empirical in the following way: either they deal with people’s opinions and desires, as is the case with the so-called “humanities and social sciences;” or they’re only concerned with the development and structure of visible things (I’m thinking of geology, botany, or zoology); or else they’re about teaching people how to feed cattle or make plants grow, or even about their learning the rules for making and taking care of manufactured things, which is a matter of technology. As for the genuine sciences – physics, and especially  mathematics – about which we said that they grasp something of being ''qua'' being, we’ve got to admit there, too, that at one level, since they proceed without any need for a thinking of their own process, they’re a bit like the sudden appearance of Truth in a dream, rather than like Truth itself. They don’t shed true light, the light of day, on their own conclusions. We can understand why this is so when we note, as we’ve already done, that these sciences make do with hypotheses or contingent observations that their practitioners say they’ll leave untouched, given that they can’t account for them rationally other than by asserting how very valuable their consequences are. Yet, if the intrinsic value of the first principle is unknown and both the conclusion and the intermediate steps leading to it are thereby  compounded of ignorance, could we call “science,” in the unconditional or absolute tone implied by that word, the conventional organization of all this, however logical it might be?
 
: –And yet they ''are'' really sciences, ''grumbled Glaucon''. They’re not just descriptions or observations that depend on our sensory perception of the world.
 
: –And yet they ''are'' really sciences, ''grumbled Glaucon''. They’re not just descriptions or observations that depend on our sensory perception of the world.
: –Certainly! (2013:237-8)
+
: –Certainly! [..] (2013:237-8)
 
}}</onlyinclude>
 
}}</onlyinclude>
  
 
{{:Plato/Republic|transcludesection=bottom}}
 
{{:Plato/Republic|transcludesection=bottom}}

Revision as of 07:53, 27 September 2014

One of the oldest papyri (P.Oxy. 3157) containing fragment of Plato's Republic, 2nd century CE. [1]

The Republic (Περὶ πολιτείας; Peri politeias) is Plato (Πλάτων)'s best-known work and has proven to be one of the most intellectually and historically influential works of philosophy and political theory. In it, Socrates along with various Athenians and foreigners discuss the meaning of justice (δικαιοσύνη) and examine whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man by considering a series of different cities coming into existence "in speech", culminating in a city (Kallipolis) ruled by philosopher-kings; and by examining the nature of existing regimes. The participants also discuss the theory of forms, the immortality of the soul, and the roles of the philosopher and of poetics in society. It was written sometime between 380 and 360 BCE.


The division of the Republic into ten books is due not to Plato but to his early editors and probably to the length of the papyrus rolls ("books") on which the dialogues were written. (Larson 1979:xx)

G.J. Boter in his book on the transmission history of the text (1989) recognizes its three primary witnesses: Parisinus gr. 1807 (A), Venetus Marcianus gr. 185 (coll. 576) (D) and Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 39 (F). Besides them, there are eleven papyri containing fragments of the Republic, all dating from the second and third century CE.

Passages

Passages

1.341d-342e

The interest of technê is in its subject rather than in itself; as can be shown by the example of medicine.

Edition: Adam 1903. Translations: Jowett 1871/88 EN, Grube/Reeve 1974/97 EN, Badiou/Spitzer 2013 EN.

