James Adam, The Republic of Plato

---

καὶ ἀπορίᾳ οἰκείων has suffered severely at the hands of critics, who have bracketed καί (Ast and others), or read καὶ ἀπορία οἰκείων (Hermann), or δικαίων ἀπορίᾳ οἰκείων (Madvig), or finally denounced the words as a ‘futile interpretamentum.’ Schneider explains καί as “idque” (“und zwar” in his translation), and so also Prantl, and Shilleto (on Dem. F. L. § 101). This interpretation appears to me forced and unnatural. It is simplest to make ἀπορίᾳ as well as τῷ δικαίῳ depend on χρῆσθαι, and regard χρῆσθαι ἀπορίᾳ as equivalent to εἶναι ἄποροι, just as χρῆσθαι ἀμαθίᾳ (for example) means no more than εἶναι ἀμαθεῖς. The plural οἰκείων does not refer to δεσποτῶν, but is the genitive of οἰκεῖα, which means ‘resources of one's own,’ ‘personal resources’) (ἐπακτῷ παρ᾽ ἄλλων. Cf. the use of τὰ οἰκεῖα in the literal sense for res familiaris I 343 E al.

ἦ δοκεῖ κτλ. Glauco has said that χρῆσθαι ἐπακτῷ τῷ δικαίῳ is the most disgraceful thing of all. Socrates asks him whether it (τοῦτο) is more disgraceful than the other case (τούτου) which he is about to mention; and Glauco's reply is ‘no: this other case is even more disgraceful than the first’ (infra C). The meaning was missed by the critic who (see Rev. de Philol. XV p. 83) ingeniously suggested the insertion of ἢ οὔ; after δικαστοῦ just before Glauco's reply. In what follows the litigiousness of the Athenian nature is satirised.