Book 1 of Plato's Republic. Drew A. Mannetter
>
BOOK 1 OF PLATO'S REPUBLIC:
A WORD BY WORD GUIDE
TO TRANSLATION
(VOL 1: CHAPTERS 1–12)
BOOK 1 OF PLATO'S REPUBLIC:
A WORD BY WORD GUIDE
TO TRANSLATION
(VOL 1: CHAPTERS 1–12)
DREW A. MANNETTER
Book 1 of Plato's Republic: A Word by Word Guide to Translation (Vol 1: Chapters 1–12)
Copyright © 2015 Drew A. Mannetter
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.
BrownWalker Press
Boca Raton, Florida
USA • 2015
ISBN-10: 1-62734-523-X
ISBN-13: 978-1-62734-523-1
Typeset by Medlar Publishing Solutions Pvt Ltd, India
Cover image by Marzolino/Bigstock.com
Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Mannetter, Drew Arlen, 1962–
Book 1 of Plato's Republic: A Word by Word Guide to Translation (Vol 1: Chapters 1–12) / Drew A. Mannetter.
pages cm
ISBN: 978-1-62734-523-1 (pbk.)
1. Plato. Republic. 2. Plato—Influence. 3. Philosophy—Study and teaching. 4. Latin language. I. Title.
B395 .M265 2015
184—dc23
2014960358
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author’s Note on Using this Text
Numerous friends gather at Cephalus’ house for an evening of promised discussion. Socrates quickly turns the topic of conversation from old age to the question “what is justice?”. Three common sense definitions of the word justice are advanced but Socrates exposes weaknesses in each and they are all ultimately rejected.
Friends meet during the festival.
After witnessing a festival at the Piraeus, Socrates and Glaucon are returning to the main city of Athens when Polemarchus and other friends invite them to a gathering at the home of Cephalus, Polemarchus’ father.
The discussion between Socrates and Cephalus on old age and wealth.
Socrates and Glaucon fall in with Polemarchus and his friends and arrive at Cephalus’ house. Cephalus, who had been sacrificing in the courtyard, greets Socrates kindly.
Socrates and Cephalus discuss the positive and negative aspects of old age.
Socrates questions Cephalus on the advantages of wealth for the elderly. Cephalus maintains that it is easier to live a just life with wealth and to have a free conscience by not having to neglect sacrifices to the gods or doing wrong to humans.
The first three definitions (and their modified forms) of justice are proposed and subsequently rejected.
Here begins the central argument of Book 1: what is justice? Socrates summarizes Cephalus’ ideas on the usefulness of wealth as the first definition of justice: “truth-telling and paying back what one has received from anyone”. Socrates quickly problematizes this definition, and Cephalus turns the argument over to his son Polemarchus and departs.
Polemarchus advances the second, poetic, definition of justice based on the poet Simonides: “giving back what is owed to each”. This definition is also rejected as inadequate.
The second definition of justice is altered to form the third definition: “to benefit friends and harm enemies”, a very common definition in ancient Greek thinking.
The first reductio ad absurdum argument against the third definition of justice demonstrates that justice is only useful in war.
The second reductio ad absurdum against the third definition of justice demonstrates that justice is useful in peace only when it is not used.
The third reductio ad absurdum against the third definition of justice demonstrates that justice is a kind of stealing which benefits friends and harms enemies. Polemarchus is reduced to perplexity, a well-known feature of the Socratic dialogues.
Polemarchus again reasserts the third definition, that “justice is to benefit friends and harm enemies.” Socrates refutes this definition again by showing the negative consequences of the fact that sometimes friends seem like enemies but are not and enemies seem like friends, but are not.
Polemarchus modifies the third definition to qualify that the friend must actually be a good man and the enemy actually be a bad man.
The modified third definition also proves to be false as the just man will harm no one, either friend or enemy.
The definition, that