Badiou/Spitzer

[..] [T]he doctor and the admiral each has his own particular interest. And the aim of each one’s skill is to seek out and then provide each one with that interest. A skill considered in itself obviously has no particular interest except to be as perfect as possible. So we can...
–Hold on! Not so fast! Thrasymachus interrupted him. What’s all this business about the interest of a skill the only interest of which is the interest of someone who possesses that skill? I can see one of Socrates’ typical dirty tricks coming on.
–Let me be crystal-clear. Suppose you asked me whether the body is self-sufficient or lacking something. I’d reply: “Sure it’s lacking something! That’s precisely why medical skill as we know it today was invented. The body is often in poor condition and can’t get by on its own. Medical skill was developed and organized to serve the interests of the body.” And, knowing trusty Thrasymachus, I’m sure he’ll agree with my answer.
Thrasymachus sneered and blew his nose loudly.
–To agree with that sort of platitude any idiot would serve your purpose.
–So you agree, said Socrates softly. Now let’s ask whether medical skill, in its turn, is in poor condition in the same way as the body. If so, it might need some other kind of skill to serve its interest and provide it with what it lacks. Do we need to go on? Do we need to grant that, for the same reasons, this second skill itself needs a third – and so on, ad infinitum? If this infinite regress seems odd, we can go back to the beginning and assume instead that medical skill itself sees to remedying its own defects. And the third possibility is that a skill requires neither a second skill nor itself to obtain what it lacks, given that, as a true skill, it has no deficiencies or flaws. In effect, we observe that a skill seeks only the interest of what it deals with, and, provided it’s genuine, it remains faultless and flawless for as long as it remains, in the strict sense of the word “skill,” entirely what it is. So there are three possibilities. Number one: to compensate for what it lacks, every “technique,” which is sometimes how techne is translated – “professional skill” is a lot more precise, but clumsy – requires a technique of that technique, and so on ad infinitum. Number two: every technique is clearly a technique of itself and can therefore compensate for its own deficiencies. Number three: considered in and for itself, a technique lacks for nothing. My dear Thrasymachus, consider these three possibilities and tell us which one – in your opinion, of course – is the right one.
–In my opinion, it’s the third one, without a doubt.
–Wonderful! So medicine isn’t concerned with the interest of medicine but only with the interests of the body; the technique of horse training pays no heed to horse training but only to the horse. A technique cares nothing about its own interest – it doesn’t have one anyway – but only about the interest of its object, about what the skill that defines it deals with.
–All you’re doing, in my opinion, is repeating my choice of the third hypothesis. Always the same old Socratic hot air!
–I’m doing it so that you won’t accuse me of setting any traps for you. Here’s my question: a skill gets the results it seeks from whatever it deals with, doesn’t it? Otherwise it’s not a skill, it’s only the technique of nothing.
–Obviously! The “long detours” you go off on are so simple-minded!
–But anything that gets the results it expects from something is, in actual fact, what’s in command of – or what exercises its authority over – that thing, isn’t it?
Thrasymachus frowned, sensing a trap. But how could he avoid it? He decided to go for bravura:
–I for one don’t think anyone can deny that.
–So a technique is in the position of a ruler, in other words of a commander, with respect to its object. Medicine rules the body; the admiral is the commander of the sailors. As far as sick bodies and sailors slaving away are concerned, doctors and admirals are the stronger parties. However – and you yourself admitted as much, without the slightest hesitation – they in no way serve their own interest but only the interest of the weaker, of whatever’s ruled by them: the body, whose good health they desire, or the sailors, whom they want to see succeeding in sailing properly. So no technical skill either considers or prescribes what’s in the interest of the stronger. Finally we see that no ruler, no government conceived of as a ruler either considers or prescribes what serves his (or its) own interest. On the contrary, a ruler prescribes what’s in the interest of those he commands or rules and for whom he practices his skill. And it is with those people in mind – the subjects, the people who are ruled over, the sufferers, all of life’s galley slaves – that a true master says what he says and does what he does. [..] (2013:22-24)

1.345e-347a

Technai are also differentiated according to their dunamis. The true ruler and artist seek not their own advantage, but the perfection of their technai.

Edition: Adam 1903. Translations: Jowett 1871/88 EN, Grube/Reeve 1974/97 EN, Badiou/Spitzer 2013 EN.

