Platone: Ione

Ione, o Sull’Iliade

Premessa

Aedi e rapsodi   

Inno omerico ad Apollo 156-76 (ed. West 2003)

πρὸς δὲ τόδε μέγα θαῦμα, ὅου κλέος οὔποτ’ ὀλεῖται,
κοῦραι Δηλιάδες Ἑκατηβελέταο θεράπναι·
αἵ τ’ ἐπεὶ ἂρ πρῶτον μὲν Ἀπόλλων’ ὑμνήσωσιν,
αὖτις δ’ αὖ Λητώ τε καὶ Ἄρτεμιν ἰοχέαιραν,
μνησάμεναι ἀνδρῶν τε παλαιῶν ἠδὲ γυναικῶν              160
ὕμνον ἀείδουσιν, θέλγουσι δὲ φῦλ’ ἀνθρώπων.
πάντων δ’ ἀνθρώπων φωνὰς καὶ βαμβαλιστύν
μιμεῖσθ’ ἴσασιν· φαίη δέ κεν αὐτὸς ἕκαστος
φθέγγεσθ’· οὕτω σφιν καλὴ συνάρηρεν ἀοιδή.
ἀλλ’ ἄγεθ’ ἱλήκοι μὲν Ἀπόλλων Ἀρτέμιδι ξύν,                   165
χαίρετε δ’ ὑμεῖς πᾶσαι· ἐμεῖο δὲ καὶ μετόπισθε
μνήσασθ’, ὁππότε κέν τις ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων
ἐνθάδ’ ἀνείρηται ξεῖνος ταλαπείριος ἐλθών·
“ὦ κοῦραι, τίς δ’ ὔμμιν ἀνὴρ ἥδιστος ἀοιδῶν
ἐνθάδε πωλεῖται, καὶ τέῳ τέρπεσθε μάλιστα;”                   170
ὑμεῖς δ’ εὖ μάλα πᾶσαι ὑποκρίνασθ’ ἀφήμως·
“τυφλὸς ἀνήρ, οἰκεῖ δὲ Χίῳ ἔνι παιπαλοέσσῃ,  
τοῦ πᾶσαι μετόπισθεν ἀριστεύουσιν ἀοιδαί.” 
ἡμεῖς δ’ ὑμέτερον κλέος οἴσομεν, ὅσσον ἐπ’ αἶαν
ἀνθρώπων στρεφόμεσθα πόλεις εὖ ναιεταώσας·             175
οἳ δ’ ἐπὶ δὴ πείσονται, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐτήτυμόν ἐστιν.

“And besides, this great wonder, the fame of which will never perish: the Maidens of Delos, the servants of the Far-shooter, who, after first hymning Apollo, and then in turn Leto and Artemis profuse of arrows, turn their thoughts to the men and women of old and sing a song that charms the peoples. They know how to mimic all people’s voices and their babble; anyone might think it was he himself speaking, so well is their singing constructed. But now, may Apollo be favorable, together with Artemis, and hail, all you Maidens! Think of me in future, if ever some long-suffering stranger comes here and asks, ‘O Maidens, which is your favorite singer who visits here, and who do you enjoy most?’ Then you must all answer with one voice(?), ‘It is a blind man, and he lives in rocky Chios; all of his songs remain supreme afterwards.’ And we will carry your reputation wherever we go as we roam the well-ordered cities of men, and they will believe it, because it is true.” (trans. M. L. West).

Pindaro, Nemea 2.1-5

Ὅθεν περ καὶ Ὁμηρίδαι
ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων τὰ πόλλ’ ἀοιδοί
ἄρχονται, Διὸς ἐκ προοιμίου, καὶ ὅδ’ ἀνήρ
καταβολὰν ἱερῶν ἀγώ-
νων νικαφορίας δέδεκται πρῶτον, Νεμεαίου
—ἐν πολυϋμνήτῳ Διὸς ἄλσει.

“Just as the sons of Homer, those singers of verses stitched together, most often begin with a prelude to Zeus, so has this man received his first installment of victory in the sacred games at the much-hymned sanctuary of Nemean Zeus” (trans. W.H. Race).

Σ Pind. N. 2.1c Ὁμηρίδας ἔλεγον τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον τοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὁμήρου γένους, οἳ καὶ τὴν ποίησιν αὐτοῦ ἐκ διαδοχῆς ᾖδον· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ οὐκέτι τὸ γένος εἰς Ὅμηρον ἀνάγοντες. ἐπιφανεῖς δὲ ἐγένοντο οἱ περὶ Κύναιθον, οὕς φασι πολλὰ τῶν ἐπῶν ποιήσαντας ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν. ἦν δὲ ὁ Κύναιθος τὸ γένος Χῖος, ὃς καὶ τῶν ἐπιγραφομένων Ὁμήρου ποιημάτων τὸν εἰς Ἀπόλλωνα γεγραφὼς ὕμνον ἀνατέθεικεν αὐτῷ. οὗτος οὖν ὁ Κύναιθος πρῶτος ἐν Συρακούσαις ἐραψῴδησε τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη κατὰ τὴν ξθʹ Ὀλυμπιάδα (Ol. 69 = 504-501 a.C.), ὡς Ἱππόστρατός φησιν (BNJ 568 F 5).

Σ Pind. N. 2.1d. ἄλλως. τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς οἱ μὲν ῥαβδῳδοὺς ἐτυμολογοῦσι διὰ τὸ μετὰ ῥάβδου δηλονότι τὰ Ὁμήρου ἔπη διεξιέναι. Καλλίμαχος (Aetia fr. 26.5+8 Harder/Pf.)·

καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ ῥάβδῳ μῦθον ὑφαινόμενον
ἠνεκὲς ἀείδω δεδεγμένος.

[“the story which is woven while the singer is holding the staff” . . . I sing continuously having received (it?)]

οἱ δέ φασι τῆς Ὁμήρου ποιήσεως μὴ ὑφ’ ἓν συνηγμένης, σποράδην δὲ ἄλλως καὶ κατὰ μέρη διῃρημένης, ὁπότε ῥαψῳδοῖεν αὐτὴν, εἱρμῷ τινι (“serie”, “concatenazione”) καὶ ῥαφῇ (“cucitura”) παραπλήσιον ποιεῖν, εἰς ἓν αὐτὴν ἄγοντας. οὕτω καὶ ὁ Πίνδαρος ἐκδέδεκται. οἱ δὲ, ὅτι κατὰ μέρος πρότερον τῆς ποιήσεως διαδεδομένης τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν ἕκαστος ὅ τι βούλοιτο μέρος ᾖδε, τοῦ δὲ ἄθλου τοῖς νικῶσιν ἀρνὸς ἀποδεδειγμένου προσαγορευθῆναι τότε μὲν ἀρνῳδούς, αὖθις δὲ ἑκατέρας τῆς ποιήσεως εἰσενεχθείσης τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς BPTU οἷον ἀκουμένους πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ μέρη καὶ τὴν σύμπασαν ποίησιν ἐπιόντας, ῥαψῳδοὺς προσαγορευθῆναι. ταῦτά φησι Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀργεῖος (FHG III 26). Φιλόχορος (FHG I 417) δὲ BDPTU ἀπὸ τοῦ συντιθέναι καὶ ῥάπτειν τὴν ᾠδὴν οὕτω φησὶν αὐτοὺς προσκεκλῆσθαι. δηλοῖ δὲ ὁ Ἡσίοδος λέγων (fr. 357 MW)·

ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοὶ
μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν,
Φοῖβον Ἀπόλλωνα χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ.

ῥαψῳδῆσαι δέ φησι πρῶτον τὸν Ἡσίοδον Νικοκλῆς (FHG IV 464). Μέναιχμος δὲ (BNJ 131 F 9) ἱστορεῖ τοὺς ῥαψῳδοὺς στιχῳδοῦς καλεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ τοὺς στίχους ῥάβδους λέγεσθαι ὑπό τινων.

Σ Pind. N. 2.1e. ἄλλως. Ὁμηρίδαι πρότερον μὲν οἱ Ὁμήρου παῖδες, ὕστερον δὲ οἱ περὶ Κύναιθον ῥαβδῳδοί· οὗτοι γὰρ τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν σκεδασθεῖσαν ἐμνημόνευον καὶ ἀπήγγελλον· ἐλυμήναντο δὲ αὐτῇ BDTU πάνυ. αἰεὶ οὖν τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐκ Διὸς ἐποιοῦντο προοιμιαζόμενοι, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ Μουσῶν.

Pagliaro 1953: 59-60: “è molto più probabile [rispetto alle interpretazioni di ῥαψῳδός come ‘cucitore di canti propri’ vs. ‘cucitore di canti altrui’] che il termine si riferisca alla particolare tecnica della recitazione epica. Si presenta ovvia l’ipotesi che la ‘cucitura’ altro non sia se non la compartecipazione dei singoli alla costituzione di una recitazione, cioè di una rapsodia. | L’espressione esiodea sopraricordata mette bene in rilievo, oltre che l’originalità della creazione poetica, anche le modalità tecniche di essa: i due poeti celebrano il dio in Delo, cucendo il loro canto . . . in nuovi inni. Dalla espressione risulta ben chiaro il carattere agonistico dell’incontro, di modo che il risultato poetico della manifestazione è un complesso di ‘pezzi’”.
West 1999: 376: “Very few scholars have ever seen this [scil. Hes. fr. dub. 357 MW] as anything other than a forgery, based on the sophistic fable of a contest between Homer and Hesiod, though with the venue on Delos instead of at Chalcis as in the Certamen. (‘That was the first time’ may imply that they were to meet again at Chalcis.) A forgery it certainly is; and the reference to a hymn to Apollo composed by Homer on Delos shows that the forger had a particular interest in the claims of Cynaethus. His purpose may have been to counter the critics who accused Cynaethus of having forged the Delian hymn: here, in these alleged verses of Hesiod, was independent testimony from a contemporary that Homer had composed a hymn to Apollo on Delos.”
Graziosi 2002: 33-4: “Allegedly, this passage shows that the verb ‘to stitch’ not only denotes the process of recitation but also that of original composition. However, the addition ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις . . . may have been a necessary qualification: Homer and Hesiod did not perform in the manner of ordinary rhapsodes, their songs were new. If we were to speculate about | the origin of this fragment, we would perhaps be tempted to see in it an attempt, on the part of the rhapsodes themselves, to represent Homer and Hesiod in their own image. In fact, it has been suggested on independent grounds that these lines were composed in rhapsodic circles [Janko 1982, 113-5]. If this is the case, then we should not take this passage as historical evidence that Homer and Hesiod were rhapsodes but rather as an aetiology of the first time poems were recited as by rhapsodes. . . . If fr. 357 MW was composed within rhapsodic circles as an aetiology of their profession, it follows that rhapsodes were in fact not just reciters, but could and did compose texts like this fragment”.
Burgess 2004-2005: 14-15: “An example of creative “stitching” might be indicated by a Hesiodic fragment (fr. 357 M-W) . . . It is first of all noteworthy that one poem is produced by both singers (perhaps an allusion to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo in its | Delian and Pythian parts). It is also remarkable that the two poets, acting as rhapsodes, create a song out of “new hymns.” The novelty might be composition-in-performance of verse appropriate for the performance context, or it might refer to episode stitching: creative decisions about where the passages started and stopped and how they were joined so that together somehow form a whole”.

In modo piuttosto schematico possiamo dire che le fonti offrono del termine rapsodo sostanzialmente due interpretazioni: la prima, basata sulla derivazione dal verbo ῥάπτω, ne fa un “cucitore” di canti (con l’ulteriore distinzione che la sua opera (a) mescola canti omerici o comunque autentici e canti del rapsodo stesso, oppure che (b) tale opera si esercita su canti dispersi, che vanno quindi “cuciti” insieme); la seconda, basata sul sostantivo ῥάβδος, individua nel rapsodo colui che canta “con il bastone”, ovvero con un probabile riferimento alla pratica di cantare in sequenza attestata per alcune competizioni musicali in contesti festivi (e.g. le Panatenee).

530a1–b4: prologo: il motivo della visita di Ione ad Atene

ΣΩ. Τὸν Ἴωνα χαίρειν. πόθεν τὰ νῦν ἡμῖν ἐπιδεδή-                        530a
μηκας; ἢ οἴκοθεν ἐξ Ἐφέσου;
ΙΩΝ. Οὐδαμῶς, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἀλλ’ ἐξ Ἐπιδαύρου ἐκ τῶν
Ἀσκληπιείων.
ΣΩ. Μῶν καὶ ῥαψῳδῶν ἀγῶνα τιθέασιν τῷ θεῷ οἱ
Ἐπιδαύριοι;
ΙΩΝ. Πάνυ γε, καὶ τῆς ἄλλης γε μουσικῆς.
ΣΩ. Τί οὖν; ἠγωνίζου τι ἡμῖν; καὶ πῶς τι ἠγωνίσω;
ΙΩΝ. Τὰ πρῶτα τῶν ἄθλων ἠνεγκάμεθα, ὦ Σώκρατες.                    530b
ΣΩ. Εὖ λέγεις· ἄγε δὴ ὅπως καὶ τὰ Παναθήναια νικήσο-
μεν.
ΙΩΝ. Ἀλλ’ ἔσται ταῦτα, ἐὰν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ.

