Timaeus — Plato

m •

^^ft

8T. MICHAEL'S > ' COLLEGE

^/fiftARV

THE

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

JOJVETT

VOL. III.

THE

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH

WITH ANALYSES AND INTRODUCTIONS

BY

B. JOWETT, M. A.

MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE; REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYUEN ; LL. D. OF THE UNIVERSITIES OF EDINBURGH AND CAMBRIDGE

IN FIVE VOLUMES: VOL. Ill

'C^irJj (Smtion ^ ^ lUfoista anb Correcteb (3tf)rou0f)out WITH MARGINAL ANALYSES AND OTHER ADDITIONS, AND AN INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND PROPER NAMES

MACMILLAN AND CO. AND LONDON 1892 All rights reserved

SEP 17 I9J7

Copyright, 1892, bv Macmillan & Co.

Printed at the De Vinne Press.

CONTENTS.

REPUBLIC : — Introduction and Analysis Book I ....

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

TIMAEUS CRITIAS

FAGB i I 36 68 107 140 180 214 247 280 307 339 517

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Toronto

http://www.archive.org/details/dialoguesofplat03plat

THE REPUBLIC

3 J"?

INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS.

The Republic of Plato is the longest of his works with the Republic exception of the Laws, and is certainly the greatest of them. ^^^ There are nearer approaches to modern metaphysics in the tion. Philebus and in the Sophist ; the Politicus or Statesman is more ideal ; the form and institutions of the State are more clearly drawn out in the Laws ; as works of art, the Symposium and the Protagoras are of higher excellence.

But no other Dialogue of Plato has the same largeness of view and the same perfection of style; no other shows an equal knowledge of the world, or contains more of those thoughts which are new as well as old, and not of one age only but of all. Nowhere in Plato is there a deeper irony or a greater wealth of humour or imagery, or more dramatic power.

Nor in any other of his writings is the attempt made to interweave life and speculation, or to connect politics with philosophy. The Republic is the centre around which the other Dialogues may be grouped ; here philosophy reaches the highest point (cp. especially in Books V, VI, VII) to which ancient thinkers ever attained.

Plato among the Greeks, like Bacon among the moderns, was the first who conceived a method of knowledge, although neither of them always distinguished the bare outline or form from the substance of truth ; and both of them had to be content with an abstraction of science which was not yet realized.

He was the greatest metaphysical genius whom the world has seen ; and in him, more than in any other ancient thinker, the germs of future knowledge are contained. The sciences of logic and psychology, which have supplied so many instruments of thought to after-ages, are based upon the analyses of Socrates and Plato.

The principles of definition, the law of contradiction, the fallacy of arguing in a circle, the distinction between the essence and accidents of a thing or notion, between means and ends, between causes and conditions ; also the division of the mind into the rational, concupiscent, and irascible elements, or of pleasures and desires into necessary and unnecessary — these VOL. in. — I

ii The greatness of Plato. Republic. and other great forms of thought are all of them to be found in the Introduc- Republic, and were probably first invented by Plato. The greatest TioN. qC ^ logical truths, and the one of which writers on philosophy arc most apt to lose sight, the difference between words and things, has been most strenuously insisted on by him (cp. Rep. 454 A; Poht. 261 E; Cratyl.

435, 436 {{.), although he has not always avoided the confusion of them in his own writings (e. g. Rep. 463 E). But he does not bind up truth in logical formulae, — logic is still veiled in metaphysics; and the science .which he imagines to 'contemplate all truth and all existence' is very unlike the doctrine of the syllogism which Aristotle claims to have discovered (Soph. Elenchi, 33. 18).

Neither must we forget that the Republic is but the third part of a still larger design which was to have included an ideal history of Athens, as well as a political and physical philosophy. The fragment of the Critias has given birth to a world-famous fiction, second only in importance to the tale of Troy and the legend of Arthur; and is said as a fact to have inspired some of the early navigators of the sixteenth century.

This mythical tale, of which the subject was a history of the wars of the Athenians against the island of Atlantis, is supposed to be founded upon an unfinished poem of Solon, to which it would have stood in the same relation as the writings of the logographers to the poems of Homer. It would have told of a struggle for Liberty (cp. Tim. 25 C), intended to represent the conflict of Persia and Hellas.

We may judge from the noble commencement of the Timaeus, from the fragment of the Critias itself, and from the third book of the Laws, in what manner Plato would have treated this high argument.

We can only guess why the great design was abandoned ; perhaps because Plato became sensible of some incongruity in a fictitious history, or because he had lost his interest in it, or because advancing years forbade the completion of it ; and we may please ourselves with the fancy that had this imaginary narrative ever been finished, we should have found Plato himself sympathising with the struggle for Hellenic independence (cp. Laws, iii.

698 ff. ), singing a hymn of triumph over Marathon and Salamis, perhaps making the reflection of Herodotus (v. 78) where he contemplates the growth of the Athenian empire — 'How brave a thing is freedom of speech.

The greatness of Plato. iii which has made the Athenians so far exceed every other state of Republic. Hellas in greatness ! ' or, more probably, attributing the victory to introducthe ancient good order of Athens and to the favour of Apollo and ^'°'^" Athene (cp. Introd. to Critias).

Again, Plato may be regarded as the ' captain ' {o.pxnyoq) or leader of a goodly band of followers ; for in the Republic is to be found the original of Cicero's De Republica, of St. Augustine's City of God, of the Utopia of Sir Thomas More, and of the numerous other imaginary States which are framed upon the same model.

The extent to which Aristotle or the Aristotelian school were indebted to him in the Politics has been little recognised, and the recognition is the more necessary because it is not made by Aristotle himself. The two philosophers had more in common than they were conscious of; and probably some elements of Plato remain still undetected in Aristotle.

In English philosophy too, many affinities may be traced, not only in the works of the Cambridge Platonists, but in great original writers like Berkeley or Coleridge, to Plato and his ideas. That there is a truth higher than experience, of which the mind bears witness to herself, is a conviction which in our own generation has been enthusiastically asserted, and is perhaps gaining ground.

Of the Greek authors who at the Renaissance brought a new life into the world Plato has had the greatest influence. The Republic of Plato is also the first treatise upon education, of which the writings of Milton and Locke, Rousseau, Jean Paul, and Goethe are the legitimate descendants.

Like Dante or Bunyan, he has a revelation of another life; like Bacon, he is profoundly impressed with the unity of knowledge; in the early Church he exercised a real influence on theology, and at the Revival of Literature on politics. Even the fragments of his words when 'repeated at second-hand ' (Symp. 215 D) have in all ages ravished the hearts of men, who have seen reflected in them their own higher nature.

He is the father of idealism in philosophy, in politics, in literature. And many of the latest conceptions of modern thinkers and statesmen, such as the unity of knowledge, the reign of law, and the equality of the sexes, have been anticipated in a dream by him. The argument of the Republic is the search after Justice, the nature of which is first hinted at by Cephalus, the just and blameiv The argument of the Republic. Republic.

Icss old man — then discussed on the basis of proverbial morality Introduc- by Socrates and Polemarchus — then caricatured by Thrasymachus '^^^^' and partially explained by Socrates — reduced to an abstraction by Glaucon and Adeimantus, and having become invisible in the individual reappears at length in the ideal State which is constructed by Socrates.

The first care of the rulers is to be education, of which an outline is drawn after the old Hellenic model, providing only for an improved religion and morality, and more simplicity in music and gymnastic, a manlier strain of poetry, and greater harmony of the individual and the State.

We are thus led on to the conception of a higher State, in which * no man calls anything his own,' and in which there is neither ' marrying nor giving in marriage,* and 'kings are philosophers' and 'philosophers are kings ; ' and there is another and higher education, intellectual as well as moral and religious, of science as well as of art, and not of youth only but of the whole of life.

Such a State is hardly to be realized in this world and quickly degenerates. To the perfect ideal succeeds the government of the soldier and the lover of honour, this again declining into democracy, and democracy into tyranny, in an imaginary but regular order having not much resemblance to the actual facts.

When ' the wheel has come full circle ' we do not begin again with a new period of human life ; but we have passed from the best to the worst, and there we end. The subject is then changed and the old quarrel of poetry and philosophy which had been more lightly treated in the earlier books of the Republic is now resumed and fought out to a conclusion.

Poetry is discovered to be an imitation thrice removed from the truth, and Homer, as well as the dramatic poets, having been condemned as an imitator, is sent into banishment along with them. And the idea of the State is supplemented by the revelation of a future life. The division into books, like all similar divisionsi, is probably later than the age of Plato.

The natural divisions are five in number; — (i) Book I and the first half of Book II down to p. 368, which is introductory ; the first book containing a refutation of the popular and sophistical notions of justice, and concluding, like some of the earlier Dialogues, without arriving at any definite result. To this is appended a restatement of the nature of justice 1 Cp. Sir G.

The divisions. according to common opinion, and an answer is demanded to the ReptMic. question — What is justice, stripped of appearances ? The second Introducdivision (2) includes the remainder of the second and the whole of ^'°^' the third and fourth books, which are mainly occupied with the construction of the first State and the first education.

The third division (3) consists of the fifth, sixth, and seventh books, in which philosophy rather than justice is the subject of enquiry, and the second State is constructed on principles of communism and ruled by philosophers, and the contemplation of the idea of good takes the place of the social and political virtues.

In the eighth and ninth books (4) the perversions of States and of the individuals who correspond to them are reviewed in succession ; and the nature of pleasure and the principle of tyranny are further analysed in the individual man.

The tenth book (5) is the conclusion of the whole, in which the relations of philosophy to poetry are finally determined, and the happiness of the citizens in this life, which has now been assured, is crowned by the vision of another.

Or a more general division into two parts may be adopted ; the first (Books I- IV) containing the description of a State framed generally in accordance with Hellenic notions of religion and morality, while in the second (Books V-X) the Hellenic State is transformed into an ideal kingdom of philosophy, of which all other governments are the perversions.

These two points of view are really opposed, and the opposition is only veiled by the genius of Plato. The Republic, like the Phaedrus (see Introduction to Phaedrus), is an imperfect whole; the higher light of philosophy breaks through the regularity of the Hellenic temple, which at last fades away into the heavens (592 B).