Badiou/Spitzer

[..] –Knowledge is sacred. But knowledge, the lofty discipline of sociology, also teaches us that, when it comes to most government posts – under-secretaryships of this or that, cabinet posts, committees, commissions, bureaux, and agencies – nobody’s willing to head them up for no pay. Inasmuch as they aren’t going to personally profit from this little bit of power and they’ll have to deal with the public, they demand a salary, and a very high one at that. So let’s take a step back. Whenever one of the techniques is different from the others, don’t we say that it’s different because its own particular function is different from the others’ functions?
–Wow! said Amantha, turning to Thrasymachus. Be careful you don’t get lost in the maze of what’s different from some other thing, because each of the other things is different from the other thing...
–My answer, Thrasymachus declared, not without a certain pomposity, is perfectly clear. It is indeed on account of its function that one technique differs from another.
–And each technique brings us a distinct and particular benefit, Socrates continued. When it comes to medicine, it’s health; to piloting an airplane, it’s speed and safety during the trip, and so on with all the others. Yes or no?
–Yes! I keep saying the same thing to you! Yes!
–And the technique... Oh, I really hate that translation of techne! I’ll come up with a different one as the night goes on. Anyway, the technique whose former name used to be “mercenarism” and that, now that it’s ubiquitous, is called “wage earning” has no specific function other than to bring in wages. Naturally, you’d never confuse a doctor with an airline pilot. If – and this is the rule that you, the stickler for precise language, are imposing on us – we have to define words with the utmost precision, we’d never call a ship’s captain a “doctor” merely because the passengers, intoxicated by the sea air, are in great shape. So, I ask you, can we call any old form of wage earning “medicine” inasmuch as the wage earner feels better because he’s received his pay?
–What are you getting at with all this balderdash? grumbled Thrasymachus.
–I’m getting to the fateful moment of my argument when all the different strands come together and everything becomes clear. Listen carefully to my question: are you going to equate medicine with wage earning by arguing that when the doctor cures people he earns a wage?
–That would be ludicrous.
–You acknowledged that each technique, considered in itself, brings us some benefit and that this benefit is a unique one, distinct from the one that another technique provides us. So if several different techniques bring us the same benefit, it’s clear that that benefit derives from a common element that’s added to the particular function of each of the techniques under consideration. Applying this principle is easy in the case at hand. When the practitioner of a given technique earns a wage, it’s because he has added to the technique of which he’s the expert that other, more general technique we called wage earning. But if he doesn’t earn any wage, his technical performance is not nullified for all that. It’s still what it is, and, in its being, it remains altogether external to the wage earned.
Thrasymachus sensed that the jaws of the argument were threatening to crush him. He put on an air of mock deference and said in an ironic tone of voice:
–If you say so, Socrates, then I’ll say so, too.
–Then you’ll have to accept the consequences. It’s in fact now been established that no technique and no position of authority has its own interest as either its aim or its function. As I already said, a technique, if that’s what we’re dealing with, is only concerned with and prescribes what’s in the interest of whatever its object and stakes are. And, if it’s a position of authority, its aim is only the interest of the people under its authority. That’s why I said a moment ago, my dear Thrasymachus, that no one, of his own free will, wanted to be in charge of anything, let alone commit to treating and resolving other people’s troubles, without getting paid for it. For in that sort of situation the interest of the weaker, not of the stronger, has to be taken into consideration. The upshot is that everyone demands a wage for it. Of course they do! Someone who practices a technique efficiently and properly when taking care of a client is never concerned with or prescribes his own good. He only cares about what’s best for the person he’s working for, to whom he’s nevertheless superior, since he’s mastered a technique that the other person doesn’t know a thing about. That’s why, to remedy this apparent paradox – the superior one in the service of the inferior one – a very high wage almost always has to be given to the person who accepts a very senior position, a wage paid in cash or in the form of various honors. As for the person who obstinately refuses to accept such a position, he’ll earn his wages in the form of a punishment. [..] (2013:28-30)

7.533a-c

Only the science of dialectic goes directly to the first principle, while art not (being dependent on the senses).

Edition: Adam 1903. Translations: Jowett 1871/88 EN, Grube/Reeve 1974/97 EN, Badiou/Spitzer 2013 EN.

Badiou/Spitzer

[..] –There’s one point, at any rate, that no one will quibble with us about. It’s when we say that a thought process, not reducible to mathematics, exists that, no matter what the domain under consideration, endeavors to grasp, by the end of a methodical procedure, the true being of everything existing in that domain.
–But aside from your dialectic, objected Glaucon, there’s still a considerable difference between the ordinary techniques and higher mathematics.
–Let’s say that current techniques and disciplines are descriptive or empirical in the following way: either they deal with people’s opinions and desires, as is the case with the so-called “humanities and social sciences;” or they’re only concerned with the development and structure of visible things (I’m thinking of geology, botany, or zoology); or else they’re about teaching people how to feed cattle or make plants grow, or even about their learning the rules for making and taking care of manufactured things, which is a matter of technology. As for the genuine sciences – physics, and especially mathematics – about which we said that they grasp something of being qua being, we’ve got to admit there, too, that at one level, since they proceed without any need for a thinking of their own process, they’re a bit like the sudden appearance of Truth in a dream, rather than like Truth itself. They don’t shed true light, the light of day, on their own conclusions. We can understand why this is so when we note, as we’ve already done, that these sciences make do with hypotheses or contingent observations that their practitioners say they’ll leave untouched, given that they can’t account for them rationally other than by asserting how very valuable their consequences are. Yet, if the intrinsic value of the first principle is unknown and both the conclusion and the intermediate steps leading to it are thereby compounded of ignorance, could we call “science,” in the unconditional or absolute tone implied by that word, the conventional organization of all this, however logical it might be?
–And yet they are really sciences, grumbled Glaucon. They’re not just descriptions or observations that depend on our sensory perception of the world.
–Certainly! [..] (2013:237-8)

Manuscripts

The first page of Peri politeias in Parisinus graecus 1807, 9th c., Gallica.

Primary manuscripts

  • Parisinus graecus 1807 [A], 9th c., Gallica. Both A1 and A2 are identical with the scribe; A2 indicates the readings he added after the whole text had been written, as can be seen from the different colour of the ink. Kept at Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. For more, see Boter 1989:81-6.
  • Venetus Marcianus graecus 185 [D] (numero di collocazione 576), 12th c. For more, see Boter 1989:92-4 and Slings 2005:154. Parts are absent (507e3–515d7 and 612e8–621d5).
  • Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 39 [F], 13-14th c. For more, see Boter 1989:101-4.

Sourced from Slings 2005:195.