Τὸν ωνα χαίρειν. “Apart from the honorific conventions involved in τὸν Ἴωνα (χαίρειν), its function in the text is to identify for the reader at the outset the person who will be Socrates’ interlocutor, and to make it clear that the first words are not spoken by Ion. Recall that there were no speakers’ names in the original text” (Rijksbaron 97). “τὸν Ἴωνα χαίρειν should rather be taken as an independent accusative plus infinitive expressing a command or wish” (Rijksbaron 98). In merito alla storicità del personaggio, cf. Tigerstedt (1969: 19) “About the “historical Ion” we know nothing, the Platonic one is a figure of comedy”; Rijksbaron 99 n. 164: “Coming from Ephesus, his name may have been chosen as a telling name to represent a particular kind of Ionian rhapsodes. Homer, too, was considered a representative of the Ionians”.

τὰ νῦν = νῦν (Murray). “a ‘for the time to come’ interpretation seems perfectly acceptable: ‘From where have you come to stay with us for the time to come/these days?’; ‘From where have you temporarily moved over to Athens?’ Incidentally, ‘the time to come’ must be the time of the Panathenaic games, mentioned at 530b2” (Rijksbaron 2007: 102).
Μῶν = μὴ οὖν often of questions expecting a negative answer, but not in this case. “Just as in the Protagoras [310d4] example, the tone in the Ion may be one of mock-disbelief: ‘You don’t mean to say that …?’” (Rijksbaron 2007: 108).
ἠγωνίζου τι ἡμῖν; καὶ πῶς τι ἠγωνίσω;: ἠγωνίζου “imperfect of an action in course”, ἠγωνίσω “aorist of an action brought to a close” (Rijksbaron 2007: 110, 111).
ὅπως . . . νικήσομεν. “ὅπως + future indicative expresses an urgent adhortation, and is a hortative expression in its own right” (Rijksbaron 2007: 115).

530b5-d8: Socrate prepara il terreno per il suo confronto con Ione

ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν πολλάκις γε ἐζήλωσα ὑμᾶς τοὺς ῥαψῳδούς,
ὦ ῎Ιων, τῆς τέχνης· τὸ γὰρ ἅμα μὲν τὸ σῶμα κεκοσμῆσθαι
ἀεὶ πρέπον ὑμῶν εἶναι τῇ τέχνῃ καὶ ὡς καλλίστοις φαί-
νεσθαι, ἅμα δὲ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι ἔν τε ἄλλοις ποιηταῖς διατρί-
βειν πολλοῖς καὶ ἀγαθοῖς καὶ δὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἐν Ὁμήρῳ, τῷ
ἀρίστῳ καὶ θειοτάτῳ τῶν ποιητῶν, καὶ τὴν τούτου διάνοιαν
ἐκμανθάνειν, μὴ μόνον τὰ ἔπη, ζηλωτόν ἐστιν. οὐ γὰρ ἂν               530c
γένοιτό ποτε ἀγαθὸς ῥαψῳδός, εἰ μὴ συνείη τὰ λεγόμενα
ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ. τὸν γὰρ ῥαψῳδὸν ἑρμηνέα δεῖ τοῦ ποιητοῦ
τῆς διανοίας γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἀκούουσι· τοῦτο δὲ καλῶς ποι-
εῖν μὴ γιγνώσκοντα ὅτι λέγει ὁ ποιητὴς ἀδύνατον. ταῦτα
οὖν πάντα ἄξια ζηλοῦσθαι.
ΙΩΝ. Ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες· ἐμοὶ γοῦν τοῦτο πλεῖ-
στον ἔργον παρέσχεν τῆς τέχνης, καὶ οἶμαι κάλλιστα ἀν-
θρώπων λέγειν περὶ Ὁμήρου, ὡς οὔτε Μητρόδωρος ὁ Λαμ-           530d
ψακηνὸς οὔτε Στησίμβροτος ὁ Θάσιος οὔτε Γλαύκων οὔτε
ἄλλος οὐδεὶς τῶν πώποτε γενομένων ἔσχεν εἰπεῖν οὕτω πολ-
λὰς καὶ καλὰς διανοίας περὶ Ὁμήρου ὅσας ἐγώ.
ΣΩ. Εὖ λέγεις, ὦ ῎Ιων· δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι οὐ φθονήσεις μοι
ἐπιδεῖξαι.
ΙΩΝ. Καὶ μὴν ἄξιόν γε ἀκοῦσαι, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὡς εὖ κεκό-
σμηκα τὸν ῞Ομηρον· ὥστε οἶμαι ὑπὸ Ὁμηριδῶν ἄξιος εἶναι
χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ στεφανωθῆναι.

τὸ γὰρ ἅμα μὲν … ζηλωτόν ἐστιν. “The subject of this sentence is the double articular inf. τὸ … ἅμα μὲν … πρέπον … εἶναι … ἅμα δὲ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι, with ζηλωτόν ἐστιν as its predicate” (Miller, cit. in Rijksbaron 2007: 118).
ὑμῶν: dipende da τῇ τέχνῃ.
ὡς καλλίστοις φαίνεσθαι: il dat. καλλίστοις sottintende ὑμῖν; in parte viene sottinteso il costrutto che precede, come se si trattasse dello sviluppo di πρέπον (ὑμῖν) ὡς καλλίστοις φαίνεσθαι.
b10. θειοτάτῳ. Ambiguità del termine che allude alla successiva riflessione sulla possessione divina dei poeti.
γένοιτό ποτε ἀγαθὸς ῥαψῳδός: l’interpretazione preferibile è ammettere un τις sottinteso e considera agg. e sost. come nome del predicato. In alternativa, si può pensare che ἀγαθός sia il predicato e ῥαψῳδός il soggetto.
ἑρμηνέα: ἑρμηνεύς ha il valore di “esegeta” (che è quella rilevante qui) e di “trasmettitore, portavoce” (che sarà invece più significativa più avanti nel dialogo). Per quanto riguarda la prima accezione, occorre sottolineare che il testo a disposizione dei rapsodi nel V sec. era sprovvisto dei più basilari ausili critici e quindi l’esecuzione del testo implicava anche la sua esegesi letterale (divisione delle parole, articolazione sintattica, etc.). “After all, in the time of Plato, as indeed during antiquity as a whole, the text of Homer—my argument presupposes that fifth- and fourth-century rhapsodes worked from a written text; cp. the Introduction §4.3—was in essence devoid of the interpretive aids just mentioned” (Rijksbaron 2007: 126). “Now to return to ἑρμηνεύς, this takes on an altogether different meaning in the central part of the dialogue, viz. when Socrates, with the words ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τέχνη μὲν οὐκ ὂν παρὰ σοὶ περὶ Ὁμήρου εὖ λέγειν … θεία δὲ δύναμις at 533d1–2, has stopped playing along with | Ion, and has subsequently bedazzled him with his showpiece on the magnet and the Muse. Once Ion, touched by Socrates’ words (535a2), has admitted that the good poets μοι δοκοῦσι θείᾳ μοίρᾳ ἡμῖν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ταῦτα … ἑρμηνεύειν (535a3–4) and that rhapsodes are ἑρμηνέων ἑρμηνῆς (535a8), he has effectively destroyed his own position, since θεία μοῖρα, ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ γίγνεσθαι (cp. 535b8–c1) and ἐνθουσιάζειν (535c2) will now replace τέχνη and ἐπιστήμη as the central notions of the rhapsode’s activity. In this passage ἑρμηνεύς = ‘mouthpiece, Vermittler’. And the whole second part of the dialogue serves, of course, to demonstrate that Ion, in fact, knows nothing.” (Rijksbaron 2007: 127-8).
διανοίας: “Διάνοια is probably the ‘literal thought’, as opposed to ὑπόνοια, the ‘underlying, covert, deep thought’ of the epics, which must have involved an allegorizing interpretation” (Rijksbaron 2007: 120).
τοῦτο: da τοῦτο dipende il successivo τῆς τέχνης.
530d. ὡς: “‘in such a manner as’ (Macgregor)” (Rijksbaron 2007: 130).
οὐ φθονήσεις: “μὴ φθονήσῃς is freq. in dialogue, do not refuse to do a thing, μὴ φ. διδάξαι Pl. R. 338a, cf. Hp.Mi. 372e, Smp. 223a; also μὴ φθόνει μοι ἀποκρίνασθαι Id. Grg. 489a; μὴ φθονήσῃς alone, Id. Prt. 320c; δῆλον ὅτι οὐ φθονήσει Ἱππίας ἀποκρίνεσθαι Id. Hp.Mi. 363c; οὐδενὶ πώποτε ἐφθόνησα Id. Ap. 33a: c. part., μηδέ μοι φθόνει λέγων A. Th. 480 (nisi leg. λόγων): c. acc. et inf., τί φθονέεις . . ἀοιδὸν τέρπειν; Od. 1.346: c. dat. et inf., τῇ δʼ οὐκ ἂν φθονέοιμι . . ἅψασθαι 19.348; οὔτοι φθονῶ σοι δαιμόνων τιμᾶν γένος A. Th. 236” (LSJ).

530d9–532c8: Qual è l’oggetto della τέχνη di Ione?

ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν ἐγὼ ἔτι ποιήσομαι σχολὴν ἀκροάσασθαί
σου, νῦν δέ μοι τοσόνδε ἀπόκριναι· πότερον περὶ Ὁμήρου     531a1
μόνον δεινὸς εἶ ἢ καὶ περὶ Ἡσιόδου καὶ Ἀρχιλόχου;
ΙΩΝ. Οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ περὶ Ὁμήρου μόνον· ἱκανὸν γάρ
μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι.
ΣΩ. Ἔστι δὲ περὶ ὅτου Ὅμηρός τε καὶ Ἡσίοδος ταὐτὰ
λέγετον; –ΙΩΝ. Οἶμαι ἔγωγε καὶ πολλά. –ΣΩ. Πότερον
οὖν περὶ τούτων κάλλιον ἂν ἐξηγήσαιο ἃ ῞Ομηρος
λέγει ἢ ἃ Ἡσίοδος; –ΙΩΝ. Ὁμοίως ἂν περί γε τούτων, ὦ
Σώκρατες, περὶ ὧν ταὐτὰ λέγουσιν. –ΣΩ. Τί δὲ ὧν                         b1
πέρι μὴ ταὐτὰ λέγουσιν; οἷον περὶ μαντικῆς λέγει τι
῞Ομηρός τε καὶ Ἡσίοδος. –ΙΩΝ. Πάνυ γε. –ΣΩ. Τί
οὖν; ὅσα τε ὁμοίως καὶ ὅσα διαφόρως περὶ μαντικῆς
λέγετον τὼ ποιητὰ τούτω, πότερον σὺ κάλλιον ἂν ἐξη-
γήσαιο ἢ τῶν μάντεών τις τῶν ἀγαθῶν; –ΙΩΝ. Τῶν
μάντεων. –ΣΩ. Εἰ δὲ σὺ ἦσθα μάντις, οὐκ, εἴπερ περὶ
τῶν ὁμοίως λεγομένων οἷός τ’ ἦσθα ἐξηγήσασθαι, καὶ περὶ
τῶν διαφόρως λεγομένων ἠπίστω ἂν ἐξηγεῖσθαι; –ΙΩΝ.
Δῆλον ὅτι.
ΣΩ. Τί οὖν ποτε περὶ μὲν Ὁμήρου δεινὸς εἶ, περὶ δὲ                       c1
Ἡσιόδου οὔ, οὐδὲ τῶν ἄλλων ποιητῶν; ἢ ῞Ομηρος περὶ
ἄλλων τινῶν λέγει ἢ ὧνπερ σύμπαντες οἱ ἄλλοι ποιηταί;
οὐ περὶ πολέμου τε τὰ πολλὰ διελήλυθεν καὶ περὶ ὁμιλιῶν
πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀνθρώπων ἀγαθῶν τε καὶ κακῶν καὶ ἰδιωτῶν
καὶ δημιουργῶν, καὶ περὶ θεῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους καὶ πρὸς
ἀνθρώπους ὁμιλούντων, ὡς ὁμιλοῦσι, καὶ περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων
παθημάτων καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν ῞Αιδου, καὶ γενέσεις καὶ θεῶν
καὶ ἡρώων; οὐ ταῦτά ἐστι περὶ ὧν ῞Ομηρος τὴν ποίησιν               d1
πεποίηκεν;
ΙΩΝ. Ἀληθῆ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες.
ΣΩ. Τί δὲ οἱ ἄλλοι ποιηταί; οὐ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν
τούτων;

531a. : disgiuntivo, in associazione con Πότερον.
Per riassumere schematicamente l’argomentazione:

  1. Ione è bravo solo riguardo Omero.
  2. Ci sono contenuti che Omero condivide con altri poeti, ad esempio Esiodo.
  3. Ione potrebbe illustrare altrettanto bene ciò che viene detto in modo simile da Omero e da un altro poeta su un determinato argomento.
  4. Gli esperti di questo argomento specifico potrebbe illustrare bene sia ciò che viene detto in modo simile sia ciò che viene detto in modo diverso.
  5. Omero dice le stesse cose che dicono gli altri poeti.
  6. Perché allora Ione non è in grado di illustrare un qualsiasi altro poeta tanto abilmente quanto è in grado di fare con Omero?