Whether this imperfection of structure arises from an enlargement of the plan ; or from the imperfect reconcilement in the writer's own mind of the struggling elements of thought which are now first brought together by him ; or, perhaps, from the composition of the work at different times — are questions, Hke the similar question about the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are worth asking, but which cannot have a distinct answer.

In the age of Plato there was no regular mode of publication, and an author would have the less scruple in altering or adding to a work which was known only to a few of his friends. There is no absurdity in supposing that he may have laid his labours aside for a time, or turned from one work to

vi The second title. Republic. aiiothcr ; and such interruptions would be more likely to occur Introduc- ii^ the case of a long than of a short writing.

In all attempts to determine the chronological order of the Platonic writings on internal evidence, this uncertainty about any single Dialogue being composed at one time is a disturbing element, which must be admitted to affect longer works, such as the Republic and the Laws, more than shorter ones.

But, on the other hand, the seeming discrepancies of the Republic may only arise out of the discordant elements which the philosopher has attempted to unite in a single whole, perhaps without being himself able to recognise the inconsistency which is obvious to us. For there is a judgment of after ages which few great writers have ever been able to anticipate for themselves.

They do not perceive the want of connexion in their own writings, or the gaps in their systems which are visible enough to those who come after them. In the beginnings of literature and philosophy, amid the first efforts of thought and language, more inconsistencies occur than now, when the paths of speculation are well worn and the meaning of words precisely defined.

For consistency, too, is the growth of time ; and some of the greatest creations of the human mind have been wanting in unity. Tried by this test, several of the Platonic Dialogues, according to our modern ideas, appear to be defective, but the deficiency is no proof that they were composed at different times or by different hands.

And the supposition that the Republic was written uninterruptedly and by a continuous effort is in some degree confirmed by the numerous references from one part of the work to another. The second title, 'Concerning Justice,' is not the one by which the Republic is quoted, either by Aristotle or generally in antiquity, and, like the other second titles of the Platonic Dialogues, may therefore be assumed to be of later date.

Morgenstern and others have asked whether the definition of justice, which is the professed aim, or the construction of the State is the principal argument of the work. The answer is, that the two blend in one, and are two faces of the same truth; for justice is the order of the State, and the State is the visible embodiment of justice, under the conditions of human society.

The one is the soul and the other is the body, and the Greek ideal of the State, as of the individual, is a fair mind in a fair body. In Hegelian phraseology the state is the reality of

Is there one argument or more ? vii which justice is the idea. Or, described in Christian language, the Republic. kingdom of God is within, and yet developcs into a Church or ex- Introducternal kingdom ; * the house not made with hands, eternal in the "*^^ heavens,' is reduced to the proportions of an earthly building. Or, to use a Platonic image, justice and the State are the warp and the woof which run through the whole texture.

And when the constitution of the State is completed, the conception of justice is not dismissed, but reappears under the same or different names throughout the work, both as the inner law of the individual soul, and finally as the principle of rewards and punishments in another life.

The virtues are based on justice, of which common honesty in buying and selling is the shadow, and justice is based on the idea of good, which is the harmony of the world, and is reflected both in the institutions of states and in motions of the heavenly bodies (cp. Tim. 47).

The Timaeus, which takes up the political rather than the ethical side of the Republic, and is chiefly occupied with hypotheses concerning the outward world, yet contains many indications that the same law is supposed to reign over the State, over nature, and over man. Too much, however, has been made of this question both in ancient and modern times.

There is a stage of criticism in which all works, whether of nature or of art, are referred to design. Now in ancient writings, and indeed in literature generally, there remains often a large element which was not comprehended in the original design. For the plan grows under the author's hand; new thoughts occur to him in the act of writing; he has not worked out the argument to the end before he begins.

The reader who seeks to find some one idea under which the whole may be conceived, must necessarily seize on the vaguest and most general. Thus Stallbaum, who is dissatisfied with the ordinary explanations of the argument of the Republic, imagines himself to have found the true argument ' in the representation of human life in a State perfected by justice, and governed according to the idea of good.

There may be some use in such general descriptions, but they can hardly be said to express the design of the writer. The truth is, that we may as well speak of many designs as of one ; nor need anything be excluded from the plan of a great work to which the mind is naturally led by the association of ideas, and which does not interfere with the general purpose. What kind or degree of

unity is to be sought after in a building, in the plastic arts, in poetry, in prose, is a problem which has to be determined relatively to the subject-matter. To Plato himself, the enquiry ' what was the intention of the writer,' or * what was the principal argument of the Republic ' would have been hardly intelligible, and therefore had better be at once dismissed (cp. the Introduction to the Phaedrus, vol. i.).

Is not the Republic the vehicle of three or four great truths which, to Plato's own mind, are most naturally represented in the form of the State?

Just as in the Jewish prophets the reign of Messiah, or ' the day of the Lord,' or the suffering Servant or people of God, or the 'Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings' only convey, to us at least, their great spiritual ideals, so through the Greek State Plato reveals to us his own thoughts about divine perfection, which is the idea of good — like the sun in the visible world; — about human perfection, which is justice — about education beginning in youth and continuing in later years — about poets and sophists and tyrants who are the false teachers and evil rulers of mankind — about ' the world ' which is the embodiment of them — about a kingdom which exists nowhere upon earth but is laid up in heaven to be the pattern and rule of human life.

No such inspired creation is at unity with itself, any more than the clouds of heaven when the sun pierces through them. Every shade of light and dark, of truth, and of fiction which is the veil of truth, is allowable in a work of philosophical imagination. It is not all on the same plane ; it easily passes from ideas to myths and fancies, from facts to figures of speech.

It is not prose but poetry, at least a great part of it, and ought not to be judged by the rules of logic or the probabilities of history. The writer is not fashioning his ideas into an artistic whole ; they take possession of him and are too much for him. We have no need therefore to discuss whether a State such as Plato has conceived is practicable or not, or whether the outward form or the inward life came first into the mind of the writer.

For the practicability of his ideas has nothing to do with their truth (v. 472 D) ; and the highest thoughts to which he attains may be truly said to bear the greatest 'marks of design' — justice more than the external frame-work of the State, the idea of good more than justice. The great science of dialectic or the organisation of ideas has no real content ; but is only a type of the method or

The imaginary date.

IX

spirit in which the higher knowledge is to be pursued by the Republic. spectator of all time and all existence. It is in the fifth, sixth, and Introducseventh books that Plato reaches the 'summit of speculation,* and ^'°^' these, although they fail to satisfy the requirements of a modern thinker, may therefore be regarded as the most important, as they are also the most original, portions of the work. It is not necessary to discuss at length a minor question which has been raised by Boeckb, respecting the imaginary date at which the conversation was held (the year 411 B.C. which is proposed by him will do as well as any other) ; for a writer of fiction, and especially a writer who, like Plato, is notoriously careless of chronology (cp. Rep. i. 336, Symp. 193 A, etc. ), only aims at general probability. Whether all the persons mentioned in the Republic could ever have met at any one time is not a difficulty which would have occurred to an Athenian reading the work forty years later, or to Plato himself at the time of writing (any more than to Shakespeare respecting one of his own dramas) ; and need not greatly trouble us now. Yet this may be a question having no answer 'which is still worth asking,' because the investigation shows that we cannot argue historically from the dates in Plato ; it would be useless therefore to waste time in inventing far-fetched reconcilements of them in order to avoid chronological difficulties, such, for example, as the conjecture of C. F. Hermann, that Glaucon and Adeimantus are not the brothers but the uncles of Plato (cp. Apol. 34 A), or the fancy of Stallbaum that Plato intentionally left anachronisms indicating the dates at which some of his Dialogues were written.

The principal characters in the Republic are Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. Cephalus appears in the introduction only, Polemarchus drops at the end of the first argument, and Thrasymachus is reduced to silence at the close of the first book. The main discussion is carried on by Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus. Among the company are Lysias (the orator) and Euthydemus, the sons of Cephalus and brothers of Polemarchus, an unknown Charmantides — these are mute auditors; also there is Cleitophon, who once interrupts (340 A), where, as in the Dialogue which bears his name, he appears as the friend and ally of Thrasymachus.

TION.

X The characters : Cephalus and Polemarchus : Republic. Ccphalus, thc patriarch of the house, has been appropriately Introduc- engaged in offering a sacrifice. He is the pattern of an old man who has almost done with life, and is at peace with himself and with all mankind. He feels that he is drawing nearer to the world below, and seems to hngcr around the memory of the past.

He is eager that Socrates should come to visit him, fond of the poetry of the last generation, happy in the consciousness of a well-spent life, glad at having escaped from the tyranny of youthful lusts. His love of conversation, his affection, his indifference to riches, even his garrulity, are interesting traits of character. He is not one of those who have nothing to say, because their whole mind has been absorbed in making money.

Yet he acknowledges that riches have the advantage of placing men above the temptation to dishonesty or falsehood. The respectful attention shown to him by Socrates, whose love of conversation, no less than the mission imposed upon him by the Oracle, leads him to ask questions of all men, young and old alike (cp. i. 328 A), should also be noted.

Who better suited to raise the question of justice than Cephalus, whose life might seem to be the expression of it? The moderation with which old age is pictured by Cephalus as a very tolerable portion of existence is characteristic, not only of him, but of Greek feeling generally, and contrasts with the exaggeration of Cicero in the De Senectute.

The evening of life is described by Plato in the most expressive manner, yet with the fewest possible touches. As Cicero remarks (Ep. ad Attic, iv. 16), the aged Cephalus would have been out of place in the discussion which follows, and which he could neither have understood nor taken part in without a violation of dramatic propriety (cp. Lysimachus in the Laches, 89).

His 'son and heir' Polemarchus has the frankness and impetuousness of youth ; he is for detaining Socrates by force in the opening scene, and will not * let him off ' (v. 449 B) on the subject of women and children. Like Cephalus, he is limited in his point of view, and represents the proverbial stage of morality which has rules of life rather than principles; and he quotes Simonides (cp. Aristoph.