Secondary manuscripts

  • Bononiensis 3630, 13-14th c. (Bon). A gemellus of Vind.phil.gr. 89, deriving from Dac.
  • Caesenas D 28,4 (Malatestianus), 15th c. (M). A gemellus of Laur.CS.42 (see below), deriving from A.
  • Laurentianus 80.7, 15th c. (α). A heavily contaminated MS, deriving indirectly from Laur.CS.42 (see below).
  • Laurentianus 80.19, 14-15th c. (β). An indirect copy of Parisinus gr. 1810 (see below), corrected (sometimes from its exemplar) by a highly intelligent scribe (see Boter 1989:203-14).
  • Laurentianus 85.7, 15th c. (x). A copy of F.
  • Laurentianus Conventi Soppressi 42, 12-13th c. (γ). A gemellus of Caes.D.28.4 (see above), deriving from A.
  • Monacensis graecus 237, 15th c. (q). A copy of Laur.80.19 (see above).
  • Parisinus graecus 1642, 14th c. (K). A gemellus of Laur.80.19 (see above) in books I–III.
  • Parisinus graecus 1810, 14th c. (Par). Derives from D as corrected by D2 and D3.
  • Pragensis Radnice VI.F.a.1 (Lobc[ovicianus]), 14-15th c.. Derives from Scor. y.1.13 (see below).
  • Scorialensis y.1.13, 13-14th c. (Sc). Derives from Ven.Marc.App.Cl. IV,1 up to 389d7, from Dac from 389d7 on.
  • Scorialensis Ψ.1.1, dated 1462 (Ψ). Derives from D as corrected by D2 and D3.
  • Vaticanus graecus 229, 14th c.. An indirect copy of Parisinus gr. 1810 (see above).
  • Venetus Marcianus gr. 184 (coll. 326), c1450 (E); written by Johannes Rhosus for Bessarion. A direct copy of Marc.187.
  • Venetus Marcianus gr. 187 (coll. 742), c1450 (N). An indirect copy of Venetus Marcianus App. Cl. IV,1 (T) in books I–II; an indirect copy of Laur.85.9 (which derives from A) in books III–X. Written for, and heavily corrected by, Bessarion.
  • Venetus Marcianus App. Cl. IV,1 (coll. 542), c950 (up to 389d7), s. xv (the remainder) (T). A, indirect copy of A until 389d7; an indirect copy of Dac after 389d7.
  • Vindobonensis phil. gr. 1, 16th c. (V). An indirect copy of Laur.85.9, which derives from A.
  • Vindobonensis phil. gr. 89, c1500 (Vind). A gemellus of Bonon.3630, deriving from Dac.
  • Vindobonensis suppl. gr. 7, 14th c. (the part containing R.) (W). An indirect copy of D.

Sourced from Slings 2005:195-6.

P.Oxy. 3509, 3rd c. [2]

Papyri

  • P.Oxy. 35091], third century CE, Image. Contains fragments from 330a2–b4; many gaps at the beginning of the lines.
  • P.Flor. inv. 19942], second-third century CE. Contains fragments from 399d10–e3; only the ends of the lines are preserved.
  • P.Oxy. 4553], third century CE. Contains fragments from 406a5–b4; some gaps at the beginnings of the lines. [3]
  • P.Oxy. 27514], late second or early third century CE, Image. Contains fragments from 412c–414b; many gaps.
  • P.Oxy. 4565], late second or early third century CE. Contains fragments from 422c8–d2; gaps at the beginnings and ends of the lines. [4]
  • P.Oxy. 36796], third century CE, Image. Contains fragments from 472e4–473a5, some gaps; and 473d1–d5, only the beginnings of the lines are preserved.
  • PRIMI I 107], third century CE. Contains fragments from 485c10–d6 and 486b10–c3; gaps at the beginnings and ends of the lines.
  • P.Oxy. 33268], second century CE, Image. Contains fragments from 545c1–546a3; parts missing.
  • P.Oxy. 18089], late second century CE, Image. Contains fragments from 546b–547d; some corrections in a later hand; some gaps.
  • P.Oxy. 2410], third century CE. Contains fragments from 607e4–608a1; some gaps. [5]
  • P.Oxy. 315711], second century CE, Images. Contains fragments from 610c7–611a7, 611c5–d2, 611e1–612c7 and 613a1–7; many gaps at the beginnings and ends of the lines.

Sourced from Boter 1989:252-7 (see for more details), which also establishes the Π sygla, Google.