531b. εἴπερ: Rijksbaron 2007: 137: “Not ‘if really’ (e.g. Denniston 487) but ‘precisely in the case that’”.
531c. : Rijksbaron preferisce ἦ.
ὁμιλούντων, ὡς ὁμιλοῦσι. “Actually, the relative clause expresses the idea that the main verb used is perhaps not really the correct term for the verbal action in question. Its effect is well described by Mastronarde on E. Med. 889: ‘[a] type of reticent euphemism, sometimes deprecatory, sometimes resigned in tone, refusing to go into specifics’. Likewise in our passage: ‘… about the gods, while they are interacting with each other and with men, in whatever way’.” (Rijksbaron 2007: 142, che per questo motivo non stampa la virgola prima di ὡς).

ΙΩΝ. Ναί, ἀλλ’, ὦ Σώκρατες, οὐχ ὁμοίως πεποιήκασι
καὶ ῞Ομηρος.
ΣΩ. Τί μήν; κάκιον;
ΙΩΝ. Πολύ γε.
ΣΩ. ῞Ομηρος δὲ ἄμεινον;
ΙΩΝ. ῎Αμεινον μέντοι νὴ Δία.
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν, ὦ φίλη κεφαλὴ ῎Ιων, ὅταν περὶ ἀριθμοῦ
πολλῶν λεγόντων εἷς τις ἄριστα λέγῃ, γνώσεται δήπου τις
τὸν εὖ λέγοντα; -ΙΩΝ. Φημί. -ΣΩ. Πότερον οὖν ὁ αὐτὸς                 531e1
ὅσπερ καὶ τοὺς κακῶς λέγοντας, ἢ ἄλλος; -ΙΩΝ. Ὁ αὐτὸς
δήπου. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ὁ τὴν ἀριθμητικὴν τέχνην ἔχων οὗτός
ἐστιν; -ΙΩΝ. Ναί. -ΣΩ. Τί δ’; ὅταν πολλῶν λεγόντων
περὶ ὑγιεινῶν σιτίων ὁποῖά ἐστιν, εἷς τις ἄριστα λέγῃ,
πότερον ἕτερος μέν τις τὸν ἄριστα λέγοντα γνώσεται ὅτι
ἄριστα λέγει, ἕτερος δὲ τὸν κάκιον ὅτι κάκιον, ἢ ὁ αὐτός; –
ΙΩΝ. Δῆλον δήπου, ὁ αὐτός. -ΣΩ. Τίς οὗτος; τί ὄνομα
αὐτῷ; -ΙΩΝ. Ἰατρός. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ λέγομεν
ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς γνώσεται ἀεί, περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν πολλῶν λεγόν-
των, ὅστις τε εὖ λέγει καὶ ὅστις κακῶς· ἢ εἰ μὴ γνώσεται              532a1
τὸν κακῶς λέγοντα, δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ τὸν εὖ, περί γε τοῦ
αὐτοῦ. -ΙΩΝ. Οὕτως. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ὁ αὐτὸς γίγνεται δεινὸς
περὶ ἀμφοτέρων; -ΙΩΝ. Ναί. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν σὺ φῂς καὶ
῞Ομηρον καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ποιητάς, ἐν οἷς καὶ Ἡσίοδος καὶ
Ἀρχίλοχός ἐστιν, περί γε τῶν αὐτῶν λέγειν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ
ὁμοίως, ἀλλὰ τὸν μὲν εὖ γε, τοὺς δὲ χεῖρον; -ΙΩΝ. Καὶ
ἀληθῆ λέγω. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν, εἴπερ τὸν εὖ λέγοντα γιγνώ-
σκεις, καὶ τοὺς χεῖρον λέγοντας γιγνώσκοις ἂν ὅτι χεῖρον               b1
λέγουσιν. -ΙΩΝ. ῎Εοικέν γε. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν, ὦ βέλτιστε,
ὁμοίως τὸν ῎Ιωνα λέγοντες περὶ Ὁμήρου τε δεινὸν εἶναι καὶ
περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποιητῶν οὐχ ἁμαρτησόμεθα, ἐπειδή γε
αὐτὸς ὁμολογῇ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔσεσθαι κριτὴν ἱκανὸν πάντων
ὅσοι ἂν περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν λέγωσι, τοὺς δὲ ποιητὰς σχεδὸν
ἅπαντας τὰ αὐτὰ ποιεῖν.

ὁμοίως: Murray 1996: 106: “Ion understands this as a distinction between good and bad, whereas S. had earlier used this term to contrast sameness and difference (531b4 above). Ion’s claim that it is Homer’s treatment of his subject-matter rather than the subject-matter itself which distinguishes Homer from other poets is completely ignored by S., who persistently views poetry simply in terms of its factual content”.
οὐκοῦν: “In the passage that follows, οὐκοῦν returns six times, at e3, e9, 532a3, a4, a8, and b2. The instance here and those at e3, 532a3 and a4 are followed by a question mark in Burnet’s and other editions, while e9, 532a8 and b2 are followed by a period. This seems rather arbitrary. Denniston (433) convincingly argues that οὐκοῦν in Plato always introduces a question and should therefore be followed by a question mark. I have inserted them, in fact, where they were lacking” (Rijksbaron 2007: 144).
φίλη κεφαλή: “This elaborate ‘friendship term’ is used to redress beforehand the Face Threatening Act (FTA) which Socrates is about to commit by submitting Ion to a series of questions by which he will try to convince him of the untenability of his views. […] I believe that ὦ φίλη κεφαλή in connection with Ion has a potentially insincere and condescending tone, just like its counterpart ‘my dear soul/my dear chap’ in English translations of this passage” (Rijksbaron 2007: 144).
531e. ὅσπερ καὶ τοὺς κακῶς λέγοντας: è sottinteso il verbo γνώσεται, esplicito nella domanda precedente di Socrate.
περὶ ὑγιεινῶν σιτίων ὁποῖά ἐστιν: un esempio di “prolessi” secondo Murray 1996: 107; si potrebbe parlare altrettanto bene (se non meglio) di segmentazione.
532b5 κριτὴν ἱκανὸν: “If we may adduce Lg. 669a7 ff. for comparison […] a sane κριτής should have three competences: ‘first, a knowledge of the original; next, a knowledge of the correctness of the copy; and thirdly, a knowledge of the excellence with which the copy is executed’ (translation Bury). Below, e.g. at 539e3 ff., Socrates will argue that Ion cannot possibly be considered a κριτής” (Rijksbaron 2007: 149).

ΙΩΝ. Τί οὖν ποτε τὸ αἴτιον, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι ἐγώ, ὅταν
μέν τις περὶ ἄλλου του ποιητοῦ διαλέγηται, οὔτε προσέχω
τὸν νοῦν ἀδυνατῶ τε καὶ ὁτιοῦν συμβαλέσθαι λόγου ἄξιον,           532c1
ἀλλ’ ἀτεχνῶς νυστάζω, ἐπειδὰν δέ τις περὶ Ὁμήρου μνησθῇ,
εὐθύς τε ἐγρήγορα καὶ προσέχω τὸν νοῦν καὶ εὐπορῶ ὅτι
λέγω;
ΣΩ. Οὐ χαλεπὸν τοῦτό γε εἰκάσαι, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ἀλλὰ παντὶ
δῆλον ὅτι τέχνῃ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ περὶ Ὁμήρου λέγειν ἀδύνατος
εἶ· εἰ γὰρ τέχνῃ οἷός τε ἦσθα, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ποιητῶν
ἁπάντων λέγειν οἷός τ’ ἂν ἦσθα· ποιητικὴ γάρ πού ἐστιν
τὸ ὅλον. ἢ οὔ;
ΙΩΝ. Ναί.

532c1 ὁτιοῦν: “anything whatsoever” LSJ.
c2. ἀτεχνῶς: possibile gioco di parole che associa al valore “semplicemente” di ἀτεχνῶς il senso più specifico ἄνευ τέχνης in ἀτέχνως (Rijksbaron 2007: 150).
c3. εὐθύς τε ἐγρήγορα: “Not ‘I wake up at once’ (Lamb) but ‘aussitôt me voilà éveillé’ (Méridier), ‘(daß ich) … sofort wach bin …’ (Flashar), ‘I’m immediately wide awake’ (Allen) or ‘I’m awake in a flash’ (Saunders), for the perfect denotes a state which is at once completely realized. For this use of the perfect cp. K-G 1, 150: (the perfect) ‘wird mit rhetorischem Nachdrucke so gebraucht dass eine noch nicht eingetretene Handlung als bereits vollendet, der daraus sich ergebende Zustand als schon vorhanden antizipiert wird’.” (Rijksbaron 2007: 150).
c5 τέχνῃ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ: “ἐπιστήμη here is the knowledge of the skill and its subject matter; it also involves the ability to account for what one knows. For ἐπιστήμη as = ‘knowledge | of a τέχνη’ cp. Grg. 448c2 […]; for ἐπιστήμη relating to the subject matter of a τέχνη cp. below 538b4 ff. […]; and, finally, for ἐπιστήμη involving the ability to account for what one knows, i.e. in our case to give an account of how a τέχνη works, cp. Phd. 76b5 ἀνὴρ ἐπιστάμενος περὶ ὧν ἐπίσταται ἔχοι ἂν δοῦναι λόγον ἢ οὔ;—Πολλὴ ἀνάγκη …. It will turn out that Ion fails on all three counts: he has no knowledge of a particular τέχνη, the τέχνη he presumedly possesses has no content, and he is not able to give an account of what he ‘knows’” (Rijksbaron 2007: 151-2). Su τέχνη in opposizione a ἐμπειρία vd. Gorg. 462–3.
c8-9. ποιητικὴ γάρ πού ἐστιν τὸ ὅλον. οὔ;: “With this deceptively simple question S. broadens the discussion to include not only the rhapsode’s activity, but also the poet’s. But it is significant that ne makes no clear distinction between the two. Ion might reasonably argue that being a good rhapsode is not the same thing as being a good poet, for the skills of the two are different, the one being concerned with performance and interpretation, the other with composition. But S. deliberately osbcures the differences so that the two activities become indistinguishable. In an oral culture these differences may not be as clear-cut as they are to us, but in any case | it is part of S.’s strategy to treat the production, transmission and enjoyment of poetry as a single process” (Murray 1996: 108–9). “Τὸ ὅλον is an adverbial accusative: ‘as far as the whole is concerned’, ‘taken as a whole’, ‘generally speaking’;” (Rijksbaron 2007: 152).

532c8–533c3. Ione non possiede una τέχνη: esempi da altre τέχναι.

ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὰν λάβῃ τις καὶ ἄλλην τέχνην ἡντι-                     532d1
νοῦν ὅλην, ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος τῆς σκέψεως ἔσται περὶ ἁπασῶν
τῶν τεχνῶν; πῶς τοῦτο λέγω, δέῃ τί μου ἀκοῦσαι, ὦ ῎Ιων;
ΙΩΝ. Ναὶ μὰ τὸν Δία, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἔγωγε· χαίρω γὰρ
ἀκούων ὑμῶν τῶν σοφῶν.
ΣΩ. Βουλοίμην ἄν σε ἀληθῆ λέγειν, ὦ ῎Ιων· ἀλλὰ σοφοὶ
μέν πού ἐστε ὑμεῖς οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ καὶ ὑποκριταὶ καὶ ὧν ὑμεῖς
ᾄδετε τὰ ποιήματα, ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ τἀληθῆ λέγω,
οἷον εἰκὸς ἰδιώτην ἄνθρωπον. ἐπεὶ καὶ περὶ τούτου οὗ νῦν          e1
ἠρόμην σε, θέασαι ὡς φαῦλον καὶ ἰδιωτικόν ἐστι καὶ παντὸς
ἀνδρὸς γνῶναι ὃ ἔλεγον, τὴν αὐτὴν εἶναι σκέψιν, ἐπειδάν
τις ὅλην τέχνην λάβῃ. λάβωμεν γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ· γραφικὴ
γάρ τίς ἐστι τέχνη τὸ ὅλον; -ΙΩΝ. Ναί. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν
καὶ γραφῆς πολλοὶ καὶ εἰσὶ καὶ γεγόνασιν ἀγαθοὶ καὶ φαῦ-
λοι; -ΙΩΝ. Πάνυ γε. -ΣΩ. ῎Ηδη οὖν τινα εἶδες ὅστις περὶ
μὲν Πολυγνώτου τοῦ Ἀγλαοφῶντος δεινός ἐστιν ἀποφαί-
νειν ἃ εὖ τε γράφει καὶ ἃ μή, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων γραφέων
ἀδύνατος; καὶ ἐπειδὰν μέν τις τὰ τῶν ἄλλων ζωγράφων                533a1
ἔργα ἐπιδεικνύῃ, νυστάζει τε καὶ ἀπορεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἔχει ὅτι
συμβάληται, ἐπειδὰν δὲ περὶ Πολυγνώτου ἢ ἄλλου ὅτου
βούλει τῶν γραφέων ἑνὸς μόνου δέῃ ἀποφήνασθαι γνώμην,
ἐγρήγορέν τε καὶ προσέχει τὸν νοῦν καὶ εὐπορεῖ ὅτι εἴπῃ; –
ΙΩΝ. Οὐ μὰ τὸν Δία, οὐ δῆτα. -ΣΩ. Τί δέ; ἐν ἀνδριαντο-
ποιίᾳ ἤδη τιν’ εἶδες ὅστις περὶ μὲν Δαιδάλου τοῦ Μητίονος

532d1. ἔσται S F : ἐστι T W (Rijksbaron).
532e1. περὶ τούτου οὗ: il relativo οὗ è al genitivo (dovrebbe essere accusativo come oggetto del verbo ἠρόμην) perché è attratto nel caso dell’antecedente, τούτου.
e4. λάβωμεν γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ: “This sentence seems to have been generally misunderstood, and has led to rather fanciful translations and explanations, where τῷ λόγῳ sometimes is invisible, like ‘Prenons | un exemple’ (Méridier, Pradeau), ‘Let us just think it out thus’ (Lamb), ‘Fassen wir es doch in unserer Erörterung’ (Flashar); ‘[τῷ λόγῳ] in thought, as opposed to fact’ (Stock), ‘τῷ λόγῳ by reasoning or argument’ (Murray), ‘Let us grasp (the point) by means of argument’ (Miller), etc. Actually, the sentence elaborates upon the preceding sentence, ἐπειδάν τις τέχνην λάβῃ, so the object of λάβωμεν is τέχνην: ‘For let us take one (= an art)’, while τῷ λόγῳ = ‘for the benefit of, in aid of our discussion’. The construction has a close parallel at Lg. 638c2 οἱ λόγῳ λαβόντες τι ἐπιτήδευμα ‘all those who take up an institution for discussion’ (Bury)0” (Rijksbaron 2007: 155–6).
533a4 τῶν γραφέων, ἑνὸς μόνου: “In part following MSS S F (which have a middle dot after γραφέων), and the Aldina, which has a comma after γραφέων, I have put comma’s around ἑνὸς μόνου, thereby turning this phrase into an apposition to the nameless and arbitrary painter just introduced, stressing that the important thing is his singleness: ‘just one’” (Rijksbaron 2007: 157).

ἢ Ἐπειοῦ τοῦ Πανοπέως ἢ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Σαμίου ἢ ἄλλου             533b1
τινὸς ἀνδριαντοποιοῦ ἑνὸς πέρι δεινός ἐστιν ἐξηγεῖσθαι ἃ
εὖ πεποίηκεν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς τῶν ἄλλων ἀνδριαντοποιῶν ἔργοις
ἀπορεῖ τε καὶ νυστάζει, οὐκ ἔχων ὅτι εἴπῃ; -ΙΩΝ. Οὐ μὰ
τὸν Δία, οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἑώρακα. -ΣΩ. Ἀλλὰ μήν, ὥς γ’ ἐγὼ
οἶμαι, οὐδ’ ἐν αὐλήσει γε οὐδὲ ἐν κιθαρίσει οὐδὲ ἐν κιθαρῳδίᾳ
οὐδὲ ἐν ῥαψῳδίᾳ οὐδεπώποτ’ εἶδες ἄνδρα ὅστις περὶ μὲν
Ὀλύμπου δεινός ἐστιν ἐξηγεῖσθαι ἢ περὶ Θαμύρου ἢ περὶ
Ὀρφέως ἢ περὶ Φημίου τοῦ Ἰθακησίου ῥαψῳδοῦ, περὶ δὲ               c1
Ἴωνος τοῦ Ἐφεσίου [ῥαψῳδοῦ] ἀπορεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἔχει συμβα-
λέσθαι ἅ τε εὖ ῥαψῳδεῖ καὶ ἃ μή.
ΙΩΝ. Οὐκ ἔχω σοι περὶ τούτου ἀντιλέγειν, ὦ Σώκρατες·
ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ὅτι περὶ Ὁμήρου κάλλιστ’
ἀνθρώπων λέγω καὶ εὐπορῶ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πάντες μέ φασιν
εὖ λέγειν, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων οὔ. καίτοι ὅρα τοῦτο τί
ἔστιν.

533c4–535a10. Socrate ora nega in modo formale che Ione possegga una τέχνη. Egli è mosso da una δύναμις che agisce come un magnete. I poeti sono portavoce degli dèi, e i rapsodi a loro volta sono loro portavoce.

ΣΩ. Καὶ ὁρῶ, ὦ ῎Ιων, καὶ ἔρχομαί γέ σοι ἀποφανού-
μενος ὅ μοι δοκεῖ τοῦτο εἶναι. ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τέχνη μὲν                 533d1
οὐκ ὂν παρὰ σοὶ περὶ Ὁμήρου εὖ λέγειν, ὃ νυνδὴ ἔλεγον,
θεία δὲ δύναμις ἥ σε κινεῖ, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ λίθῳ ἣν Εὐρι-
πίδης μὲν Μαγνῆτιν ὠνόμασεν, οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ Ἡρακλείαν.
καὶ γὰρ αὕτη ἡ λίθος οὐ μόνον αὐτοὺς τοὺς δακτυλίους ἄγει
τοὺς σιδηροῦς, ἀλλὰ καὶ δύναμιν ἐντίθησι τοῖς δακτυλίοις
ὥστ’ αὖ δύνασθαι ταὐτὸν τοῦτο ποιεῖν ὅπερ ἡ λίθος, ἄλλους
ἄγειν δακτυλίους, ὥστ’ ἐνίοτε ὁρμαθὸς μακρὸς πάνυ σιδη-            533e1
ρίων καὶ δακτυλίων ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἤρτηται· πᾶσι δὲ τούτοις
ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς λίθου ἡ δύναμις ἀνήρτηται. οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ
Μοῦσα ἐνθέους μὲν ποιεῖ αὐτή, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἐνθέων τούτων
ἄλλων ἐνθουσιαζόντων ὁρμαθὸς ἐξαρτᾶται. πάντες γὰρ οἵ
τε τῶν ἐπῶν ποιηταὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ οὐκ ἐκ τέχνης ἀλλ’ ἔνθεοι
ὄντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι πάντα ταῦτα τὰ καλὰ λέγουσι ποιή-
ματα, καὶ οἱ μελοποιοὶ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ ὡσαύτως, ὥσπερ οἱ κορυ-
βαντιῶντες οὐκ ἔμφρονες ὄντες ὀρχοῦνται, οὕτω καὶ οἱ μελο-       534a1
ποιοὶ οὐκ ἔμφρονες ὄντες τὰ καλὰ μέλη ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν,
ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὰν ἐμβῶσιν εἰς τὴν ἁρμονίαν καὶ εἰς τὸν ῥυθμόν,
βακχεύουσι καὶ κατεχόμενοι, ὥσπερ αἱ βάκχαι ἀρύονται ἐκ
τῶν ποταμῶν μέλι καὶ γάλα κατεχόμεναι, ἔμφρονες δὲ οὖσαι
οὔ, καὶ τῶν μελοποιῶν ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦτο ἐργάζεται, ὅπερ αὐτοὶ
λέγουσι.

533c. ἔρχομαί Cobet : ἄρχομαί TWSF Rijksbaron. “‘And I start the presentation of my views with my view of that matter.’” (Rijksbaron 2007: 164).
533d1–2 ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο τέχνη μὲν οὐκ ὂν παρὰ σοὶ περὶ Ὁμήρου εὖ λέγειν: “Ἔστι must be connected with παρὰ σοί, = πάρεστι σοί, τοῦτο = περὶ Ὁμήρου εὖ λέγειν, and τέχνη μὲν οὐκ ὄν is a circumstantial participial phrase, with τέχνη used predicatively. Literally: ‘This (speaking well about Homer) is by you, not being an art (but a power) …’ = ‘This (speaking well about Homer) is at your command while it is not an art (but a divine power)’” (Rijksbaron 2007: 165). Invece per Murray 1996: 112 ἔστι . . . οὐκ ὄν = οὐκ ἔστι.
533e2. ἤρτηται: “contrast the use of the perfect tense here (‘a chain hangs in a state of suspension’) with ἐξαρτᾶται (‘a chain is strung out’) at 533e5” (Murray 1996: 113).
533e3-5. Il passo è imitato da Lucr. 6.910–16.
533e5. ἐνθουσιαζόντων: La parola ἐνθουσιασμός compare per la prima volta in Democrito (ποιητὴς δὲ ἅσσα μὲν ἂν γράφηι μετ’ ἐνθουσιασμοῦ καὶ ἱεροῦ πνεύματος, καλὰ κάρτα ἐστίν, B 18 DK), e questa idea dell’ispirazione gli è attribuita anche da Cicerone (de or. 2.194) e Orazio (A. P. 295–7). Tuttavia il fr. 21 (Ὅμηρος φύσεως λαχὼν θεαζούσης ἐπέων κόσμον ἐτεκτήνατο παντοίων) sembra indicare che Democrito non opponesse rigidamente tecnica e ispirazione.
534a4. βακχεύουσι: “The connexion between poetic inspiration and wineless Bacchic ecstasy (cf. e.g. Hor. C. 2.19 with N–H ad loc., and C. 3.25) seems to have begun here” (Murray 1996: 115).
κατεχόμενοι: “refers back to οἱ μελοποιοί, but after the parenthetical ὥσπερ clause, the subject is changed to τῶν μελοποιῶν ἡ ψυχή, which leaves the participle κατεχόμενοι without any grammatical construction (anacoluthon). The sentence as a whole enacts its own meaning, as the clauses are piled up one on top of the | other and the reader is carried [sic] away by the stream of words” (Murray 1996: 115–6).

λέγουσι γὰρ δήπουθεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς οἱ ποιηταὶ ὅτι
ἀπὸ κρηνῶν μελιρρύτων ἐκ Μουσῶν κήπων τινῶν καὶ ναπῶν        534b1
δρεπόμενοι τὰ μέλη ἡμῖν φέρουσιν ὥσπερ αἱ μέλιτται, καὶ
αὐτοὶ οὕτω πετόμενοι· καὶ ἀληθῆ λέγουσι. κοῦφον γὰρ
χρῆμα ποιητής ἐστιν καὶ πτηνὸν καὶ ἱερόν, καὶ οὐ πρότερον
οἷός τε ποιεῖν πρὶν ἂν ἔνθεός τε γένηται καὶ ἔκφρων καὶ
ὁ νοῦς μηκέτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐνῇ· ἕως δ’ ἂν τουτὶ ἔχῃ τὸ κτῆμα,
ἀδύνατος πᾶς ποιεῖν ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν καὶ χρησμῳδεῖν. ἅτε
οὖν οὐ τέχνῃ ποιοῦντες καὶ πολλὰ λέγοντες καὶ καλὰ περὶ
τῶν πραγμάτων, ὥσπερ σὺ περὶ Ὁμήρου, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ μοίρᾳ,            534c1
τοῦτο μόνον οἷός τε ἕκαστος ποιεῖν καλῶς ἐφ’ ὃ ἡ Μοῦσα
αὐτὸν ὥρμησεν, ὁ μὲν διθυράμβους, ὁ δὲ ἐγκώμια, ὁ δὲ
ὑπορχήματα, ὁ δ’ ἔπη, ὁ δ’ ἰάμβους· τὰ δ’ ἄλλα φαῦλος
αὐτῶν ἕκαστός ἐστιν. οὐ γὰρ τέχνῃ ταῦτα λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ
θείᾳ δυνάμει, ἐπεί, εἰ περὶ ἑνὸς τέχνῃ καλῶς ἠπίσταντο
λέγειν, κἂν περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων· διὰ ταῦτα δὲ ὁ θεὸς
ἐξαιρούμενος τούτων τὸν νοῦν τούτοις χρῆται ὑπηρέταις καὶ
τοῖς χρησμῳδοῖς καὶ τοῖς μάντεσι τοῖς θείοις, ἵνα ἡμεῖς οἱ              534d1
ἀκούοντες εἰδῶμεν ὅτι οὐχ οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες
οὕτω πολλοῦ ἄξια, οἷς νοῦς μὴ πάρεστιν, ἀλλ’ ὁ θεὸς αὐτός
ἐστιν ὁ λέγων, διὰ τούτων δὲ φθέγγεται πρὸς ἡμᾶς. μέ-
γιστον δὲ τεκμήριον τῷ λόγῳ Τύννιχος ὁ Χαλκιδεύς, ὃς
ἄλλο μὲν οὐδὲν πώποτε ἐποίησε ποίημα ὅτου τις ἂν ἀξιώ-
σειεν μνησθῆναι, τὸν δὲ παίωνα ὃν πάντες ᾄδουσι, σχεδόν
τι πάντων μελῶν κάλλιστον, ἀτεχνῶς, ὅπερ αὐτὸς λέγει,
“εὕρημά τι Μοισᾶν”. ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ δὴ μάλιστά μοι δοκεῖ               534e1
ὁ θεὸς ἐνδείξασθαι ἡμῖν, ἵνα μὴ διστάζωμεν, ὅτι οὐκ ἀνθρώ-
πινά ἐστιν τὰ καλὰ ταῦτα ποιήματα οὐδὲ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ
θεῖα καὶ θεῶν, οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλ’ ἢ ἑρμηνῆς εἰσιν
τῶν θεῶν, κατεχόμενοι ἐξ ὅτου ἂν ἕκαστος κατέχηται.