Clouds, 1355 ff.) as his father had quoted Pindar. But after this he has no more to say; the answers which he makes are only elicited from him by the dialectic of Socrates. He has not yet experienced the influence of the Sophists like Glaucon and

Adeimantus, nor is he sensible of the necessity of refuting them ; he Republic. belongs to the pre-Socratic or pre-dialectical age. He is incapable Lntroducof arguing, and is bewildered by Socrates to such a degree that he ^'°^' does not know what he is saying. He is made to admit that justice is a thief, and that the virtues follow the analogy of the arts (i. 2,T,2, E).

From his brother Lysias (contra Eratosth. p. 121) we learn that he fell a victim to the Thirty Tyrants, but no allusion is here made to his fate, nor to the circumstance that Cephalus and his family were of Syracusan origin, and had migrated from Thurii to Athens.

The ' Chalcedonian giant,' Thrasymachus, of whom we have already heard in the Phaedrus (267 D), is the personification of the Sophists, according to Plato's conception of them, in some of their worst characteristics.

He is vain and blustering, refusing to discourse unless he is paid, fond of making an oration, and hoping thereby to escape the inevitable Socrates ; but a mere child in argument, and unable to foresee that the next ' move ' (to use a Platonic expression) will ' shut him up ' (vi. 487 B). He has reached the stage of framing general notions, and in this respect is in advance of Cephalus and Polemarchus.

But he is incapable of defending them in a discussion, and vainly tries to cover his confusion with banter and insolence.

Whether such doctrines as are attributed to him by Plato were really held either by him or by any other Sophist is uncertain; in the infancy of philosophy serious errors about morality might easily grow up — they are certainly put into the mouths of speakers in Thucydides ; but we are concerned at present with Plato's description of him, and not with the historical reality. The inequality of the contest adds greatly to the humour of the scene.

The pompous and empty Sophist is utterly helpless in the hands of the great master of dialectic, who knows how to touch all the springs of vanity and weakness in him. He is greatly irritated by the irony of Socrates, but his noisy and imbecile rage only lays him more and more open to the thrusts of his assailant. His determination to cram down their throats, or put * bodily into their souls' his own words, elicits a cry of horror from Socrates.

The state of his temper is quite as worthy of remark as the process of the argument. Nothing is more amusing than his complete submission when he has been once thoroughly beaten. At first he seems to continue

xii Glaucon and Adeimantus. Republic. thc cliscusbion with reluctance, but soon with apparent good-will, Introduc- and he even testifies his interest at a later stage by one or two TioN. occasional remarks (v. 450 A, B). When attacked by Glaucon (vi. 498 C, D) he is humorously protected by Socrates* as one who has never been his enemy and is now his friend. From Cicero and Quintilian and from Aristotle's Rhetoric (iii. 1.7; ii. 23.

29) we learn that the Sophist whom Plato has made so ridiculous was a man of note whose writings were preserved in later ages. The play on his name which was made by his contemporary Herodicus (Aris. Rhet. ii. 23, 29), * thou wast ever bold in battle,' seems to show that the description of him is not devoid of verisimilitude.

When Thrasymachus has been silenced, the two principal respondents, Glaucon and Adeimantus, appear on the scene : here, as in Greek tragedy (cp. Introd. to Phaedo), three actors are introduced. At first sight the two sons of Ariston may seem to wear a family likeness, like the two friends Simmias and Cebes in the Phaedo. But on a nearer examination of them the similarity vanishes, and they are seen to be distinct characters.

Glaucon is the impetuous youth who can * just never have enough of fechting ' (cp. the character of him in Xen. Mem. iii. 6) ; the man of pleasure who is acquainted with the mysteries' of love (v. 474 D) ; the ^juvenis qui gaudet canibus,' and who improves the breed of animals (v. 459 A) ; the lover of art and music (iii. 398 D, E) who has all the experiences of youthful life.

He is full of quickness and penetration, piercing easily below the clumsy platitudes of Thrasymachus to the real difficulty ; he turns out to the light the seamy side of human life, and yet does not lose faith in the just and true. It is Glaucon who seizes what may be termed the ludicrous relation of the philosopher to the world, to whom a state of simplicity is 'a city of pigs,' who is always prepared with a jest (iii. 398 C, 407 A ; v.

450, 451, 468 C ; vi. 509 C ; ix. 586) when the argument offers him an opportunity, and who is ever ready to second the humour of Socrates and to appreciate the ridiculous, whether in the connoisseurs of music (vii. 531 A), or in the lovers of theatricals (v. 475 D),. or in the fantastic behaviour of the citizens of democracy (viii. 557 foil.). His weaknesses are several times alluded to by Socrates (iii. 402 E ; v.

474 D, 475 E), who, however, will not allow him to be attacked by his brother Adeimantus (viii. 548 D, E). He is a soldier, and, like Adeimantus, has been

distinguished at the battle of Megara (368 A, anno 456 ?). . . The Republic. character of Adeimantus is deeper and graver, and the profounder Introducobjections are commonly put into his mouth. Glaucon is more ^'°'^" demonstrative, and generally opens the game ; Adeimantus pursues the argument further. Glaucon has more of the liveliness and quick sympathy of youth ; Adeimantus has the maturer judgment of a grown-up man of the world.

In the second book, when Glaucon insists that justice and injustice shall be considered without regard to their consequences, Adeimantus remarks that they are regarded by mankind in general only for the sake of their consequences ; and in a similar vein of reflection he urges at the beginning of the fourth book that Socrates fails in making his citizens happy, and is answered that happiness is not the first but the second thing, not the direct aim but the indirect consequence of the good government of a State.

In the discussion about religion and mythology, Adeimantus is the respondent (iii. 376-398), but at p. 398 C, Glaucon breaks in with a slight jest, and carries on the conversation in a lighter tone about music and gymnastic to the end of the book. It is Adeimantus again who volunteers the criticism of common sense on the Socratic method of argument (vi.

487 B), and who refuses to let Socrates pass lightly over the question of women and children (v. 449). It is Adeimantus who is the respondent in the more argumentative, as Glaucon in the lighter and more imaginative portions of the Dialogue. For example, throughout the greater part of the sixth book, the causes of the corruption of philosophy and the conception of the idea of good are discussed with Adeimantus.

At p. 506 C, Glaucon resumes his place of principal respondent ; but he has a difficulty in apprehending the higher education of Socrates, and makes some false hits in the course of the discussion (526 D, 527 D). Once more Adeimantus returns (viii. 548) with the allusion to his brother Glaucon whom he compares to the contentious State ; in the next book (ix. 576) he is again superseded, and Glaucon continues to the end (x. 621 B).

Thus in a succession of characters Plato represents the successive stages of morality, beginning with the Athenian gentleman of the olden time, who is followed by the practical man of that day regulating his life by proverbs and saws; to him succeeds the wild generalization of the Sophists, and lastly come the young disciples of the great teacher, who know the sophistical arguments

but will not be convinced by them, and desire to go deeper into the nature of things. These too, like Cephalus, Polemarchus, ThrasymacYius, are clearly distinguished from one another. Neither in the Republic, nor in any other Dialogue of Plato, is a single character repeated. The delineation of Socrates in the Republic is not wholly consistent.

In the first book we have more of the real Socrates, such as he is depicted in the Memorabilia of Xcnophon, in the earliest Dialogues of Plato, and in the Apology. He is ironical, provoking, questioning, the old enemy of the Sophists, ready to put on the mask of Silenus as well as to argue seriously.

But in the sixth book his enmity towards the Sophists abates ; he acknowledges that they are the representatives rather than the corrupters of the world (vi. 492 A). He also becomes more dogmatic and constructive, passing beyond the range either of the political or the speculative ideas of the real Socrates. In one passage (vi.

506 C) Plato himself seems to intimate that the time had now come for Socrates, who had passed his whole life in philosophy, to give his own opinion and not to be always repeating the notions of other men. There is no evidence that either the idea of good or the conception of a perfect state were comprehended in the Socratic teaching, though he certainly dwelt on the nature of the universal and of final causes (cp. Xen. Mem. i.

4 ; Phaedo 97) ; and a deep thinker like him, in his thirty or forty years of public teaching, could hardly have failed to touch on the nature of family relations, for which there is also some positive evidence in the Memorabilia (Mem. i. 2, 51 foil.). The Socratic method is nominally retained; and every inference is either put into the mouth of the respondent or represented as the common discovery of him and Socrates.

But any one can see that this is a mere form, of which the affectation grows wearisome as the work advances. The method of enquiry has passed into a method of teaching in which by the help of interlocutors the same thesis is looked at from various points of view. The nature of the process is truly characterized by Glaucon, when he describes himself as a companion who is not good for much in an investigation, but can see what he is shown (iv.

432 C), and may, perhaps, give the answer to a question more fluently than another (v. 474 A; cp. 389 A). Neither can we be absolutely certain that Socrates himself

taught the immortality of the soul, which is unknown to his disciple Republic. Glaucon in the Republic (x. 608 D ; cp. vi. 498 D, E ; Apol. 40, 41) ; Introducnor is there any reason to suppose that he used myths or reve- ^'°^" lations of another world as a vehicle of instruction, or that he would have banished poetry or have denounced the Greek mythology.

His favourite oath is retained, and a slight mention is made of the daemonium, or internal sign, which is alluded to by Socrates as a phenomenon peculiar to himself (vi. 496 C). A real element of Socratic teaching, which is more prominent in the Republic than in any of the other Dialogues of Plato, is the use of example and illustration {ja (popuKo. ahru irpooipepovTcgj iv. 442 E) : * Let us apply the test of comm.on instances.

'You,' says Adeimantus, ironically, in the sixth book, * are so unaccustomed to speak in images. And this use of examples or images, though truly Socratic in origin, is enlarged by the genius of Plato into the form of an allegory or parable, which embodies in the concrete what has been already described, or is about to be described, in the abstract.

Thus the figure of the cave in Book VII is a recapitulation of the divisions of knowledge in Book VI. The composite animal in Book IX is an allegory of the parts of the soul. The noble captain and the ship and the true pilot in Book VI are a figure of the relation of the people to the philosophers in the State which has been described. Other figures, such as the dog (ii. 375 A, D; iii. 404 A, 416 A ; v.

451 D), or the marriage of the portionless maiden (vi. 495, 496), or the drones and wasps in the eighth and ninth books, also form links of connexion in long passages, or are used to recall previous discussions. Plato is most true to the character of his master when he describes him as ' not of this world.