Editions, commentaries

The first page of the 1513 edition, BSB.
  • Aldus Manutius, and Marcus Musurus, "Politeion", Omnia Platonis opera, [Venice]: Aldus, 1513, BSB. Editio princeps.
  • Oporinus, Johannes, and Simon Grynaeus, Platonis Omnia Opera Cum Commentariis Procli in Timaeum & Politica, thesauro veteris Philosophiae maximo, Basle [Basel]: Johannes Walder, 1534. Also contains a commentary of Proclus on the Republic. [6]
  • Stephanus, Henricus, Platonis opera quae exstant omnia, [Geneva], 1578.
  • Fr. Ast, Platonis Politia sive de Republica libri decem, Ienae [Jena], 1804; Ienae [Jena], 1820; 2nd ed., Lipsiae [Leipzig], 1814; 3rd ed. as Platonis quae exstant opera, IV–V, Lipsiae [Leipzig], 1822.
  • Bekker, I., Platonis dialogi, III 1, Berolini [Berlin], 1817. Critical notes in Commentaria critica in Platonem a se editum, Berolini [Berlin], 1823.
  • Stallbaum, G., Platonis quae supersunt opera, Leipzig, 1821-25 (R. 1823).
  • Stallbaum, G., Platonis dialogos selectos, III, 1–2, Gothae [Gotha] and Erfordiae [Erfurt], 1829-30.
  • Schneider, C.E.C., Platonis opera Graece, Lipsiae [Leipzig], 1830-33. Supplemented by his Additamenta ad Civitatis Platonis libros X, Lipsiae [Leipzig], 1854.
  • Baiter, J.G., J.C. Orelli, and A.W. Winckelmann, Platonis opera omnia, XIII, 1840; Turici [Zürich], 1874; Londini [London], 1881.
  • Hermann, Karl Friedrich, Platonis dialogi, IV, Leipzig: Teubner, 1852; Platonis: Rei Publicae libri decem, Lipsiae [Leipzig]: Teubner, 1880, IA.
  • Jowett, Benjamin, and Lewis Campbell, Plato's Republic: The Greek Text. Edited, with Notes and Essays in Three Volumes. Vol I. Text, Vol III. Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894, IA, IA, 3.
  • Adam, James, The Republic of Plato, edited, with critical notes, commentary, and appendices, University Press, 1897, IA; 1899; 1900, IA, 1900, IA, IA; 1902, IA, vol 1; repr. in Platonis Opera, ed. John Burnet, 1903, Perseus; 1905, IA/1; 1907, IA/2; 1921, IA, vol. 2; 1929, IA/2; 2nd ed., 2 vols., co-ed. D.A. Rees, Cambridge University Press, 1963; 1965; 1969; 1975; 1980; 2010.
  • Tucker, T.G., The Proem to the Ideal Commonwealth of Plato [Books I–II 368c], London: George Bell, 1900, IA.
  • Burnet, John, "Republic", in Platonis Opera, IV, Oxford University Press, 1903, Perseus.
  • Shorey, P., Plato, the Republic, London and Cambridge/MA: Loeb, 1930-35.
  • Chambry, Émile, Platon, Oeuvres complètes, VI–VII, Paris: Budé, 1932-34. The first editor who could make use of papyri; four of them were known at the time.
  • Allan, D.J., Plato’s Republic, Book I, London, 1955.
  • Slings, S.R., Platonis Rempublicam, Oxford: Oxford Classical Texts, 2003. The critical notes supporting Slings’ edition have been collected as Slings, S.R., Critical Notes on Plato’s Politeia, eds. Gerard Boter and Jan van Ophuijsen, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005, PDF.

Translations

Medieval Latin

The first page of the translation by Chrysoloras and Uberto, 1403.
  • Chrysoloras, Manuel, and Uberto Decembrio, 1403. Made in a close collaboration of Chrysoloras with his pupil Uberto in the years 1400-03. (Boter 1989:261-4)
  • Pier Candido Decembrio, 1441. Made by Uberto's son between 1437 and 1441; reworking of the Chrysoloras-Uberto translation. (Boter 1989:265-8)
  • Cassarino, Antonio, 1447. Made in the years 1438-47. (Boter 1989:268-70)
  • Ficino, Marsilio, 1484. Ficino relied at first on Latin translations of Plato; he studied Greek beginning in 1458-59 and in 1462 Cosimo the Elder and Amerigo Benci gave Ficino the gift of a Platonic Codex that Ficino began to translate into Latin. (Garin, Commentaries on Plato, 1, 2008:xxii; Boter 1989:270-8)

For a survey of the 15th-century Latin translations of the Republic, see Eugenio Garin, "Richerche sulle traduzioni di Platone nella prima metà del sec. XV", in Medioevo e rinascimento. Studi in onore di Bruno Nardi, I., Florence, 1955, pp 339-374; Paul Oskar Kristeller, "The first printed edition of Plato’s works and the date of its publication (1484)", in Science and History. Studies in Honour of Edward Rosen, 1978, pp 25-35; and Boter 1989:261-78, [7].