534c3–5 μὲν διθυράμβους, δὲ ἐγκώμια, δὲ ὑπορχήματα, δἔπη, δἰάμβους: “Murray rightly observes that ‘[i]t is striking that P. emphasises the genres of choral lyric, iambic and epic, but makes no reference to dramatic poetry. Perhaps this is in order to sustain the close identification of poet and performer.’ More specifically, the genres mentioned here are all non-mimetic or, like the epics, only partly mimetic. In fact, μίμησις, which is so important elsewhere in Plato in discussions of poetry (cp. the Introduction §1) is entirely absent from the Ion. Interestingly, the Homeric passages criticized by Socrates are | either—to use the terms of R. 394c—διὰ μιμήσεως (537a8 ff., 539a1 ff.) or δι’ ἀπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ τοῦ ποιητοῦ (538c2–3, 538d1–3, 539b4 ff.). But for the Socrates of the Ion the distinction is irrelevant, for it is only Homer who is the ‘maker’ of these lines. Socrates can therefore smoothly rephrase λέγει Νέστωρ (537a5) as λέγει Ὅμηρος (537c1–2). As for the credibility of the claim made here, Murray (on c5–7) points out that ‘[i]t would not be difficult to refute P’.s argument: of the genres mentioned, Pindar, for example, composed dithyrambs, encomia and ὑπορχήματα’. To this, however, the Socrates of the Ion might reply: ‘True enough. But was what he made always καλός?’ Cp. ποιεῖν καλῶς at c2.” (Rijksbaron 171-2). Rotstein 2010: 208-9: “Although these genres do not share any single occasion of performance, the fact that they were most conspicuously performed on public occasions is the rationale behind their inclusion in the list. Public occasions imply a role in the life of the city and from this communal role stems the philosopher’s interest. As we shall see in the next testimony, Plato took it for granted that iamboi could be performed along with comedy at ἀγῶνες, ‘contests’, held at religious festivals. In Plato’s Ion 534c iamboi thus appear among genres of non-dramatic poetry that were often | performed on public occasions and thus played a role in the life of the community.”
κἂν: “Supply: καλῶς ἠπίσταντο λέγειν” (Rijksbaron 2007: 172).
534e. ἑρμηνῆς: qui “portavoce” (ἑρμηνῆς = ἑρμηνεῖς).

ταῦτα ἐνδεικνύμενος ὁ θεὸς ἐξεπίτηδες διὰ τοῦ φαυλοτάτου
ποιητοῦ τὸ κάλλιστον μέλος ᾖσεν· ἢ οὐ δοκῶ σοι ἀληθῆ                535a1
λέγειν, ὦ ῎Ιων;ΙΩΝ. Ναὶ μὰ τὸν Δία, ἔμοιγε· ἅπτει γάρ πώς μου τοῖς
λόγοις τῆς ψυχῆς, ὦ Σώκρατες, καί μοι δοκοῦσι θείᾳ μοίρᾳ
ἡμῖν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ταῦτα οἱ ἀγαθοὶ ποιηταὶ ἑρμηνεύειν.
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ὑμεῖς αὖ οἱ ῥαψῳδοὶ τὰ τῶν ποιητῶν ἑρμη-
νεύετε;
ΙΩΝ. Καὶ τοῦτο ἀληθὲς λέγεις.
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἑρμηνέων ἑρμηνῆς γίγνεσθε;
ΙΩΝ. Παντάπασί γε.

535b1–e6. Socrate porta Ione a riconoscere che durante le sue recitazioni lui, come il suo pubblico, non è in pieno possesso delle proprie facoltà mentali.

ΣΩ. Ἔχε δή μοι τόδε εἰπέ, ὦ Ἴων, καὶ μὴ ἀποκρύψῃ                      535b1
ὅτι ἄν σε ἔρωμαι· ὅταν εὖ εἴπῃς ἔπη καὶ ἐκπλήξῃς μάλιστα
τοὺς θεωμένους, ἢ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ὅταν ἐπὶ τὸν οὐδὸν ἐφαλ-
λόμενον ᾄδῃς, ἐκφανῆ γιγνόμενον τοῖς μνηστῆρσι καὶ ἐκ-
χέοντα τοὺς ὀιστοὺς πρὸ τῶν ποδῶν, ἢ Ἀχιλλέα ἐπὶ τὸν
Ἕκτορα ὁρμῶντα, ἢ καὶ τῶν περὶ Ἀνδρομάχην ἐλεινῶν τι ἢ
περὶ Ἑκάβην ἢ περὶ Πρίαμον, τότε πότερον ἔμφρων εἶ ἢ ἔξω
σαυτοῦ γίγνῃ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πράγμασιν οἴεταί σου εἶναι ἡ         535c1
ψυχὴ οἷς λέγεις ἐνθουσιάζουσα, ἢ ἐν Ἰθάκῃ οὖσιν ἢ ἐν
Τροίᾳ ἢ ὅπως ἂν καὶ τὰ ἔπη ἔχῃ;
ΙΩΝ. Ὡς ἐναργές μοι τοῦτο, ὦ Σώκρατες, τὸ τεκμήριον
εἶπες· οὐ γάρ σε ἀποκρυψάμενος ἐρῶ. ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅταν
ἐλεινόν τι λέγω, δακρύων ἐμπίμπλανταί μου οἱ ὀφθαλμοί·
ὅταν τε φοβερὸν ἢ δεινόν, ὀρθαὶ αἱ τρίχες ἵστανται ὑπὸ
φόβου καὶ ἡ καρδία πηδᾷ.
ΣΩ. Τί οὖν; φῶμεν, ὦ Ἴων, ἔμφρονα εἶναι τότε τοῦτον                   535d1
τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ὃς ἂν κεκοσμημένος ἐσθῆτι ποικίλῃ καὶ
χρυσοῖσι στεφάνοις κλάῃ τ’ ἐν θυσίαις καὶ ἑορταῖς, μηδὲν
ἀπολωλεκὼς τούτων, ἢ φοβῆται πλέον ἢ ἐν δισμυρίοις ἀνθρώ-
ποις ἑστηκὼς φιλίοις, μηδενὸς ἀποδύοντος μηδὲ ἀδικοῦντος;
ΙΩΝ. Οὐ μὰ τὸν Δία, οὐ πάνυ, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὥς γε
τἀληθὲς εἰρῆσθαι.
ΣΩ. Οἶσθα οὖν ὅτι καὶ τῶν θεατῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς ταὐτὰ
ταῦτα ὑμεῖς ἐργάζεσθε;

535b1. Ἔχε δή μοι τόδε: Ἔχε δή· τόδε μοι Rijksbaron. “We may conclude that ἔχε δή (ἔχε, ἔχε οὖν) is, indeed, ‘disjoined from the rest of the sentence’, since it is never followed by a connective particle (for the apparent exceptions Cra. 439a1 and Lg. 627c3 see below). To put it in positive terms: ἔχε δή is in all cases followed by asyndeton, and this is reflected in the traditional punctuation, with a colon (high dot) or a period after δή (and once, rather arbitrarily, a comma, at Cra. 435e6)” (Rijksbaron 2007: 176).
535b–c. ἔμφρων . . . ἐνθουσιάζουσα: lo stesso linguaggio è applicato ai poeti (e non ai rapsodi!) in 534b5–6.
535c. οἷς λέγεις = ἃ λέγεις (“le cose di cui parli”), con attrazione del pron. relativo nel caso dell’antecedente (τοῖς πράγμασιν).
οὐ γάρ σε ἀποκρυψάμενος ἐρῶ: si tratta di un esempio di uso ‘coincidente’ dell’aoristo participio. L’aoristo participio esprime qui un’azione che viene a coincidere con quella espressa dal verbo reggente. Poiché il participio è negativo la resa migliore è “senza” + inf.: “te lo dirò senza nasconderti nulla”.
ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅταν ἐλεινόν τι . . . ἡ καρδία πηδᾷ: vd. Gorg. Hel. 9.
535d. ὥς γε τἀληθὲς εἰρῆσθαι: “This is not ‘to tell the truth’, vel sim., for ὡς + infinitive does not have purpose value, nor is εἰρῆσθαι ‘to tell’, but ‘if the truth be told’ (Saunders), or, more exactly, ‘in as much as the truth can be told’, with limitative ὡς, in our case rein- forced by γε, just as ὡς εἰπεῖν is ‘so weit man das sagen kann’, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ‘wenn man das Wort gebrauchen darf’. For these expres sions, whose semantics are often misunderstood, see K-G 2, 508” (Rijksbaron 2007: 183).
τῶν θεατῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς ταὐτὰ ταῦτα ὑμεῖς ἐργάζεσθε;: il verbo ἐργάζεσθε è costruito con il doppio accusativo: l’acc. della cosa che si fa (ταὐτὰ ταῦτα) e della persona a cui la si fa (τῶν θεατῶν τοὺς πολλούς).

ΙΩΝ. Καὶ μάλα καλῶς οἶδα· καθορῶ γὰρ ἑκάστοτε                         535e1
αὐτοὺς ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος κλάοντάς τε καὶ δεινὸν
ἐμβλέποντας καὶ συνθαμβοῦντας τοῖς λεγομένοις. δεῖ γάρ
με καὶ σφόδρ’ αὐτοῖς τὸν νοῦν προσέχειν· ὡς ἐὰν μὲν
κλάοντας αὐτοὺς καθίσω, αὐτὸς γελάσομαι ἀργύριον λαμβά-
νων, ἐὰν δὲ γελῶντας, αὐτὸς κλαύσομαι ἀργύριον ἀπολλύς.

535e. τοῦ βήματος: “Intrigued by this passage, and by the words καθορῶ … ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος at 535e1–2, Boyd (1994) has asked himself the question where Ion, or rather rhapsodes in general, may have stood during their performances at the Panathenaic games. He arrives at the conclusion (113) that both the Odeion (which was situated at the SE slope of the Akropolis) and the Pnyx were suitable places. In my view perhaps rather the latter, since Ion says τοῦ βήματος, the platform par excellence being that of the Pnyx, the seat of the ἐκκλησία (cp. Ar. V. 31– 32, Th. 8.97.1). See D. 22.68 βοῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος, and [Pl.] Ax. 369a2 ff. καίτοι γε σὺ μόνος αὐτοῖς ἤμυνες καὶ Εὐρυπτόλεμος, τρισμυρίων ἐκκλησιαζόντων.—ΑΞ. Ἔστιν ταῦτα, ὦ Σώκρατες· καὶ ἔγωγε ἐξ ἐκείνου ἅλις ἔσχον τοῦ βήματος ….” (Rijksbaron 2007: 183).
κλάοντας αὐτοὺς καθίσω: “put into a certain condition, esp. in the phrase κλαίοντά τινα κ. set him aweeping, κλάοντα καθέσωσ’ Eup. l.c., cf. Pl.Ion535e, X.Cyr.2.2.15; but ib.14 κλαίειν τινὰ κ. to make him weep: for Theoc.1.51, v. ἀκράτιστος” (LSJ s.v. καθίζω I 5). Si noti che il compito implicito del rapsodo è qui quello di far commuovere il pubblico piuttosto che farlo ridere, il che sembra aver un valore più generale per l’estetica platonico della tragedia e della commedia.

535e7–536d3. Socrate applica l’immagine del magnete a Ione, al suo pubblico e a Omero. Fine della prima parte della conversazione.