And with this representation of him the ideal state and the other paradoxes of the Republic are quite in accordance, though they cannot be shown to have been speculations of Socrates. To him, as to other great teachers both philosophical and religious, when they looked upward, the world seemed to be the embodiment of error and evil. The common sense of mankind has revolted against this view, or has only partially admitted it.

And even in Socrates himself the sterner judgment of the multitude at times passes into a sort of ironical pity or love. Men in general are incapable of philosophy, and are therefore at enmity with the philosopher; but their misunderstanding of him

xvi Analysis 327. Republic. is Unavoidable (vi. 494 foil. ; ix. 589 D) : for they have never seen Introduc- him as he truly is in his own image; they are only acquainted with artificial systems possessing no native force of truth — words which admit of many applications. Their leaders have nothing to measure with, and are therefore ignorant of their own stature.

But they are to be pitied or laughed at, not to be quarrelled with ; they mean well with their nostrums, if they could only learn that they are cutting off a Hydra's head (iv. 426 D, E). This moderation towards those who are in error is one of the most characteristic features of Socrates in the Republic (vi. 499-502).

In all the different representations of Socrates, whether of Xcnophon or Plato, and amid the differences of the earlier or later Dialogues, he always retains the character of the unwearied and disinterested seeker after truth, without which he would have ceased to be Socrates.

Leaving the characters we may now analyse the contents of the Republic, and then proceed to consider (i) The general aspects of this Hellenic ideal of the State, (2) The modern lights in which the thoughts of Plato may be read. BOOK I. The Republic opens with a truly Greek scene — a festival in honour of the goddess Bendis which is held in the Piraeus ; to this is added the promise of an equestrian torch-race in the evening.

The whole work is supposed to be recited by Socrates on the day after the festival to a small party, consisting of Critias, Timaeus, Hermocrates, and another; this we learn from the first words of the Timaeus. When the rhetorical advantage of reciting the Dialogue has been gained, the attention is not distracted by any reference to the audience ; nor is the reader further reminded of the extraordinary length of the narrative.

Of the numerous company, three only take any serious part in the discussion ; nor are we informed whether in the evening they went to the torch-race, or talked, as in the Symposium, through the night.

The manner in which the conversation has arisen is described as follows : — Socrates and hisSteph. companion Glaucon are about to leave the festival when they are 3^7 detained by a message from Polemarchus, who speedily appears accompanied by Adeimantus, the brother of Glaucon, and with playful violence compels them to remain, promising them not only

28 the torch-race, but the pleasure of conversation with the young, Republic i. which to Socrates is a far greater attraction. They return to the Analysis. house of Cephahis, Polemarchus' father, now in extreme old age, who is found sitting upon a cushioned seat crowned for a sacrifice. * You should come to me oftener, Socrates, for I am too old to go to you ; and at my time of life, having lost other pleasures, I care the more for conversation.

Socrates asks him what he thinks of 29 age, to which the old man replies, that the sorrows and discontents of age are to be attributed to the tempers of men, and that age is a time of peace in which the tyranny of the passions is no longer felt. Yes, replies Socrates, but the world will say, Cephalus, that you are happy in old age because you are rich.

' And there is something in what they say, Socrates, but not *so much as they 30 imagine — as Themistocles replied to the Seriphian, "Neither you, if you had been an Athenian, nor I, if I had been a Seriphian, would ever have been famous," I might in like manner reply to you. Neither a good poor man can be happy in age, nor yet a bad rich man.

Socrates remarks that Cephalus appears not to care about riches, a quality which he ascribes to his having inherited, not acquired them, and would like to know what he considers to be the chief advantage of them.

Cephalus answers that when you are old the belief in the world below grows upon you, and then to have done justice and never to have been compelled to do injustice through poverty, and never to have deceived any one, are felt to be unspeakable blessings. Socrates, who is evidently preparing for an argument, next asks, What is the meaning of the word justice? To tell the truth and pay your debts? No more than this? Or must we admit exceptions?

Ought I, for example, to put back into the hands of my friend, who has gone mad, the sword which I borrowed of him when he was in his right mind ? ' There must be exceptions. ' And yet,' says Polemarchus, ' the definition which has been given has the authority of Simonides.

Here Cephalus retires to look after the sacrifices, and bequeaths, as Socrates facetiously remarks, the possession of the argument to his heir, Polemarchus The description of old age is finished, and Plato, as his manner is, has touched the key-note of the whole work in asking for the definition of justice, first suggesting the question which Glaucon afterwards pursues respecting external goods, and preparing for VOL. III. — 2

Analysis 332-335- the concluding mythus of the world below in the slight allusion of Cephalus. The portrait of the just man is a natural frontispiece or introduction to the long discourse which follows, and may perhaps imply that in all our perplexity about the nature of justice, there is no difficulty in discerning 'who is a just man.

The first explanation has been supported by a saying of Simonides ; and now Socrates has a mind to show that the resolution of justice into two unconnected precepts, which have no common principle, fails to satisfy the demands of dialectic. He proceeds : What did Simonides mean by this saying of 332 his ? Did he mean that I was to give back arms to a madman ? ' No, not in that case, not if the parties are friends, and evil would result.

He meant that you were to do what was proper, good to friends and harm to enemies. Every act does something to somebody ; and following this analogy, Socrates asks, What is this due and proper thing which justice does, and to whom ? He is answered that justice does good to friends and harm to enemies. But in what way good or harm ? ' In making alliances with the one, and going to war with the other.

Then in time of peace what is the good of justice ? The answer is that justice is of use in contracts, ZZZ and contracts are money partnerships. Yes ; but how in such partnerships is the just man of more use than any other man ? * When you want to have money safely kept and not used. Then justice will be useful when money is useless.

And there is another difficulty: justice, like the art of war or any other art, must be of opposites, good at attack as well as at defence, at stealing as well 334 as at guarding.

But then justice is a thief, though a hero notwithstanding, like Autolycus, the Homeric hero, who was ' excellent above all men in theft and perjury ' — to such a pass have you and Homer and Simonides brought us; though I do not forget that the thieving must be for the good of friends and the harm of enemies. And still there arises another question : Are friends to be interpreted as real or seeming; enemies as real or seeming?

And 335 are our friends to be only the good, and our enemies to be the evil ? The answer is, that we must do good to our seeming and real good friends, and evil to our seeming and real evil enemies — good to the good, evil to the evil. But ought we to render evil for evil at all, when to do so will only make men more evil ? Can justice produce injustice any more than the art of horsemanship

The early stages of morality. xix can make bad horsemen, or heat produce cold? The final con- Republic i. elusion is, that no sage or poet ever said that the just return evil Analysis. for evil ; this was a maxim of some rich and mighty man, Peri- >^6 ander, Perdiccas, or Ismenias the Theban (about B.C.

398-381) Thus the first stage of aphoristic or unconscious morality is Introducshown to be inadequate to the wants of the age ; the authority of the poets is set aside, and through the winding mazes of dialectic we make an approach to the Christian precept of forgiveness of injuries.

Similar words are applied by the Persian mystic poet to the Divine being when the questioning spirit is stirred within him : — 'If because I do evil, Thou punishest me by evil, what is the difference between Thee and me ? ' In this both Plato and Kheyam rise above the level of many Christian (?) theologians.

The first definition of justice easily passes into the second; for the simple words 'to speak the truth and pay your debts' is substituted the more abstract ' to do good to your friends and harm to your enemies. ' Either of these explanations gives a sufficient rule of life for plain men, but they both fall short of the precision of philosophy.

We may note in passing the antiquity of casuistry, which not only arises out of the conflict of established principles in particular cases, but also out of the effort to attain them, and is prior as well as posterior to our fundamental notions of morality.

The ' interrogation ' of moral ideas ; the appeal to the authority of Homer ; the conclusion that the maxim, ' Do good to your friends and harm to your enemies,' being erroneous, could not have been the word of any great man (cp. ii. 380 A, B), are all of them very characteristic of the Platonic Socrates. . . .

Here Thrasymachus, who has made several attempts to Analysis. interrupt, but has hitherto been kept in order by the company, takes advantage of a pause and rushes into the arena, beginning, like a savage animal, with a roar. 'Socrates,' he says, 'what folly is this ? — Why do you agree to be vanquished by one another in a pretended argument?

He then prohibits all the 537 ordinary definitions of justice; to which Socrates replies that he cannot tell how many twelve is, if he is forbidden to say 2 X 6, or 3 X 4, or 6 X 2, or 4 X 3. At first Thrasymachus is reluctant 338 to argue ; but at length, with a promise of payment on the part of

XX Analysis 338-343. Republic I. the Company and of praise from Socrates, he is induced to open Analysis. the game. ' Listen,' he says ; ^ my answer is that might is right, justice the interest of the stronger: now praise me.* Let me understand you first. Do you mean that because Polydamas the wrestler, who is stronger than we are, finds the eating of beef for his interest, the eating of beef is also for our interest, who are not so strong?

Thrasymachus is indignant at the illustration, and in pompous words, apparently intended to restore dignity to the argument, he explains his meaning to be that the rulers make laws for their own interests. But suppose, says Socrates, that the 339 ruler or stronger makes a mistake — then the interest of the stronger is not his interest.

Thrasymachus is saved from this speedy downfall by his disciple Cleitophon, who introduces the 34c word ' thinks; ' — not the actual interest of the ruler, but what he thinks or what seems to be his interest, is justice. The contradiction is escaped by the unmeaning evasion : for though his real and apparent interests may differ, what the ruler thinks to be his interest will always remain what he thinks to be his interest.

Of course this was not the original assertion, nor is the new interpretation accepted by Thrasymachus himself. But Socrates is not disposed to quarrel about words, if, as he significantly insinuates, his adversary has changed his mind,. In what follows Thrasymachus does in fact withdraw his admission that the ruler may make a mistake, for he affirms that the ruler as a ruler is infallible.

Socrates is quite ready to accept the new position, 341 which he equally turns against Thrasymachus by the help of the analogy of the arts. Every art or science has an interest, but 342 this interest is to be distinguished from the accidental interest of the artist, and is only concerned with the good of the things or persons which come under the art.