French

  • Grou, Jean Nicolas, La Republique de Platon ou Dialogue sur la justice], 2 vols., Paris: Brocas & Humblot, 1762, IA/1, IA/1, IA/2.
  • La République de Platon, 2 vols., Dresde [Dresden]: Les frères Walther, 1787, BSB/1, BSB/1, BSB/2.
  • Baccou, Robert, "La République. Traduction nouvelle avec introduction et notes", in Platon, Oeuvres complètes, tome 4, Paris: Garnier Frères, 1945.
  • Chambry, Émile, Platon: République, intro. Auguste Dies, Gonthier, 1963, 366 pp.
  • Leroux, G., Platon: La République, Paris, 2002.
  • Badiou, Alain, La République de Platon, Fayard, 2012.

English

  • Spens, H., The Republic of Plato in Ten Books, Glasgow: Robert and Andrew Foulis, 1763, IA; new ed., intro. Richard Garnett, London and Toronto: J.M. Dent, and New York: E.P. Dutton, 1906, IA.
  • Sydenham, Floyer, and Thomas Taylor, "The Republic", in The Works of Plato, Vol. 1, London, 1804, IA.
  • Davies, John Llewelyn, and David James Vaughan, The Republic of Plato. Translated into English, with an Analysis, and Notes, 1852, Google; 2nd ed., 1858; 1860; 3rd ed., Cambridge and London: Macmillan, 1866; 2 Vols, 1898; 1921, IA; London: Macmillan, 1927. [8] [9]
  • Burges, George, Plato: The Republic, Timaeus and Critias. New and literal version, London: H.G. Bohn, 1854.
  • Jowett, Benjamin, The Republic of Plato. Translated into English with Introduction, Analysis, Marginal Analysis and Index, 1871; 3rd ed., 1888, IA; rev. ed., Colonial Press, 1901, IA; 1907, IA; Roslyn, New York: Walter J. Black, 1942, OL; Vintage, 1955, OL; Doubleday, 1960, OL; 2008, PG. Repr. as "The Republic", in The Dialogues of Plato, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952, OL.
  • Wells, G.H., The Republic of Plato. Books I. and II. With an Introduction, Notes, and the Argument of the Dialogue, London: George Bell, 1882, IA; repr. 1888, IA.
  • Warren, T. Herbert, The Republic of Plato. Books I.-V. With Introduction and Notes, London: Macmillan, 1892, IA; repr. 1901, IA.
  • Taylor, Thomas, The Republic of Plato, ed. Theodore Wratislaw, London: Walter Scott, 1894, IA.
  • Bosanquet, Bernard, The Education of the Young in The Republic of Plato. Translated into English with Notes and Introduction, Cambridge: University Press, 1900, IA; repr. 1908, IA. Trans. of Book II (366 to end), Book III, and Book IV.
  • Davis, Henry, "Plato: The Republic", in The Republic. The Statesman, New York and London: M. Walter Dunne, 1901.
  • Lindsay, A.D., Plato: The Republic, London: J.M. Dent, 1906; 3rd ed. with Revised Text and Enlarged Introduction, 1923, IA; New York: Dutton, 1957, OL; intro. A. Nehamas, notes R. Bambrough, New York, 1992.
  • Sydenham, Floyer, and Thomas Taylor, The Republic of Plato, rev. by W.H.D. Rouse, intro. Ernest Barker, London: Methuen, 1906, IA.
  • Kerr, Alexander, Book III, Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1903, IA; Book VI, 1909, IA; The Republic of Plato. Book VII, 1911, IA; Book VIII, 1914, IA.
  • Shorey, Paul, Plato: Republic. Edited, translated, with notes and an introduction, London: W. Heinemann, 1930; repr. as Plato: The Republic. With an English Translation in Two Volumes, I: Books I-V, and II, Harvard University Press, and London: Heinemann, 1937, IA/1. Loeb Classical Library. [text, tr.]
  • Cornford, Francis MacDonald, The Republic of Plato. Translated with Introdution and Notes, Oxford University Press, 2 vols., 1941; 1945, OL; 1951, 400 pp; 1964, 366 pp; 1972; 1981.
  • Lee, Desmond, Plato: The Republic. Translated with an Introduction, Penguin, 1955; 2nd ed., 1974, OL; 1987; 2003, with a new bibliography by R. Kamtekar.
  • Rouse, W.H.D., "The Republic", in Great Dialogues of Plato, eds. Eric H. Warmington and Philip G. Rouse, New York and Toronto: New American Library, 1956, OL; 2008.
  • Bloom, Allan, The Republic of Plato. Translated, with notes and an interpretive essay, New York: Basic Books, 1968; 2nd ed., 1991, ARG, PDF. Contains long interpretive essay.
  • Shorey, Paul, Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6, Harvard University Press, and London: W. Heinemann, 1969, Perseus.
  • Grube, G.M.A., Plato: The Republic, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1974, OL; rev. by C.D.C. Reeve, 1992; repr. in Plato: Complete Works, ed. J. Cooper, Indianapolis, 1997.
  • Larson, Raymond, Plato: The Republic, intro. Eva T.H. Brann, Wheeling: Harlan Davidson, 1979.
  • Sterling, Richard W., and William C. Scott, Plato: The Republic: A New Translation, London: Norton, 1985, 320 pp; 1996.
  • Waterfield, Robin, Plato: Republic. Translated, with notes and an introduction, Oxford: Oxford World's Classics, 1993.
  • Blair, George A., Plato's Republic for Readers: A Constitution, University Press of America, 1998, 440 pp.
  • Griffith, Tom, Plato: The Republic, ed. G. R. F. Ferrari, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Reeve, C.D.C., Plato: The Republic. Translated from the New Standard Greek Text, with Introduction, Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004, ARG. Based on 2003 Slings edition.
  • Allen, R.E., Plato: The Republic, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
  • Sachs, Joe, Plato: Republic, Newburyport: Focus, 2007.
  • Tschemplik, Andrea, The Republic: The Comprehensive Student Edition, 2006.
  • Emlyn-Jones, Chris, and William Preddy, Plato V: Republic, Volume I. Books 1-5 and Plato VI: Republic, Volume II. Books 6-10, Harvard University Press, 2013, 567 and 503 pp. Loeb Classical Library edition. Review.
  • Spitzer, Susan, Plato's Republic: A Dialogue in 16 Chapters, intro. Kenneth Reinhard, Polity Press, 2013, 400 pp, ARG. English translation of a translation by Alain Badiou.
  • More.