ΣΩ. Οἶσθα οὖν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ θεατὴς τῶν δακτυλίων
ὁ ἔσχατος, ὧν ἐγὼ ἔλεγον ὑπὸ τῆς Ἡρακλειώτιδος λίθου
ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὴν δύναμιν λαμβάνειν; ὁ δὲ μέσος σὺ ὁ
ῥαψῳδὸς καὶ ὑποκριτής, ὁ δὲ πρῶτος αὐτὸς ὁ ποιητής· ὁ δὲ           536a1
θεὸς διὰ πάντων τούτων ἕλκει τὴν ψυχὴν ὅποι ἂν βούληται
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀνακρεμαννὺς ἐξ ἀλλήλων τὴν δύναμιν.
καὶ ὥσπερ ἐκ τῆς λίθου ἐκείνης ὁρμαθὸς πάμπολυς ἐξήρ-
τηται χορευτῶν τε καὶ διδασκάλων καὶ ὑποδιδασκάλων, ἐκ
πλαγίου ἐξηρτημένων τῶν τῆς Μούσης ἐκκρεμαμένων δα-
κτυλίων. καὶ ὁ μὲν τῶν ποιητῶν ἐξ ἄλλης Μούσης, ὁ δὲ
ἐξ ἄλλης ἐξήρτηται—ὀνομάζομεν δὲ αὐτὸ κατέχεται, τὸ δέ
ἐστι παραπλήσιον· ἔχεται γάρ—ἐκ δὲ τούτων τῶν πρώτων            536b1
δακτυλίων, τῶν ποιητῶν, ἄλλοι ἐξ ἄλλου αὖ ἠρτημένοι εἰσὶ
καὶ ἐνθουσιάζουσιν, οἱ μὲν ἐξ Ὀρφέως, οἱ δὲ ἐκ Μουσαίου·
οἱ δὲ πολλοὶ ἐξ Ὁμήρου κατέχονταί τε καὶ ἔχονται. ὧν
σύ, ὦ ῎Ιων, εἷς εἶ καὶ κατέχῃ ἐξ Ὁμήρου, καὶ ἐπειδὰν μέν
τις ἄλλου του ποιητοῦ ᾄδῃ, καθεύδεις τε καὶ ἀπορεῖς ὅτι
λέγῃς, ἐπειδὰν δὲ τούτου τοῦ ποιητοῦ φθέγξηταί τις μέλος,
εὐθὺς ἐγρήγορας καὶ ὀρχεῖταί σου ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ εὐπορεῖς ὅτι
λέγῃς· οὐ γὰρ τέχνῃ οὐδ’ ἐπιστήμῃ περὶ Ὁμήρου λέγεις                  536c1
ἃ λέγεις, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ μοίρᾳ καὶ κατοκωχῇ, ὥσπερ οἱ κορυ-
βαντιῶντες ἐκείνου μόνου αἰσθάνονται τοῦ μέλους ὀξέως
ὃ ἂν ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξ ὅτου ἂν κατέχωνται, καὶ εἰς ἐκεῖνο τὸ
μέλος καὶ σχημάτων καὶ ῥημάτων εὐποροῦσι, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων
οὐ φροντίζουσιν· οὕτω καὶ σύ, ὦ ῎Ιων, περὶ μὲν Ὁμήρου
ὅταν τις μνησθῇ, εὐπορεῖς, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων ἀπορεῖς·
τούτου δ’ ἐστὶ τὸ αἴτιον, ὅ μ’ ἐρωτᾷς, δι’ ὅτι σὺ περὶ μὲν                 536d1
Ὁμήρου εὐπορεῖς, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων οὔ, ὅτι οὐ τέχνῃ ἀλλὰ
θείᾳ μοίρᾳ Ὁμήρου δεινὸς εἶ ἐπαινέτης.

535e7–8: “In spelling out the implications of this image, S. makes it clear that he is concerned with the whole process of poetic communication, involving the poet as composer, the rhapsode as transmitter and the audience as recipients” (Murray 1996:124).
536d3 δεινὸςἐπαινέτης: “Note that Socrates no longer uses the phrase δεινὸς περὶ Ὀμήρου but replaces this with δεινὸς ἐπαινέτης. In fact, since Socrates has established that Ion does not possess a skill, the phrase δεινὸς περί could no longer be used. This sentence concludes the first part of the conversation, which had started, at 531a1–2, with the question περὶ Ὁμήρου δεινὸς εἶ μόνον …;” (Rijksbaron 188). “Clearly this word [scil. ἐπαινήτης] must signify more than simply ‘admirer’ or ‘praiser’ of Homer (the sense in which it seems to be used at Prot. 309a6; Rep. 606e1 and Xen. Mem. 1.3.3). Presumable, like κοσμεῖν at 530d7, it relates to Ion’s combined activity of reciting and commenting on Homer, on which see Velardi (1989) 31–6” (Murray 1996: 125).

536d4–540b2. Ione vuole dimostrare di non essere invasato quando illustra Omero, ma Socrate non gli permette di darne prova prima di affrontare una questione preliminare. Ione affronta altrettanto bene tutti gli argomenti tecnici trattati da Omero? Ione riconosce che essi sono compresi meglio dagli esperti delle rispettive discipline. Ma qual è allora la capacità distintiva del rapsodo? Secondo Ione risiede nel sapere cosa deve un uomo o una donna, un libero o uno schiavo, chi comanda o chi è comandato. Socrate discute alcuni casi specifici.

ΙΩΝ. Σὺ μὲν εὖ λέγεις, ὦ Σώκρατες· θαυμάζοιμι μεντἂν
εἰ οὕτως εὖ εἴποις, ὥστε με ἀναπεῖσαι ὡς ἐγὼ κατεχόμενος
καὶ μαινόμενος Ὅμηρον ἐπαινῶ. οἶμαι δὲ οὐδ’ ἂν σοὶ
δόξαιμι, εἴ μου ἀκούσαις λέγοντος περὶ Ὁμήρου.
ΣΩ. Καὶ μὴν ἐθέλω γε ἀκοῦσαι, οὐ μέντοι πρότερον
πρὶν ἄν μοι ἀποκρίνῃ τόδε· ὧν Ὅμηρος λέγει περὶ τίνος                 536e1
εὖ λέγεις; οὐ γὰρ δήπου περὶ ἁπάντων γε.
ΙΩΝ. Εὖ ἴσθι, ὦ Σώκρατες, περὶ οὐδενὸς ὅτου οὔ.
ΣΩ. Οὐ δήπου καὶ περὶ τούτων ὧν σὺ μὲν τυγχάνεις
οὐκ εἰδώς, Ὅμηρος δὲ λέγει.
ΙΩΝ. Καὶ ταῦτα ποῖά ἐστιν ἃ Ὅμηρος μὲν λέγει, ἐγὼ
δὲ οὐκ οἶδα;
ΣΩ. Οὐ καὶ περὶ τεχνῶν μέντοι λέγει πολλαχοῦ Ὅμηρος                  537a1
καὶ πολλά; οἷον καὶ περὶ ἡνιοχείας—ἐὰν μνησθῶ τὰ ἔπη,
ἐγώ σοι φράσω.
ΙΩΝ. Ἀλλ’ ἐγὼ ἐρῶ· ἐγὼ γὰρ μέμνημαι.
ΣΩ. Εἰπὲ δή μοι ἃ λέγει Νέστωρ Ἀντιλόχῳ τῷ ὑεῖ,
παραινῶν εὐλαβηθῆναι περὶ τὴν καμπὴν ἐν τῇ ἱπποδρομίᾳ
τῇ ἐπὶ Πατρόκλῳ.
ΙΩΝ. Κλινθῆναι δέ, φησί, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐυξέστῳ ἐνὶ δίφρῳ
—ἦκ’ ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ τοῖιν· ἀτὰρ τὸν δεξιὸν ἵππον                                 537b1
—κένσαι ὁμοκλήσας, εἶξαί τέ οἱ ἡνία χερσίν.
—ἐν νύσσῃ δέ τοι ἵππος ἀριστερὸς ἐγχριμφθήτω,
—ὡς ἄν τοι πλήμνη γε δοάσσεται ἄκρον ἱκέσθαι
—κύκλου ποιητοῖο· λίθου δ’ ἀλέασθαι ἐπαυρεῖν.
ΣΩ. Ἀρκεῖ. ταῦτα δή, ὦ Ἴων, τὰ ἔπη εἴτε ὀρθῶς λέγει                        537c1
Ὅμηρος εἴτε μή, πότερος ἂν γνοίη ἄμεινον, ἰατρὸς ἢ ἡνίο-
χος; —ΙΩΝ. Ἡνίοχος δήπου. —ΣΩ. Πότερον ὅτι τέχνην
ταύτην ἔχει ἢ κατ’ ἄλλο τι; —ΙΩΝ. Οὔκ, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τέχνην.
—ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ἑκάστῃ τῶν τεχνῶν ἀποδέδοταί τι ὑπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ ἔργον οἵᾳ τε εἶναι γιγνώσκειν; οὐ γάρ που ἃ κυβερνη-
τικῇ γιγνώσκομεν, γνωσόμεθα καὶ ἰατρικῇ. —ΙΩΝ. Οὐ δῆτα.
—ΣΩ. Οὐδέ γε ἃ ἰατρικῇ, ταῦτα καὶ τεκτονικῇ. —ΙΩΝ.
Οὐ δῆτα. —ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν οὕτω καὶ κατὰ πασῶν τῶν τεχνῶν,           537d1
ἃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τέχνῃ γιγνώσκομεν, οὐ γνωσόμεθα τῇ ἑτέρᾳ;
τόδε δέ μοι πρότερον τούτου ἀπόκριναι· τὴν μὲν ἑτέραν φῂς
εἶναί τινα τέχνην, τὴν δ’ ἑτέραν; —ΙΩΝ. Ναί. —ΣΩ. Ἆρα
ὥσπερ ἐγὼ τεκμαιρόμενος, ὅταν ἡ μὲν ἑτέρων πραγμάτων ᾖ
ἐπιστήμη, ἡ δ’ ἑτέρων, οὕτω καλῶ τὴν μὲν ἄλλην, τὴν δὲ ἄλλην
τέχνην, οὕτω καὶ σύ;

537a. Κλινθῆναι δέ . . .: Iliade 23.335-340.
537b. κένσαι: aor. ind. inf. di κεντέω, “pungolare, incitare”.
δοάσσεται: in Omero δοάσσατο è una forma di aoristo, per lo più impersonale, che equivale all’attico  ἔδοξε, “sembrò”.
ἀλέασθαι: aor. inf. medio del verbo ἀλέομαι, “evitare”.
537c3–4 τέχνην ταύτην: “lit. ‘he has that as his art’. Ταύτην is the object of ἔχει and τέχνην a predicative noun. The form of the object is ταύτην rather than τοῦτο because it is adapted to the form of the predicative noun” (Rijksbaron 2007: 195).
ἑκάστῃ τῶν τεχνῶν ἀποδέδοταί τι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἔργον οἵᾳ τε εἶναι γιγνώσκειν: in altri termini, dal dio (ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ) è stato concesso (ἀποδέδοταί) a ciascuna delle “arti” (ἑκάστῃ τῶν τεχνῶν) di essere in grado (οἵᾳ τε εἶναι) di conoscere (γιγνώσκειν) un certo oggetto (τι . . . ἔργον). Il dat. οἵᾳ τε è riferito per mezzo del verbo essere al dat. ἑκάστῃ (τῶν τεχνῶν).
In concreto, the argument goes as follows. Socrates intended to discuss the τέχναι (537d1), but changes his plan and starts with distinguishing any two ἐπιστῆμαι (537d3), then, corresponding with these, any two τέχναι (537d6), taking ἀριθμητική as an illustration (537e6–7). When he eventually returns to the τέχναι, at 538a1, he follows the reverse order, using the insights gained from the discussion of the ἐπιστῆμαι. He starts with distinguishing τέχναι in general (538a2–7), then turns to Ion’s (supposed) τέχνη (538b1–5), and ends with the conclusion that if the specific τέχνη of Ion is different from other τέχναι, it is also, i.e. corresponds with, a specific ἐπιστήμη” (Rijksbaron 2007: 202).
537d. ἑτέραν: è predicativo e si riferisce a τὴν μὲν; “dici (φῄς) che una certa forma di sapere (τὴν μὲν . . . τινα τέχνην) sia (εἶναι) di un certo tipo (ἑτέραν)”.