And justice has an interest which is the interest not of the ruler or judge, but of those who come under his sway. Thrasymachus is on the brink of the inevitable conclusion, when he makes a bold diversion. 'Tell me, Socrates,' he says, 343 'have you a nurse? What a question! Why do you ask? ' Because, if you have, she neglects you and lets you go about drivelling, and has not even taught you to know the shepherd from the sheep. For you fancy that shepherds and rulers never think of their own interest, but only of their sheep or subjects.

whereas the truth is that they fatten them for their use, sheep and Republic i. subjects alike. And experience proves that in every relation Analysis. of life the just man is the loser and the unjust the gainer, ;44 especially where injustice is on the grand scale, which is quite another thing from the petty rogueries of swindlers and burglars and robbers of temples.

The language of men proves this — our * gracious ' and ' blessed ' tyrant and the like — all which tends to show (i) that justice is the interest of the stronger; and (2) that injustice is more profitable and also stronger than justice. Thrasymachus, who is better at a speech than at a close argument, having deluged the company with words, has a mind M r to escape.

But the others will not let him go, and Socrates adds a humble but earnest request that he will not desert them at such a crisis of their fate. *And what can I do more for you ? ' he says ; ' would you have me put the words bodily into your souls ?

' God forbid ! replies Socrates ; but we want you to be consistent in the use of terms, and not to employ 'physician' in an exact sense, and then again ' shepherd ' or ' ruler ' in an inexact, — if the words are strictly taken, the ruler and the shepherd look only to the good of their people or flocks and not to their own : whereas you insist that rulers are solely actuated by love of office. ' No doubt about it,' replies Thrasy- 746 machus.

Then why are they paid? Is not the reason, that their interest is not comprehended in their art, and is therefore the concern of another art, the art of pay, which is common to the arts in general, and therefore not identical with anyone of them?

547 Nor would any man be a ruler unless he were induced by the hope of reward or the fear of punishment ; — the reward is money or honour, the punishment is the necessity of being ruled by a man worse than himself. And if a State [or Church] were composed entirely of good men, they would be affected by the last motive only ; and there would be as much ' nolo episcopari ' as there is at present of the opposite. . . .

The satire on existing governments is heightened by the simple Introducand apparently incidental manner in which the last remark is '^'°^' introduced. There is a similar irony in the argument that the governors of mankind do not like being in office, and that therefore they demand pay. Enough of this: the other assertion of Thrasymachus is far Analysis.

xxii Analysis 348-352. Republic I. morc important — that the unjust hfe is more gainful than the just. Analysis. Now, as you and I, Glaucon, are not convinced by him, we must 348 \ reply to him ; but if we try to compare their respective gains t we shall want a judge to decide for us ; we had better therefore ' proceed by making mutual admissions of the truth to one another.

Thrasymachus had asserted that perfect injustice was more gainful than perfect justice, and after a little hesitation he is induced by Socrates to admit the still greater paradox that in- 349 justice is virtue and justice vice. Socrates praises his frankness, and assumes the attitude of one whose only wish is to understand J the meaning of his opponents. At the same time he is weaving a net in which Thrasymachus is finally enclosed.

The admission is elicited from him that the just man seeks to gain an advantage over the unjust only, but not over the just, while the unjust would gain an advantage over either. Socrates, in order to test this statement, employs once more the favourite analogy of the arts.

The musician, doctor, skilled artist of any sort, does not 350 seek to gain more than the skilled, but only more than the unskilled (that is to say, he works up to a rule, standard, law, and does not exceed it), whereas the unskilled makes random efforts at excess. Thus the skilled falls on the side of the good, and the unskilled on the side of the evil, and the just is the skilled, and the unjust is the unskilled.

There was great difficulty in bringing Thrasymachus to the point ; the day was hot and he was streaming with perspiration, and for the first time in his life he was seen to blush.

But his other thesis that injustice was stronger than justice has not yet been refuted, and Socrates now proceeds to the consideration of this, which, with the assistance of Thrasymachus, he hopes to clear up ; the latter is at first churlish, but in the judicious hands of Socrates is soon restored to good-humour: Is there not honour ^51 among thieves? Is not the strength of injustice only a remnant of justice ?

Is not absolute injustice absolute weakness also ? ' A house that is divided against itself cannot stand; two men who 352 quarrel detract from one another's strength, and he who is at war with himself is the enemy of himself and the gods. Not wickedness therefore, but semi-wickedness flourishes in states, — a remnant of good is needed in order to make union in action possible, — there is no kingdom of evil in this world.

Another question has not been answered: Is the just or the Republic I. 53 unjust the happier? To this we reply, that every art has an analysis. end and an excellence or virtue by which the end is accomplished. And is not the end of the soul happiness, and justice the excellence of the soul by which happiness is attained ?

Justice 54 and happiness being thus shown to be inseparable, the question whether the just or the unjust is the happier has disappeared. Thrasymachus replies : * Let this be your entertainment, Socrates, at the festival of Bendis. Yes; and a very good entertainment with which your kindness has supplied me, now that you have left off scolding. And yet not a good entertainment — but that was my own fault, for I tasted of too many things.

First of all the nature of justice was the subject of our enquiry, and then whether justice is virtue and wisdom, or evil and folly; and then the comparative advantages of just and unjust: and the sum of all is that I know not what justice is ; how then shall I know whether the just is happy or not? . . .

Thus the sophistical fabric has been demolished, chiefly by Introducappealing to the analogy of the arts. * Justice is like the arts ^'°^* (i) in having no external interest, and (2) in not aiming at excess, and (3) justice is to happiness what the implement of the workman is to his work.

At this the modern reader is apt to stumble, because he forgets that Plato is writing in an age when the arts and the virtues, like the moral and intellectual faculties, were still undistinguished. .Among early enquirers into the nature of human action the arts helped to fill up the void of speculation ; and at first the comparison of the arts and the virtues was not perceived by them to be fallacious.

They only saw the points of agreement in them and not the points of difference. Virtue, like art, must take means to an end ; good manners are both an art and a virtue ; character is naturally described under the image of a statue (ii. 361 D ; vii. 540 C) ; and there are many other figures of speech which are readily transferred from art to morals.

The next generation cleared up these perplexities ; or at least supplied after ages with a further analysis of them. The contemporaries of Plato were in a state of transition, and had not yet fully realized the common-sense distinction of Aristotle, that 'virtue is concerned with action, art with production' (Nic. Eth. vi. 4), or that ' virtue implies intention and constancy of purpose,'

xxiv The just is of the nature of the finite. Republic I. whercas 'art requires knowledge only ' (Nic. Eth. ii. 3). And yet Intkoduc- in the absurdities which follow from some uses of the analogy (cp. i. 333 E, 334 B), there seems to be an intimation conveyed that virtue is more than art. This is implied in the rednctio ad absurdum that 'justice is a thief/ and in the dissatisfaction which Socrates expresses at the final result.

The expression ' an art of pay ' (i. 346 B) which is described as ' common to all the arts' is not in accordance with the ordinary use of language. Nor is it employed elsewhere either by Plato or by any other Greek writer. It is suggested by the argument, and seems to extend the conception of art to doing as well as making. Another flaw or inaccuracy of language may be noted in the words (i- 335 C) 'men who are injured are made more unjust.

For those who are injured are not necessarily made worse, but only harmed or ill-treated. The second of the three arguments, ' that the just does not aim at excess,' has a real meaning, though wrapped up in an enigmatical form. That the good is of the nature of the finite is a peculiarly Hellenic sentiment, which may be compared with the language of those modern writers who speak of virtue as fitness, and of freedom as obedience to law.

The mathematical or logical notion of limit easily passes into an ethical one, and even finds a mythological expression in the conception of envy (^^owf). Ideas of measure, equality, order, unity, proportion, still linger in the writings of moralists ; and the true spirit of the fine arts is better conveyed by such terms than by superlatives.

' When workmen strive to do better than well, They do confound their skill in covetousness.' (King John, Act iv. Sc. 2.) The harmony of the soul and body (iii. 402 D), and of the parts of the soul with one another (iv. 442 C), a harmony 'fairer than that of musical notes,' is the true Hellenic mode of conceiving the perfection of human nature.

In what may be called the epilogue of the discussion with Thrasymachus, Plato argues that evil is not a principle of strength, but of discord and dissolution, just touching the question which has been often treated in modern times by theologians and philosophers, of the negative nature of evil (cp. on the other hand x. 610). In the last argument we trace the germ of the

Analysis 357-359.

XXV

Aristotelian doctrine of an end and a virtue directed towards the end, which again is suggested by the arts. The final reconcilement of justice and happiness and the identity of the individual and the State are also intimated. Socrates reassumes the character of a 'know-nothing; ' at the same time he appears to be not wholly satisfied with the manner in which the argument has been conducted. Nothing is concluded ; but the tendency of the dialectical process, here as always, is to enlarge our conception of ideas, and to widen their application to human life.

Republic I. Introduction.

steph. BOOK II. Thrasymachus is pacified, but the intrepid Glaucon Analysis. 357 insists on continuing the argument. He is not satisfied with the indirect manner in which, at the end of the last book, Socrates had disposed of the question ' Whether the just or the unjust is the happier.

He begins by dividing goods into three classes: — first, goods desirable in themselves ; secondly, goods desirable in themselves and for their results ; thirdly, goods desirable for their results only. He then asks Socrates in which of the three 358 classes he would place justice.

In the second class, replies Socrates, among goods desirable for themselves and also for their results. * Then the world in general are of another mind, for they say that justice belongs to the troublesome class of goods which are desirable for their results only. Socrates answers that this is the doctrine of Thrasymachus which he rejects.

Glaucon thinks that Thrasymachus was too ready to listen to the voice of the charmer, and proposes to consider the nature of justice and injustice in themselves and apart from the results and rewards of them which the world is always dinning in his ears.

He will first of all speak of the nature and origin of justice; secondly, of the manner in which men view justice as a necessity and not a good ; and thirdly, he will prove the reasonableness of this view. ' To do injustice is said to be a good ; to suffer injustice an evil.