Dutch

  • D. D. Burger, De Republiek van Plato, Amsterdam: P.N. van Kampen, 1849, IA.

German

  • Teuffel, Wilhelm Sigismund, and Wilhelm Wiegand, Platon's Werke. Zehn Bücher vom Staate, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1855/56, HTML, HTML; 8th ed.; repr. as "Der Staat", in Platon: Sämtliche Werke in drei Bänden, vol. 2, ed. Erich Loewenthal, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004, pp 5-407.
  • Schleiermacher, Friedrich, Plato's Staat, notes J.H. v. Kirchmann, Berlin: Heimann, 1870, IA.
  • Apelt, Otto, Platon: Der Staat, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1923; repr. in Platon: Sämtliche Dialoge, vol. 5, ed. Otto Apelt, Hamburg: Meiner, 2004.
  • Horneffer, August, Platon: Der Staat, Stuttgart: Kröner, 1955.
  • Vretska, Karl, Platon: Der Staat, 1982; repr., Stuttgart: Reclam, 2004.

Czech

  • Peroutka, Emanuel. [unfinished]
  • Novotný, František, Platón: Ústava. S užitím překladu Emanuele Peroutky, Prague: Jan Laichter, 1921, 402 pp, IA, HTML; 2nd ed., Prague, 1996; 3rd ed., Prague: Oikoymenh, 2001, PDFs; 4th ed., 2005, 428 pp; 5th ed., 2014, 428 pp.
  • Hošek, Radislav, Platón: Ústava, Prague: Svoboda-Libertas, 1993, 524 pp.