—————————————ΙΩΝ. Ναί. —ΣΩ. Εἰ γάρ που τῶν               537e1
αὐτῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιστήμη εἴη τις, τί ἂν τὴν μὲν ἑτέραν
φαῖμεν εἶναι, τὴν δ’ ἑτέραν, ὁπότε γε ταὐτὰ εἴη εἰδέναι ἀπ’
ἀμφοτέρων; ὥσπερ ἐγώ τε γιγνώσκω ὅτι πέντε εἰσὶν οὗτοι
οἱ δάκτυλοι, καὶ σύ, ὥσπερ ἐγώ, περὶ τούτων ταὐτὰ γιγνώ-
σκεις· καὶ εἴ σε ἐγὼ ἐροίμην εἰ τῇ αὐτῇ τέχνῃ γιγνώσκομεν
τῇ ἀριθμητικῇ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐγώ τε καὶ σὺ ἢ ἄλλῃ, φαίης ἂν
δήπου τῇ αὐτῇ. —ΙΩΝ. Ναί.
ΣΩ. Ὃ τοίνυν ἄρτι ἔμελλον ἐρήσεσθαί σε, νυνὶ εἰπέ, εἰ                        538a1
κατὰ πασῶν τῶν τεχνῶν οὕτω σοι δοκεῖ, τῇ μὲν αὐτῇ τέχνῃ
τὰ αὐτὰ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι γιγνώσκειν, τῇ δ’ ἑτέρᾳ μὴ τὰ αὐτά,
ἀλλ’ εἴπερ ἄλλη ἐστίν, ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἕτερα γιγνώσκειν.
—ΙΩΝ. Οὕτω μοι δοκεῖ, ὦ Σώκρατες. —ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν ὅστις ἂν
μὴ ἔχῃ τινὰ τέχνην, ταύτης τῆς τέχνης τὰ λεγόμενα ἢ
πραττόμενα καλῶς γιγνώσκειν οὐχ οἷός τ’ ἔσται; —ΙΩΝ.
Ἀληθῆ λέγεις. —ΣΩ. Πότερον οὖν περὶ τῶν ἐπῶν ὧν εἶπες,               538b1
εἴτε καλῶς λέγει Ὅμηρος εἴτε μή, σὺ κάλλιον γνώσῃ ἢ
ἡνίοχος; —ΙΩΝ. Ἡνίοχος. —ΣΩ. Ῥαψῳδὸς γάρ που εἶ ἀλλ’
οὐχ ἡνίοχος. —ΙΩΝ. Ναί. —ΣΩ. Ἡ δὲ ῥαψῳδικὴ τέχνη
ἑτέρα ἐστὶ τῆς ἡνιοχικῆς; —ΙΩΝ. Ναί. —ΣΩ. Εἰ ἄρα ἑτέρα,
περὶ ἑτέρων καὶ ἐπιστήμη πραγμάτων ἐστίν. —ΙΩΝ. Ναί.
ΣΩ. Τί δὲ δὴ ὅταν Ὅμηρος λέγῃ ὡς τετρωμένῳ τῷ
Μαχάονι Ἑκαμήδη ἡ Νέστορος παλλακὴ κυκεῶνα πίνειν
δίδωσι; καὶ λέγει πως οὕτως—                                                                538c1
—οἴνῳ πραμνείῳ, φησίν, ἐπὶ δ’ αἴγειον κνῆ τυρὸν
—κνήστι χαλκείῃ· παρὰ δὲ κρόμυον ποτῷ ὄψον·
ταῦτα εἴτε ὀρθῶς λέγει Ὅμηρος εἴτε μή, πότερον ἰατρικῆς
ἐστι διαγνῶναι καλῶς ἢ ῥαψῳδικῆς;
ΙΩΝ. Ἱατρικῆς.
ΣΩ. Τί δέ, ὅταν λέγῃ Ὅμηρος—–
—ἡ δὲ μολυβδαίνῃ ἰκέλη ἐς βυσσὸν ἵκανεν,                                        538d1
—ἥ τε κατ’ ἀγραύλοιο βοὸς κέρας ἐμμεμαυῖα
—ἔρχεται ὠμηστῇσι μετ’ ἰχθύσι πῆμα φέρουσα·
ταῦτα πότερον φῶμεν ἁλιευτικῆς εἶναι τέχνης μᾶλλον κρῖναι
ἢ ῥαψῳδικῆς, ἅττα λέγει καὶ εἴτε καλῶς εἴτε μή;
ΙΩΝ. Δῆλον δή, ὦ Σώκρατες, ὅτι ἁλιευτικῆς.

538c. Il. 11.639-40, 630.
538d. Il. 24.80-82.
ἐμμεμαυῖα: ἐν + μεμαυῖα, una forma peculiare di perf. part. (μεμα-ώς, υῖα, ός) riconducibile a μέμονα, a sua volta affine a μένος, “forza, ardore”.

ΣΩ. Σκέψαι δή, σοῦ ἐρομένου, εἰ ἔροιό με· “Ἐπειδὴ
τοίνυν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τούτων τῶν τεχνῶν ἐν Ὀμήρῳ εὑρίσκεις        538e1
ἃ προσήκει ἑκάστῃ διακρίνειν, ἴθι μοι ἔξευρε καὶ τὰ τοῦ
μάντεώς τε καὶ μαντικῆς, ποῖά ἐστιν ἃ προσήκει αὐτῷ οἵῳ
τ’ εἶναι διαγιγνώσκειν, εἴτε εὖ εἴτε κακῶς πεποίηται”—
σκέψαι ὡς ῥᾳδίως τε καὶ ἀληθῆ ἐγώ σοι ἀποκρινοῦμαι.
πολλαχοῦ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ λέγει, οἷον καὶ ἃ ὁ
τῶν Μελαμποδιδῶν λέγει μάντις πρὸς τοὺς μνηστῆρας,
Θεοκλύμενος—
—δαιμόνιοι, τί κακὸν τόδε πάσχετε; νυκτὶ μὲν ὑμέων             539a1
—εἰλύαται κεφαλαί τε πρόσωπά τε νέρθε τε γυῖα,
—οἰμωγὴ δὲ δέδηε, δεδάκρυνται δὲ παρειαί·
—εἰδώλων τε πλέον πρόθυρον, πλείη δὲ καὶ αὐλὴ
—ἱεμένων ἔρεβόσδε ὑπὸ ζόφον· ἠέλιος δὲ
—οὐρανοῦ ἐξαπόλωλε, κακὴ δ’ ἐπιδέδρομεν ἀχλύς·                 539b1
πολλαχοῦ δὲ καὶ ἐν Ἰλιάδι, οἷον καὶ ἐπὶ τειχομαχίᾳ· λέγει
γὰρ καὶ ἐνταῦθα—
—ὄρνις γάρ σφιν ἐπῆλθε περησέμεναι μεμαῶσιν,
—αἰετὸς ὑψιπέτης, ἐπ’ ἀριστερὰ λαὸν ἐέργων,
—φοινήεντα δράκοντα φέρων ὀνύχεσσι πέλωρον,      539c
—ζῳόν, ἔτ’ ἀσπαίροντα· καὶ οὔπω λήθετο χάρμης.
—κόψε γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔχοντα κατὰ στῆθος παρὰ δειρὴν
—ἰδνωθεὶς ὀπίσω, ὁ δ’ ἀπὸ ἕθεν ἧκε χαμᾶζε
—ἀλγήσας ὀδύνῃσι, μέσῳ δ’ ἐνὶ κάββαλ’ ὁμίλῳ·
—αὐτὸς δὲ κλάγξας πέτετο πνοιῇς ἀνέμοιο.                 539d
ταῦτα φήσω καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῷ μάντει προσήκειν καὶ σκο-
πεῖν καὶ κρίνειν.
ΙΩΝ. Ἀληθῆ γε σὺ λέγων, ὦ Σώκρατες.

538d7: “Be that as it may, it is noteworthy and certainly ironical, to use a word that has perhaps been used too easily in connection with the Ion, that the only time Socrates allows Ion to really contribute to the discussion is in a hypothetical question through the mouth of Socrates himself. And irony | turns into sarcasm when Socrates in the next sentence says that it will be quite easy for him to answer Ion’s question” (Rijksbaron 2007: 210-11).
539a. Od. 20.351-3, 355-7—si tratta dell’unico passo in Omero in cui si parla di una forma estatica di profezia.
εἰλύαται: perf. ind. m.-p. III p. pl. di εἰλύω (con desinenza analoga alla desinenza -νται).
δέδηε: perf. ind. att. III p. s. di δαίω (intransitivo: “arde, avvampa”).
ἔρεβόσδε: forma costruita con l’avverbio enclitico -δε per indicare il moto a luogo (= εἰς ἔρεβον).
539b. Il. 12.200-207.
περησέμεναι: fut. inf. att. di περάω, dipendente dal participio/aggettivo μεμαῶσιν.
539c. ἕθεν: forma di gen. del pronome di III pers. data dall’aggiunta del suffisso -θεν.
χαμᾶζε: “a terra” (moto a luogo), forma data dall’aggiunta del suffisso -δε a *χαμάς (cf. χαμαί).
κάββαλ’: forma sincopata (= κατάβαλε).

ΣΩ. Καὶ σύ γε, ὦ ῎Ιων, ἀληθῆ ταῦτα λέγεις. ἴθι δὴ καὶ
σὺ ἐμοί, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ σοὶ ἐξέλεξα καὶ ἐξ Ὀδυσσείας καὶ ἐξ
Ἰλιάδος ὁποῖα τοῦ μάντεώς ἐστι καὶ ὁποῖα τοῦ ἰατροῦ καὶ
ὁποῖα τοῦ ἁλιέως, οὕτω καὶ σὺ ἐμοὶ ἔκλεξον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ                539e
ἐμπειρότερος εἶ ἐμοῦ τῶν Ὁμήρου, ὁποῖα τοῦ ῥαψῳδοῦ ἐστιν,
ὦ ῎Ιων, καὶ τῆς τέχνης τῆς ῥαψῳδικῆς, ἃ τῷ ῥαψῳδῷ προσ-
ήκει καὶ σκοπεῖσθαι καὶ διακρίνειν παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους
ἀνθρώπους.
ΙΩΝ. Ἐγὼ μέν φημι, ὦ Σώκρατες, ἅπαντα.
ΣΩ. Οὐ σύ γε φῄς, ὦ Ἴων, ἅπαντα· ἢ οὕτως ἐπιλήσμων
εἶ; καίτοι οὐκ ἂν πρέποι γε ἐπιλήσμονα εἶναι ῥαψῳδὸν
ἄνδρα.
ΙΩΝ. Τί δὲ δὴ ἐπιλανθάνομαι;                                                          540a
ΣΩ. Οὐ μέμνησαι ὅτι ἔφησθα τὴν ῥαψῳδικὴν τέχνην
ἑτέραν εἶναι τῆς ἡνιοχικῆς; —ΙΩΝ. Μέμνημαι. —ΣΩ. Οὐκ-
οῦν καὶ ἑτέραν οὖσαν ἕτερα γνώσεσθαι ὡμολόγεις; —ΙΩΝ.
Ναί. —ΣΩ. Οὐκ ἄρα πάντα γε γνώσεται ἡ ῥαψῳδικὴ κατὰ
τὸν σὸν λόγον οὐδὲ ὁ ῥαψῳδός. —ΙΩΝ. Πλήν γε ἴσως τὰ
τοιαῦτα, ὦ Σώκρατες.
ΣΩ. Τὰ τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγεις πλὴν τὰ τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν; ΙΩΝ.           540b
Σχεδόν τι. ΣΩ. Ἀλλὰ ποῖα δὴ γνώσεται, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ ἅπαντα;
ΙΩΝ. Ἃ πρέπει, οἶμαι ἔγωγε, ἀνδρὶ εἰπεῖν καὶ ὁποῖα
γυναικί, καὶ ὁποῖα δούλῳ καὶ ὁποῖα ἐλευθέρῳ, καὶ ὁποῖα
ἀρχομένῳ καὶ ὁποῖα ἄρχοντι.
ΣΩ. Ἆρα ὁποῖα ἄρχοντι, λέγεις, ἐν θαλάττῃ χειμαζομένου
πλοίου πρέπει εἰπεῖν, ὁ ῥαψῳδὸς γνώσεται κάλλιον ἢ ὁ
κυβερνήτης; —ΙΩΝ. Οὔκ, ἀλλὰ ὁ κυβερνήτης τοῦτό γε. —
ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’ ὁποῖα ἄρχοντι κάμνοντος πρέπει εἰπεῖν, ὁ                       540c
ῥαψῳδὸς γνώσεται κάλλιον ἢ ὁ ἰατρός; —ΙΩΝ. Οὐδὲ
τοῦτο. —ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’ οἷα δούλῳ πρέπει, λέγεις; —ΙΩΝ.
Ναί. —ΣΩ. Οἷον βουκόλῳ λέγεις δούλῳ ἃ πρέπει εἰπεῖν
ἀγριαινουσῶν βοῶν παραμυθουμένῳ, ὁ ῥαψῳδὸς γνώσεται
ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὁ βουκόλος; —ΙΩΝ. Οὐ δῆτα. —ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’ οἷα
γυναικὶ πρέποντά ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ταλασιουργῷ περὶ ἐρίων
ἐργασίας; —ΙΩΝ. Οὔ. —ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’ οἷα ἀνδρὶ πρέπει εἰπεῖν                        540d
γνώσεται στρατηγῷ στρατιώταις παραινοῦντι; —ΙΩΝ. Ναί,
τὰ τοιαῦτα γνώσεται ὁ ῥαψῳδός.
ΣΩ. Τί δέ; ἡ ῥαψῳδικὴ τέχνη στρατηγική ἐστιν;

539e. ἅπαντα: Cf. Plat. Resp. 598c6 ff.
540b. Σχεδόν τι: l’attribuzione di queste parole a Ione si deve a Rijksbaron sulla base della punteggiatura nel manoscritto W: “σχεδόν τι : W, ergo Ioni tribuit (· σχεδόν τι : F, σχεδόν τι : T [qui in marg. paragr. praebet], σχεδόν τι· S [qui ante σχεδόν spatium unius litt. praebet]) With W’s dicolon both before and after σχεδόν τι these words are spoken by Ion in reaction to Socrates’ question (‘Pretty nearly these’), and something similar may lie behind the, slightly confusing, text of the other MSS” (Rijksbaron 2007: 215).
πρέπει: forse Ione accenna a una distinzione fra contenuto fattuale ed espressione (Murray 1996: 130) [.Qui S. attribuisce a Ione e all’arte del rapsodo la responsabilità].
ἄρχοντι κάμνοντος: il senso del verbo ἄρχω è qui “essere responsabile”, quasi “prendersi cura” (cf. Plat. Polit. 299c1, Resp. 342d6).