As the evil is discovered by experience to be greater than the 359 Soodj the sufferers, who cannot also be doers, make a compact that they will have neither, and this compact or mean is called justice, but is really the impossibility of doing injustice. No one would observe such a compact if he were not obliged. Let us suppose that the just and unjust have two rings, like that of Gyges

Republic II. in thc wcll-known story, which make them invisible, and then 360 Analysis. no difference will appear in them, for every one will do evil if he can. And he who abstains will be regarded by the world as a fool for his pains. Men may praise him in public out of fear for themselves, but they will laugh at him in their hearts. (Cp. Gorgias, 483 B.) 'And now let us frame an ideal of the just and unjust.

Imagine the unjust man to be master of his craft, seldom making mistakes and easily correcting them; having gifts of money, speech, 361 strength — the greatest villain bearing thc highest character: and at his side let us place the just in his nobleness and simplicity — being, not seeming — without name or reward — clothed in his justice only — the best of men who is thought to be the worst, and let him die as he has lived.

I might add (but I would rather put the rest into the mouth of the panegyrists of injustice — they will tell you) that the just man will be scourged, racked, bound, will have his eyes put out, and will at last be crucified [literally impaled^ — and all this because he ought to have preferred seeming to being. How different is the case of the unjust who clings 362 to appearance as the true reality !

His high character makes him a ruler; he can marry where he likes, trade where he likes, help his friends and hurt his enemies; having got rich by dishonesty he can worship the gods better, and will therefore be more loved by them than the just. I was thinking what to answer, when Adeimantus joined in the already unequal fray.

He considered that the most important point of all had been omitted: — ' Men are taught to be just for the sake of rewards ; parents and guardians make reputation the '\()'i^ incentive to virtue. And other advantages are promised by them of a more solid kind, such as wealthy marriages and high offices.

There are the pictures in Homer and Hesiod of fat sheep and heavy fleeces, rich corn-fields and trees toppling with fruit, which the gods provide in this life for the just. And the Orphic poets add a similar picture of another. The heroes of Musaeus and Eumolpus lie on couches at a festival, with garlands on their heads, enjoying as the meed of virtue a paradise of immortal drunkenness.

Some go further, and speak of a fair posterity in the third and fourth generation. But the wicked they bury in a slough and make them carry water in a sieve: and in this life they

attribute to them the infamy which Glaucon was assuming to be the lot of the just who are supposed to be unjust. ' Take another kind of argument which is found both in poetry and prose : — *' Virtue," as Hesiod says, *4s honourable but difficult, vice is easy and profitable. You may often see the wicked in great prosperity and the righteous afflicted by the will of heaven.

And mendicant prophets knock at rich men's doors, promising to atone for the sins of themselves or their fathers in an easy fashion with sacrifices and festive games, or with charms and invocations to get rid of an enemy good or bad by divine help and at a small charge ; — they appeal to books professing to be written by Musaeus and Orpheus, and carry away the minds of whole cities, and promise to "get souls out of purgatory; " and if we 365 refuse to listen to them, no one knows what will happen to us.

' When a lively-minded ingenuous youth hears all this, what will be his conclusion? "Will he," in the language of Pindar, " make justice his high tower, or fortify himself with crooked deceit ? " Justice, he reflects, without the appearance of justice, is misery and ruin; injustice has the promise of a glorious life. Appearance is master of truth and lord of happiness.

To appearance then I will turn, — I will put on the show of virtue and trail behind me the fox of Archilochus. I hear some one saying that " wickedness is not easily concealed," to which I reply that " nothing great is easy. Union and force and rhetoric will do much; and if men say that they cannot prevail over the gods, still how do we know that there are gods ? Only from the poets, who acknow- 366 ledge that they may be appeased by sacrifices.

Then why not sin and pay for indulgences out of your sin ? For if the righteous are only unpunished, still they have no further reward, while the wicked may be unpunished and have the pleasure of sinning too. But what of the world below ? Nay, says the argument, there are atoning powers who will set that matter right, as the poets, who are the sons of the gods, tell us ; and this is confirmed by the authority of the State.

' How can we resist such arguments in favour of injustice ? Add good manners, and, as the wise tell us, we shall make the best of both worlds. Who that is not a miserable caitiff will refrain from smiling at the praises of justice ? Even if a man knows the better part he will not be angry with others ; for he knows also that

more than human virtue is needed to save a man, and that he only praises justice who is incapable of injustice. ' The origin of the evil is that all men from the beginning, heroes, poets, instructors of youth, have always asserted " the temporal dispensation," the honours and profits of justice.

Had we been taught in early youth the power of justice and injustice 367 inherent in the soul, and unseen by any human or divine eye, we should not have needed others to be our guardians, but every one would have been the guardian of himself. This is what I want you to show, Socrates; — other men use arguments which rather tend to strengthen the position of Thrasymachus that ''might is right;" but from you I expect better things.

And please, as Glaucon said, to exclude reputation; let the just be thought unjust and the unjust just, and do you still prove to us the superiority of justice.' . . . The thesis, which for the sake of argument has been maintained by Glaucon, is the converse of that of Thrasymachus — not right is the interest of the stronger, but right is the necessity of the weaker.

Starting from the same premises he carries the analysis of society a step further back ; — might is still right, but the might is the weakness of the many combined against the strength of the few.

There have been theories in modern as well as in ancient times which have a family likeness to the speculations of Glaucon ; e. g. that power is the foundation of right ; or that a monarch has a divine right to govern well or ill ; or that virtue is self-love or the love of power; or that war is the natural state of man; or that private vices are public benefits.

All such theories have a kind of plausibility from their partial agreement with experience. For human nature oscillates between good and evil, and the motives of actions and the origin of institutions may be explained to a certain extent on either hypothesis according to the character or point of view of a particular thinker.

The obligation of maintaining authority under all circumstances and sometimes by rather questionable means is felt strongly and has become a sort of instinct among civilized men. The divine right of kings, or more generally of governments, is one of the forms under which this natural feeling is expressed. Nor again is there any evil which has not some accompaniment of good or pleasure ; nor any good

Justice and happiness. xxix which is free from some alloy of evil; nor any noble or generous Republic ii. thought which may not be attended by a shadow or the ghost of a introducshadow of self-interest or of self-love. We know that all human '^'°^' actions are imperfect; but we do not therefore attribute them to the worse rather than to the better motive or principle.

Such a philosophy is both foolish and false, like that opinion of the clever rogue who assumes all other men to be like himself (iii. 409 C).

And theories of this sort do not represent the real nature of the State, which is based on a vague sense of right gradually corrected and enlarged by custom and law (although capable also of perversion), any more than they describe the origin of society, which is to be sought in the family and in the social and religious feelings of man.

Nor do they represent the average character of individuals, which cannot be explained simply on a theory of evil, but has always a counteracting element of good. And as men become better such theories appear more and more untruthful to them, because they are more conscious of their own disinterestedness.

A little experience may make a man a cynic ; a great deal will bring him back to a truer and kindlier view of the mixed nature of himself and his fellow men. The two brothers ask Socrates to prove to them that the just is happy when they have taken from him all that in which happiness is ordinarily supposed to consist. Not that there is (i) any absurdity in the attempt to frame a notion of justice apart from circumstances.

For the ideal must always be a paradox when compared with the ordinary conditions of human life. Neither the Stoical ideal nor the Christian ideal is true as a fact, but they may serve as a basis of education, and may exercise an ennobling influence. An ideal is none the worse because * some one has made the discovery ' that no such ideal was ever realized. (Cp. v.

472 D.) And in a few exceptional individuals who are raised above the ordinary level of humanity, the ideal of happiness may be realized in death and misery. This may be the state which the reason deliberately approves, and which the utilitarian as well as every other moralist may be bound in certain cases to prefer.

Nor again, (2) must we forget that Plato, though he agrees generally with the view implied in the argument of the two brothers, is not expressing bis own final conclusion, but rather

XXX Justice and the appearatice of justice. Republic II. Seeking to dramatize one of the aspects of ethical truth. He is Introuuc- developing his idea gradually in a series of positions or situations. He is exhibiting Socrates for the first time undergoing the Socratic interrogation.

Lastly, (3) the word ' happiness ' involves some degree of confusion because associated in the language of modern philosophy with conscious pleasure or satisfaction, which was not equally present to his mind. Glaucon has been drawing a picture of the misery of the just and the happiness of the unjust, to which the misery of the tyrant in Book IX is the answer and parallel.

And still the unjust must appear just; that is 'the homage which vice pays to virtue. But now Adeimantus, taking up the hint which had been already given by Glaucon (ii. 358 C), proceeds to show that in the opinion of mankind justice is regarded only for the sake of rewards and reputation, and points out the advantage which is given to such arguments as those of Thrasymachus and Glaucon by the conventional morality of mankind.

He seems to feel the difficulty of 'justifying the ways of God to man. Both the brothers touch upon the question, whether the morality of actions is determined by their consequences (cp. iv. 420 foil.); and both of them go beyond the position of Socrates, that justice belongs to the class of goods not desirable for themselves only, but desirable for themselves and for their results, to which he recalls them.

In their attempt to view justice as an internal principle, and in their condemnation of the poets, they anticipate him. The common life of Greece is not enough for them ; they must penetrate deeper into the nature of things. It has been objected that justice is honesty in the sense of Glaucon and Adeimantus, but is taken by Socrates to mean all virtue.

May we not more truly say that the old-fashioned notion of justice is enlarged by Socrates, and becomes equivalent to universal order or well-being, first in the State, and secondly in the individual? He has found a new answer to his old question (Protag. 329), ' whether the virtues are one or many,' viz. that one is the ordering principle of the three others.

In seeking to establish the purely internal nature of justice, he is met by the fact that man is a social being, and he tries to harmonise the two opposite theses as well as he can. There is no more inconsistency in this than was inevitable in his age and country ;

there is no use in turning upon him the cross Hghts of modern Republic ii. philosophy, which, from some other point of view, would appear Introducequally inconsistent. Plato does not give the final solution of ^'°'^' philosophical questions for us; nor can he be judged of by our standard. The remainder of the Republic is developed out of the question of the sons of Ariston.