Modern Greek

  • Papatheodorou, A. (Α. Παπαθεοδώρου), F. Pappas (Φιλ. Παππά), and Alexandros Galinos (Αλέξανδρος Γαληνού), Πλάτωνος. Πολιτεία. Ή περί δικαίου πολιτικός, intro. Adamantios Diamandopoulos, 2 vols., Athens: Papyros Editions, 1936; Papyros Academic Society of Greek Letters (Πάπυρος Εκδοτικός Οργανισμός), 1975, 640 pp. Books I-V trans., comm. and annot. by Papatheodorou and Pappas, Books VI-X by Galinos. (Fragkou 2012:82-6) [10]
  • Skouteropoulos, Ioannis (Ιωάννης Σκουτερόπουλος), Athens: Andreas Sideris, 1948; new ed., exp., 1962. (Fragkou 2012:87-93)
  • Georgoulis, Konstantinos (Κωνσταντίνος Γεωργούλη), Πλάτωνος. Πολιτεία. Ή περί δικαίου πολιτικός, 1939; Φεβρουάριος, 2009, 592 pp. [tr., comm.]. Canonical translation (along with the ones by Georgoulis and N. Skouteropoulos). (Fragkou 2012:99-100)
  • Gryparis, Ioannis (Ιωάννης Γρυπάρης), and Evangelos Papanoutsos (Ευάγγελος Παπανούτσος), Πλάτων. Πολιτεία, intro. Evangelos Papanoutsos, Athens: Zaharopoulos (Ζαχαρόπουλος), c1945, HTML; repr., Chalandri: 4π Ειδικές Εκδόσεις, 2011. [tr., comm.] The most poetic rendition of the retranslations of the Republic; written in demotiki (the people’s natural language); one of the two or three canonical translations (the others being Georgoulis’ and N. Skouteropoulos’ ones). Reworking of his 1911 translation written in katharevoussa and published by Phexis Editions; Gryparis died in 1942 before being able to finish the work; Books VII to X were subsequently transliterated into demotiki by Papanoutsos using Gryparis' katharevoussa version. (Fragkou 2012:94-8)
  • Hatzopoulos, Odysseas, Πλάτων. Πολιτεία, 5 vols., Athens: Kaktos (Κάκτος), 1992. [text, tr.] (Fragkou 2012:101-3)
  • Memmos, Nikolaos (Νικολαος Μεμμος), Η Πολιτεία του Πλάτωνα, Thessaloniki: Pournaras, 1994, 786 pp. (Fragkou 2012:104-5)
  • Mavropoulos, Theodoros (Θεόδωρος Γ. Μαυρόπουλος), Πλάτων. Πολιτεία, 2 vols., Thessaloniki: Zitros (Ζήτρος), 2006, 1611 pp. [tr., comm.] (Fragkou 2012:106-8) [11] [12]
  • Nikolaos Skouteropoulos (Νικολαος Μ. Σκουτερόπουλος), Πλάτων. Πολιτεία, Athens: Polis (Πόλις), 2002, HTML. [tr., comm.]. Standard translation (along with the ones by Georgoulis and Gryparis). (Fragkou 2012:109-11)

Italian

  • Sartori, Franco, Platone: La Repubblica, 1966; new ed., intro. Mario Vegetti, notes Bruno Centrone, Rome: Laterza, 1997; Rome: Laterza, 2011.
  • Adorno, F., "Platone, La Repubblica", in Tutti i dialoghi, Turin: Utet, 1988.
  • Lozza, G., Platone, La Repubblica, Milan: Mondadori, 1990.
  • Vegetti, Mario, Platone, La Repubblica, 7 vols., Naples: Bibliopolis, 1998-2007.
  • Albertella, Marta, Alain Badiou. La Repubblica di Platone, intro. Livio Boni, Milan: Adriano Salani, 2013, EPUB.

Portuguese

  • Nunes, Carlos Alberto, A República - Platão, 1973; 2nd ed., 1988; 3rd ed., Belem: EDUFPA, 2000, PDF.
  • Pereira, Maria Helena da Rocha, A República - Platão, Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian, 9th ed., 2001, PDF. [tr., notes]
  • Telles, André, A República de Platão. Recontada Por Alain Badiou, Zahar, 2014, EPUB.

Lithuanian

  • Dumčius, J., Platonas. Valstybė, Vilnius: Mintis, 1981, Scribd; 2nd ed., Pradai, 2000. [13] [14]

Spanish

  • Lan, Conrado Eggers, Platón. Dialógos IV: República, Madrid: Gredos, 1986; 1988, PDF, Scribd. [tr., notes]

Romanian

  • Cornea, Andrei, "Republica", in Platon, Opere V, Bucharest: Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1986, IA; 2nd ed., Bucharest: Teora, 1998. [tr., comm.]

Studies

  • Jowett, Benjamin, and Lewis Campbell, Plato's Republic: The Greek Text. Edited, with Notes and Essays in Three Volumes. Vol II. Essays, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894, IA, IA.
  • Bosanquet, Bernard, A Companion to Plato's Republic for English Readers. Being a Commentary adapted to Davies and Vaughan's Translation, New York: Macmillan, 1895, IA.
  • Adam, Joseph, The Republic of Plato, Cambridge, 1902.
  • Cross, R.C., and Woozley, A.D., Plato's Republic. A Philosophical Commentary, London, 1964. A detailed commentary, with special emphasis on logic and politics.
  • Boter, Gerard, The Textual Tradition of Plato’s Republic, Leiden, 1989. Revised Ph.D. dissertation, Free University, Amsterdam, 1986. On the transmission history of the text. [15]
  • Brown, Eric, "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003; 2009, HTML.
  • Ferrari, G.R.F. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • Fragkou, Effrossyni, Retranslating Philosophy: The Role of Plato’s Republic in Shaping and Understanding Politics and Philosophy in Modern Greece, Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 2012, 335 pp, PDF. Ph.D. Dissertation.
  • Plato's Republic entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

See also bibliographies in Slings 2005:197-9 and Ferrari 2007:477-510.

Bibliographies online