540b2–542b4. Si prosegue nella discussione del comandante (ἀνὴρ στρατηγικός). Ione finisce per riconoscere, in base al suo ragionamento, di essere un generale, e il migliore dei generali. Socrate gli ribatte che però non lo è di fatto; egli deve perciò ammettere di essere un esperto per dono divino (θεῖος) piuttosto che per competenza tecnica (τεχνικός).

ΙΩΝ. Γνοίην γοῦν ἂν ἔγωγε οἷα στρατηγὸν πρέπει εἰπεῖν.
ΣΩ. ῎Ισως γὰρ εἶ καὶ στρατηγικός, ὦ ῎Ιων. καὶ γὰρ εἰ
ἐτύγχανες ἱππικὸς ὢν ἅμα καὶ κιθαριστικός, ἔγνως ἂν ἵππους
εὖ καὶ κακῶς ἱππαζομένους· ἀλλ’ εἴ σ’ ἐγὼ ἠρόμην· “Ποτέρᾳ        540e
δὴ τέχνῃ, ὦ ῎Ιων, γιγνώσκεις τοὺς εὖ ἱππαζομένους ἵππους;
ᾗ ἱππεὺς εἶ ἢ ᾗ κιθαριστής;” τί ἄν μοι ἀπεκρίνω; -ΙΩΝ.
Ἧι ἱππεύς, ἔγωγ’ ἄν. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ καὶ τοὺς εὖ κιθαρί-
ζοντας διεγίγνωσκες, ὡμολόγεις ἄν, ᾗ κιθαριστὴς εἶ, ταύτῃ
διαγιγνώσκειν, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ᾗ ἱππεύς. -ΙΩΝ. Ναί. -ΣΩ.
Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ στρατιωτικὰ γιγνώσκεις, πότερον ᾗ στρατη-
γικὸς εἶ γιγνώσκεις ἢ ᾗ ῥαψῳδὸς ἀγαθός; -ΙΩΝ. Οὐδὲν
ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ διαφέρειν.
ΣΩ. Πῶς; οὐδὲν λέγεις διαφέρειν; μίαν λέγεις τέχνην                     541
εἶναι τὴν ῥαψῳδικὴν καὶ τὴν στρατηγικὴν ἢ δύο; -ΙΩΝ. Μία
ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ. -ΣΩ. Ὅστις ἄρα ἀγαθὸς ῥαψῳδός ἐστιν, οὗτος
καὶ ἀγαθὸς στρατηγὸς τυγχάνει ὤν; -ΙΩΝ. Μάλιστα, ὦ Σώ-
κρατες. -ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν καὶ ὅστις ἀγαθὸς στρατηγὸς τυγχάνει
ὤν, ἀγαθὸς καὶ ῥαψῳδός ἐστιν. -ΙΩΝ. Οὐκ αὖ μοι δοκεῖ
τοῦτο. -ΣΩ. Ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο μὴν δοκεῖ σοι, ὅστις γε ἀγαθὸς
ῥαψῳδός, καὶ στρατηγὸς ἀγαθὸς εἶναι; -ΙΩΝ. Πάνυ γε. –                541b
ΣΩ. Οὐκοῦν σὺ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἄριστος ῥαψῳδὸς εἶ; -ΙΩΝ.
Πολύ γε, ὦ Σώκρατες. -ΣΩ. Ἦ καὶ στρατηγός, ὦ Ἴων, τῶν
Ἑλλήνων ἄριστος εἶ; -ΙΩΝ. Εὖ ἴσθι, ὦ Σώκρατες· καὶ
ταῦτά γε ἐκ τῶν Ὁμήρου μαθών.
ΣΩ. Τί δή ποτ’ οὖν πρὸς τῶν θεῶν, ὦ ῎Ιων, ἀμφότερα
ἄριστος ὢν τῶν Ἑλλήνων, καὶ στρατηγὸς καὶ ῥαψῳδός,
ῥαψῳδεῖς μὲν περιιὼν τοῖς Ἕλλησι, στρατηγεῖς δ’ οὔ; ἢ
ῥαψῳδοῦ μὲν δοκεῖ σοι χρυσῷ στεφάνῳ ἐστεφανωμένου               541c
πολλὴ χρεία εἶναι τοῖς ῞Ελλησι, στρατηγοῦ δὲ οὐδεμία;
ΙΩΝ. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἡμετέρα, ὦ Σώκρατες, πόλις ἄρχεται
ὑπὸ ὑμῶν καὶ στρατηγεῖται καὶ οὐδὲν δεῖται στρατηγοῦ, ἡ δὲ
ὑμετέρα καὶ ἡ Λακεδαιμονίων οὐκ ἄν με ἕλοιτο στρατηγόν·
αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴεσθε ἱκανοὶ εἶναι.
ΣΩ. ῏Ω βέλτιστε ῎Ιων, Ἀπολλόδωρον οὐ γιγνώσκεις τὸν
Κυζικηνόν;
ΙΩΝ. Ποῖον τοῦτον;

540e6-7: “Interestingly, however, in the next question, at 540e6–7, πότερον ᾗ στρατηγικὸς εἶ γιγνώσκεις ἢ ᾗ ῥαψῳδὸς ἀγαθός;, the formal connection with ποτέρᾳ τέχνῃ is lost, which is indicated by the change from ποτέρᾳ τέχνῃ to πότερον. In other words, in this case ᾗ is no longer a relative pronoun but a relative adverb (= ‘in as much as’), i.e. we have here an instance of what was to become a very popular procedural term in philosophical texts, notably in Aristotle, and was taken over as a calque in Latin qua. But it has not yet fully acquired the latter function here, for ᾗ still occurs in an (adverbial) relative clause” (Rijksbaron 2007: 225).
541b. κα τατά γε: “καὶ ταῦτά (γε) is an idiomatic phrase, which mostly modifies participles, as here μαθών, but it is also found with adjectives and noun phrases. (Morpho-)syntactically, ταῦτα is detached from the rest of the sentence, since it does not depend on a verb. It should probably be considered an appositional absolute nominative, which expresses something like: ‘and this situation obtains with the proviso (γε) that …’. For absolute nominatives cp. appositions like τὸ δὲ μέγιστον, τὸ κεφάλαιον (K-G 1, 285 Anm. 8). As for γε, if present, this indicates that the speaker is focusing on the specification added by the participle (or adjective or noun). Cp. Denn. 157 on καὶ … γε: ‘… stress[es] the addition made by καί’. Denniston does not discuss καὶ ταῦτά γε” (Rijksbaron 2007: 229).

ΣΩ. Ὃν Ἀθηναῖοι πολλάκις ἑαυτῶν στρατηγὸν ᾕρηνται
ξένον ὄντα· καὶ Φανοσθένη τὸν Ἄνδριον καὶ Ἡρακλείδην τὸν       541d
Κλαζομένιον, οὓς ἥδε ἡ πόλις ξένους ὄντας, ἐνδειξαμένους
ὅτι ἄξιοι λόγου εἰσί, καὶ εἰς στρατηγίας καὶ εἰς τὰς ἄλλας
ἀρχὰς ἄγει· Ἴωνα δ’ ἄρα τὸν Ἐφέσιον οὐχ αἱρήσεται
στρατηγὸν καὶ τιμήσει, ἐὰν δοκῇ ἄξιος λόγου εἶναι; τί δέ;
οὐκ Ἀθηναῖοι μέν ἐστε οἱ Ἐφέσιοι τὸ ἀρχαῖον, καὶ ἡ Ἔφεσος
οὐδεμιᾶς ἐλάττων πόλεως; ἀλλὰ γὰρ σύ, ὦ Ἴων, εἰ μὲν ἀληθῆ       541e
λέγεις ὡς τέχνῃ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ οἷός τε εἶ Ὅμηρον ἐπαινεῖν,
ἀδικεῖς, ὅστις ἐμοὶ ὑποσχόμενος ὡς πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ περὶ
Ὁμήρου ἐπίστασαι καὶ φάσκων ἐπιδείξειν, ἐξαπατᾷς με καὶ
πολλοῦ δεῖς ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὅς γε οὐδὲ ἅττα ἐστὶ ταῦτα περὶ
ὧν δεινὸς εἶ ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν, πάλαι ἐμοῦ λιπαροῦντος, ἀλλὰ
ἀτεχνῶς ὥσπερ ὁ Πρωτεὺς παντοδαπὸς γίγνῃ στρεφόμενος
ἄνω καὶ κάτω, ἕως τελευτῶν διαφυγών με στρατηγὸς ἀνεφά-
νης, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιδείξῃς ὡς δεινὸς εἶ τὴν περὶ Ὁμήρου σοφίαν.          542a
εἰ μὲν οὖν τεχνικὸς ὤν, ὅπερ νυνδὴ ἔλεγον, περὶ Ὁμήρου
ὑποσχόμενος ἐπιδείξειν ἐξαπατᾷς με, ἄδικος εἶ· εἰ δὲ μὴ
τεχνικὸς εἶ, ἀλλὰ θείᾳ μοίρᾳ κατεχόμενος ἐξ Ὁμήρου μηδὲν
εἰδὼς πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ λέγεις περὶ τοῦ ποιητοῦ, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ
εἶπον περὶ σοῦ, οὐδὲν ἀδικεῖς. ἑλοῦ οὖν πότερα βούλει
νομίζεσθαι ὑπὸ ἡμῶν ἄδικος ἀνὴρ εἶναι ἢ θεῖος.
ΙΩΝ. Πολὺ διαφέρει, ὦ Σώκρατες· πολὺ γὰρ κάλλιον τὸ                 542b
θεῖον νομίζεσθαι.
ΣΩ. Τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ κάλλιον ὑπάρχει σοι παρ’ ἡμῖν, ὦ
Ἴων, θεῖον εἶναι καὶ μὴ τεχνικὸν περὶ Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτην.

541e. ἀλλὰ γὰρ σύ, ὦ Ἴων, εἰ μὲν ἀληθῆ λέγεις ὡς τέχνῃ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ οἷός τε εἶ Ὅμηρον ἐπαινεῖν, ἀδικεῖς, ὅστις ἐμοὶ ὑποσχόμενος ὡς πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ περὶ Ὁμήρου ἐπίστασαι καὶ φάσκων ἐπιδείξειν, ἐξαπατᾷς με καὶ πολλοῦ δεῖς ἐπιδεῖξαι, ὅς γε οὐδὲ ἅττα ἐστὶ ταῦτα περὶ ὧν δεινὸς εἶ ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν, πάλαι ἐμοῦ λιπαροῦντος, ἀλλὰ ἀτεχνῶς ὥσπερ ὁ Πρωτεὺς παντοδαπὸς γίγνῃ στρεφόμενος ἄνω καὶ κάτω, ἕως τελευτῶν διαφυγών με στρατηγὸς ἀνεφάνης, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιδείξῃς ὡς δεινὸς εἶ τὴν περὶ Ὁμήρου σοφίαν.

ἀλλὰ γὰρ σύ . . . ἀδικεῖς: prop. principale.
εἰ μὲν ἀληθῆ λέγεις: prop. ipotetica (I).
ὡς τέχνῃ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ οἷός τε εἶ: prop. dichiarativa (II).
ὅστις . . . ἐξαπατᾷς με καὶ πολλοῦ δεῖς: prop. relativa + coordinata (I).
— ὑποσχόμενος . . . καὶ φάσκων: participi congiunti (II).
——ὡς πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ περὶ Ὁμήρου ἐπίστασαι: prop. dichiarativa (III).
ὅς . . . (οὐδὲ) ἐθέλεις εἰπεῖν ἀλλὰ . . . γίγνῃ: prop. relativa (I) + coordinata (I).
ἅττα ἐστὶ ταῦτα: prop. dichiarativa (II).
——περὶ ὧν δεινὸς εἶ: prop. relativa (III).
πάλαι ἐμοῦ λιπαροῦντος: gen. ass.
ἕως . . . ἀνεφάνης: prop. temporale (I).
ἵνα μὴ ἐπιδείξῃς: prop. finale (II).
——ὡς δεινὸς εἶ: prop. dichiarativa (III)