Three points are deserving of remark in what immediately follows : — First, that the answer of Socrates is altogether indirect. He does not say that happiness consists in the contemplation of the idea of justice, and still less will he be tempted to affirm the Stoical paradox that the just man can be happy on the rack.

But first he dwells on the difficulty of the problem and insists on restoring man to his natural condition, before he will answer the question at all. He too will frame an ideal, but his ideal comprehends not only abstract justice, but the whole relations of man. Under the fanciful illustration of the large letters he implies that he will only look for justice in society, and that from the State he will proceed to the individual.

His answer in substance amounts to this, — that under favourable conditions, i. e. in the perfect State, justice and happiness will * coincide, and that when justice has been once found, happiness may be left to take care of itself.

That he falls into some degree of inconsistency, when in the tenth book (612 A) he claims to have got rid of the rewards and honours of justice, may be admitted ; for he has left those which exist in the perfect State. And the philosopher Svho retires under the shelter of a wall' (vi. 496) can hardly have been esteemed happy by him, at least not in this world. Still he maintains the true attitude of moral action.

Let a man do his duty first, without asking whether he will be happy or not, and happiness will be the inseparable accident which attends him. ' Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. Secondly, it may be remarked that Plato preserves the genuine character of Greek thought in beginning with the State and in going on to the individual.

First ethics, then politics — this is the order of ideas to us; the reverse is the order of history. Only after many struggles of thought does the individual assert his right as a moral being. In early ages he is not one^ but one of many, the citizen of a State which is prior to him ; and he

has no notion of good or evil apart from the law of his country or the creed of his church. And to this type he is constantly tending to revert, whenever the influence of custom, or of party spirit, or the recollection of the past becomes too strong for him.

Thirdly, we may observe the confusion or identification of the individual and the State, of ethics and politics, which pervades early Greek speculation, and even in modern times retains a certain degree of influence.

The subtle difference between the collective and individual action of mankind seems to have escaped early thinkers, and we too are sometimes in danger of forgetting the conditions of united human action, whenever we cither elevate politics into ethics, or lower ethics to the standard of politics.

The good man and the good citizen only coincide in the perfect State; and this perfection cannot be attained by legislation acting upon them from without, but, if at all, by education fashioning them from within. . . .

Socrates praises the sons of Ariston, ^ inspired offspring of 368 the renowned hero,' as the elegiac poet terms them ; but he does not understand how they can argue so eloquently on behalf of injustice while their character shows that they are uninfluenced by their own arguments. He knows not how to answer them, although he is afraid of deserting justice in the hour of need.

He therefore makes a condition, that having weak eyes he shall be allowed to read the large letters first and then go on to the smaller, that is, he must look for justice in the State first, and will then proceed to the individual. Accordingly he begins ,5g to construct the State. Society arises out of the wants of man. His first want is food; his second a house ; his third a coat.

The sense of these needs and the possibility of satisfying them by exchange, draw individuals together on the same spot ; and this is the beginning of a State, which we take the liberty to invent, although necessity is the real inventor. There must be first a husbandman, secondly a builder, thirdly a weaver, to which may be added a cobbler. Four or five citizens at least are required to make a city.

Now men have different natures, and one man will do one 370 thing better than many; and business waits for no man. Hence there must be a division of labour into different employments ; into wholesale and retail trade ; into workers, and makers of workmen's

A Ji a lysis 370-375. ■ xxxiii tools; into shepherds and husbandmen. A city which includes all Republic IL this will have far exceeded the limit of four or five, and yet not be analysis. ;7i very large. But then again imports will be required, and imports necessitate exports, and this implies variety of produce in order to attract the taste of purchasers; also merchants and ships.

In the city too we must have a market and money and retail trades; otherwise buyers and sellers will never meet, and the valuable time of the producers will be wasted in vain efforts at exchange. If we add hired servants the State will be complete. And we may guess that somewhere in the intercourse of 172 the citizens with one another justice and injustice will appear. Here follows a rustic picture of their way of life.

They spend their days in houses which they have built for themselves ; they make their own clothes and produce their own corn and wine. Their principal food is meal and flour, and they drink in moderation. They live on the best of terms with each other, and take care not to have too many children. * But,' said Glaucon, interposing, 'are they not to have a relish?

Certainly; they will have salt and olives and cheese, vegetables and fruits, and chestnuts to roast at the fire. ' 'Tis a city of pigs, Socrates.* Why, I replied, what do you want more ? ' Only the comforts of life, — sofas and tables, also sauces and sweets. I see; you want not only a State, but a luxurious State ; and possibly in the more complex frame we may sooner find justice and injustice.

Then ;73 the fine arts must go to work — every conceivable instrument and ornament of luxury will be wanted. There will be dancers, painters, sculptors, musicians, cooks, barbers, tire-women, nurses, artists; swineherds and neatherds too for the animals, and physicians to cure the disorders of which luxury is the source. To feed all these superfluous mouths we shall need a part of our neighbours' land, and they will want a part of ours.

And this is the origin of war, which may be traced to the same causes 174 as other political evils. Our city will now^ require the slight addition of a camp, and the citizen will be converted into a soldier. But then again our old doctrine of the division of labour must not be forgotten. The art of war cannot be learned in a day, and there must be a natural aptitude for military duties.

There will ;75 be some warlike natures who have this aptitude — dogs keen of scent, swift of foot to pursue, and strong of limb to fight. And VOL. III. — 3

Republic II. as Spirit is the foundation of courage, such natures, whether of Analysis. w^^n or animals, will be full of spirit. But these spirited natures are apt to bite and devour one another ; the union of gentleness to friends and fierceness against enemies appears to be an impossibility, and the guardian of a State requires both qualities. Who then can be a guardian ? The image of the dog suggests an answer.

For dogs are gentle to friends and fierce to strangers. 376 Your dog is a philosopher who judges by the rule of knowing or not knowing; and philosophy, whether in man or beast, is the parent of gentleness. The human watchdogs must be philosophers or lovers of learning which will make them gentle. And how are they to be learned without education ? But what shall their education be ?

Is any better than the oldfashioned sort which is comprehended under the name of music and gymnastic ? Music includes Hterature, and literature is of two 377 kinds, true and false. ' What do you mean ? ' he said. I mean that children hear stories before they learn gymnastics, and that the stories are either untrue, or have at most one or two grains of truth in a bushel of falsehood.

Now early life is very impressible, and children ought not to learn what they will have to unlearn when they grow up ; we must therefore have a censorship of nursery tales, banishing some and keeping others.

Some of them are very improper, as we may see in the great instances of Homer and Hesiod, who not only tell lies but bad lies ; stories about Uranus and Saturn, which are immoral as well as false, 378 and which should never be spoken of to young persons, or indeed at all ; or, if at all, then in a mystery, after the sacrifice, not of an Eleusinian pig, but of some unprocurable animal.

Shall our youth be encouraged to beat their fathers by the example of Zeus, or our citizens be incited to quarrel by hearing or seeing representations of strife among the gods? Shall they listen to the narrative of Hephaestus binding his mother, and of Zeus sending him flying for helping her when she was beaten ? Such tales may possibly have a mystical interpretation, but the young are incapable of understanding allegory.

If any one asks what tales are to be allowed, we will answer that we are legislators and 379 not book-makers; we only lay down the principles according to which books are to be written ; to write them is the duty of others.

And our first principle is, that God must be represented as he Republic il. is ; not as the author of all things, but of good only.

We will analysis. not suffer the poets to say that he is the steward of good and evil, or that he has two casks full of destinies ; — or that Athene and Zeus incited Pandarus to break the treaty; or that God go caused the sufferings of Niobe, or of Pelops, or the Trojan war; or that he makes men sin when he wishes to destroy them. Either these were not the actions of the gods, or God was just, and men were the better for being punished.

But that the deed was evil, and God the author, is a wicked, suicidal fiction which we will allow no one, old or young, to utter. This is our first and great principle — God is the author of good only. And the second principle is like unto it : — With God is no variableness or change of form. Reason teaches us this ; for if we suppose a change in God, he must be changed either by another or by himself.

By another ? — but the best works of nature and 8 1 art and the noblest qualities of mind are least liable to be changed by any external force. By himself? — but he cannot change for the better; he will hardly change for the worse. He remains for ever fairest and best in his own image.

Therefore we refuse to listen to the poets who tell us of Here begging in the likeness of a priestess or of other deities who prowl about at night in strange disguises ; all that blasphemous nonsense with which mothers fool the manhood out of their children must be sup- 82 pressed. But some one will say that God, who is himself unchangeable, may take a form in relation to us. Why should he?

For gods as well as men hate the lie in the soul, or principle of falsehood; and as for any other form of lying which is used for a purpose and is regarded as innocent in certain exceptional cases — what need have the gods of this? For they are not ignorant of antiquity like the poets, nor are they afraid of their 83 enemies, nor is any madman a friend of theirs.

God then is true, he is absolutely true; he changes not, he deceives not, by day or night, by word or sign. This is our second great principle — God is true. Away with the lying dream of Agamemnon in Homer, and the accusation of Thetis against Apollo in Aeschylus. . . . In order to give clearness to his conception of the State, Plato Introducproceeds to trace the first principles of mutual need and of

division of labour in an imaginary community of four or five citizens. Gradually this community increases ;' the division of labour extends to countries ; imports necessitate exports ; a medium of exchange is required, and retailers sit in the marketplace to save the time of the producers. These are the steps by which Plato constructs the first or primitive State, introducing the elements of political economy by the way.

As he is going to frame a second or civilized State, the simple naturally comes before the complex. He indulges, like Rousseau, in a picture of primitive life — an idea which has indeed often had a powerful influence on the imagination of mankind, but he does not seriously mean to say that one is better than the other (cp.

Statesman, p. 272) ; nor can any inference be drawn from the description of the first state taken apart from the second, such as Aristotle appears to draw in the Politics, iv. 4, $ 12 (cp. again Statesman, 272). We should not interpret a Platonic dialogue any more than a poem or a parable in too literal or matter-of-fact a style.

On the other hand, when we compare the lively fancy of Plato with the dried-up abstractions of modern treatises on philosophy, we are compelled to say with Protagoras, that the ' mythus is more interesting' (Protag. 320 D). Several interesting remarks which in modern times would have a place in a treatise on Political Economy are scattered up and down the writings of Plato: cp. especially Laws, v. 740, Population; viii. 847, Free Trade ; xi.

916-7, Adulteration ; 923-4, Wills and Bequests; 930, Begging ; Eryxias, (though not Plato's), Value and Demand; Republic, ii. 369 ff.. Division of Labour. The last subject, and also the origin of Retail Trade, is treated with admirable lucidity in the second book of the Republic.

But Plato never combined his economic ideas into a system, and never seems to have recognized that Trade is one of the great motive powers of the State and of the world. He would make retail traders only of the inferior sort of citizens (Rep. ii. 371 ; cp. Laws, viii. 847), though he remarks, quaintly enough (Laws, xi.

918 D), that 'if only the best men and the best women everywhere were compelled to keep taverns for a time or to carry on retail trade, etc.', then we should know how pleasant and agreeable all these things are. The disappointment of Glaucon at the 'city of pigs,' the ludicrous description of the ministers of luxury in the more refined

State, and the afterthought of the necessity oi doctors, the illus- Repttbik ii. tration of the nature of the guardian taken from the dog; the Introducdesirableness of offering some almost unprocurable victim when ^'°'^' impure mysteries are to be celebrated, the behaviour of Zeus to his father and of Hephaestus to his mother, are touches of humour which have also a serious meaning.

In speaking of education Plato rather startles us by affirming that a child must be trained in falsehood first and in truth afterwards. Yet this is not very different from saying that children must be taught through the medium of imagination as well as reason ; that their minds can only develope gradually, and that there is much which they must learn without understanding (cp. iii. 402 A).

This is also the substance of Plato's view, though he must be acknowledged to have drawn the line somewhat differently from modern ethical writers, respecting truth and falsehood. To us, economies or accommodations would not be allowable unless they were required by the human faculties or necessary for the communication of knowledge to the simple and ignorant.

We should insist that the word was inseparable from the intention, and that we must not be ' falsely true,' i. e. speak or act falsely in support of what was right or true. But Plato would limit the use of fictions only by requiring that they should have a good moral effect, and that such a dangerous weapon as falsehood should be employed by the rulers alone and for great objects.

A Greek in the age of Plato attached no importance to the question whether his religion was an historical fact. He was just beginning to be conscious that the past had a history; but he could see nothing beyond Homer and Hesiod. Whether their narratives were true or false did not seriously affect the political or social life of Hellas. Men only began to suspect that they were fictions when they recognised them to be immoral.

And so in all religions : the consideration of their morality comes first, afterwards the truth of the documents in which they are recorded, or of the events natural or supernatural which are told of them.

But in modern times, and in Protestant countries perhaps more than in Catholic, we have been too much inclined to identify the historical with the moral ; and some have refused to believe in religion at all, unless a superhuman accuracy was discernible in every part of the record. The facts of an ancient

or religious history are amongst the most important of all facts ; but they are frequently uncertain, and we only learn the true lesson which is to be gathered from them when we place ourselves above them. These reflections tend to show that the difference between Plato and ourselves, though not unimportant, is not so great as might at first sight appear.

For we should agree with him in placing the moral before the historical truth of religion; and, generally, in disregarding those errors or misstatements of fact which necessarily occur in the early stages of all religions. We know also that changes in the traditions of a country cannot be made in a day ; and are therefore tolerant of many things which science and criticism would condemn.

We note in passing that the allegorical interpretation of mythology, said to have been first introduced as early as the sixth century before Christ by Theagenes of Rhegium, was well established in the age of Plato, and here, as in the Phaedrus (229-30), though for a different reason, was rejected by him.

That anachronisms whether of religion or law, when men have reached another stage of civilization, should be got rid of .by fictions is in accordance with universal experience. Great is the art of interpretation ; and by a natural process, which when once discovered was always going on, what could not be altered was explained away.

And so without any palpable inconsistency there existed side by side two forms of religion, the tradition inherited or invented by the poets and the customary worship of the temple ; on the other hand, there was the religion of the philosopher, who was dwelling in the heaven of ideas, but did not therefore refuse to offer a cock to .^sculapius, or to be seen saying his prayers at the rising of the sun.

At length the antagonism between the popular and philosophical religion, never so great among the Greeks as in our own age, disappeared, and was only felt like the difference between the religion of the educated and uneducated among ourselves. The Zeus of Homer and Hesiod easily passed into the 'royal mind' of Plato (Philebus, 28); the giant Heracles became the knight-errant and benefactor of mankind.

These and still more wonderful transformations were readily effected by the ingenuity of Stoics and neo-Platonists in the two or three centuries before and after Christ. The Greek and Roman religions were gradually permeated by the spirit of philosophy ; having lost their

ancient meaning, they were resolved into poetry and morality; Republic ii. and probably were never purer than at the time of their decay, i when their influence over the world was waning. A singular conception which occurs towards the end of the book is the lie in the soul ; this is connected with the Platonic and Socratic doctrine that involuntary ignorance is worse than voluntary.

The lie in the soul is a true lie, the corruption of the highest truth, the deception of the highest part of the soul, from which he who is deceived has no power of delivering himself.

For example, to represent God as false or immoral, or, according to Plato, as deluding men with appearances or as the author of evil ; or again, to affirm with Protagoras that * knowledge is sensation,' or that 'being is becoming,' or with Thrasymachus 'that might is right,' would have been regarded by Plato as a lie of this hateful sort. The greatest unconsciousness of the greatest untruth, e. g. if, in the language of the Gospels (John iv.

41), 'he who was blind ' were to say * I see,' is another aspect of the state of mind which Plato is describing. The lie in the soul may be further compared with the sin against the Holy Ghost (Luke xii. 10), allowing for the difference between Greek and Christian modes of speaking.

To this is opposed the lie in words, which is only such a deception as may occur in a play or poem, or allegory or figure of speech, or in any sort of accommodation, — which though useless to the gods may be useful to men in certain cases. Socrates is here answering the question which he had himself raised (i. 331 C) about the propriety of deceiving a madman ; and he is also contrasting the nature of God and man.

For God is Truth, but mankind can only be true by appearing sometimes to be partial, or false.

Reserving for another place the greater questions of religion or education, we may note further, (i) the approval of the old traditional education of Greece ; (2) the preparation which Plato is making for the attack on Homer and the poets; (3) the preparation which he is also making for the use of economies in the State; (4) the contemptuous and at the same time euphemistic manner in which here as below (iii. 390) he alludes to the Chronique Scandaleuse of the gods.

xl Analysis 386-389. Republic III. afraid of death, or who behevcs the tales which are repeated by Analysis. the poets concerning the world below. They must be gently requested not to abuse hell ; they may be reminded that their stories are both untrue and discouraging.

Nor must they be angry if we expunge obnoxious passages, such as the depressing words of Achilles — 'I would rather be a serving-man than rule over all the dead ; ' and the verses which tell of the squalid mansions, the senseless shadows, the flitting soul mourning over lost strength and youth, the soul with a gibber going beneath the 387 earth like smoke, or the souls of the suitors which flutter about like bats.

The terrors and horrors of Cocytus and Styx, ghosts and sapless shades, and the rest of their Tartarean nomenclature, must vanish. Such tales may have their use ; but they are not the proper food for soldiers.

As little can we admit the sorrows and sympathies of the Homeric heroes : — Achilles, the son of Thetis, in tears, throwing ashes on his head, or pacing up and down the sea-shore in distraction ; or Priam, the cousin of the gods, crying aloud, rolling in the mire. A good man is not prostrated at the loss of children or fortune.

Neither is death terrible to him ; and therefore lamentations over the dead should not be practised by men of note ; they should be the concern of inferior persons only, 388 whether women or men. Still worse is the attribution of such weakness to the gods ; as when the goddesses say, ' Alas ! ray travail !

' and worst of all, when the king of heaven himself laments his inability to save Hector, or sorrows over the impending doom of his dear Sarpedon. Such a character of God, if not ridiculed by our young men, is likely to be imitated by them. Nor should our citizens be given to excess of laughter — ' Such violent delights ' are followed by a violent re-action.

The descrip- 389 tion in the Iliad of the gods shaking their sides at the clumsiness of Hephaestus will not be admitted by us. ' Certainly not. Truth should have a high place among the virtues, for falsehood, as we were saying, is useless to the gods, and only useful to men as a medicine.

But this employment of falsehood rnust remain a privilege of state; the common man must not in return tell a lie to the ruler ; any more than the patient would tell a lie to his physician, or the sailor to his captain. In the next place our youth must be temperate, and temperance consists in self-control and obedience to authority. That is a

Analysis 389-392. xli lesson which Homer teaches in some places : * The Achaeans Republic ill. marched on breathing prowess, in silent awe of their leaders ; ' — Analysis. but a very different one in other places : ' O heavy with wine, who 390 hast the eyes of a dog, but the heart of a stag. Language of the latter kind will not impress self-control on the minds of youth.

The same may be said about his praises of eating and drinking and his dread of starvation ; also about the verses in vvhich he tells of the rapturous loves of Zeus and Here, or of how Hephaestus once detained Ares and Aphrodite in a net on a similar occasion. There is a nobler strain heard in the words: — 'Endure, my soul, thou hast endured worse.

Nor must we allow our citizens to receive bribes, or to say, * Gifts persuade the gods, gifts reverend kings ; ' or to applaud the ignoble advice of Phoenix to Achilles that he should get money out of the Greeks before he assisted them; or the meanness of Achilles himself in taking gifts from 391 Agamemnon ; or his requiring a ransom for the body of Hector; or his cursing of Apollo ; or his insolence to the river-god Scamander ; or his dedication to the dead Patroclus of his own hair which had been already dedicated to the other river-god Spercheius; or his cruelty in dragging the body of Hector round the walls, and slaying the captives at the pyre: such a combination of meanness and cruelty in Cheiron's pupil is inconceivable.

The amatory exploits of Peirithous and Theseus are equally unworthy. Either these so-called sons of gods were not the sons of gods, or they were not such as the poets imagine them, any more than the gods themselves are the authors of evil. The youth who believes that such things are done by those who have the 392 blood of heaven flowing in their veins will be too ready to imitate their example.

Enough of gods and heroes; — what shall we say about men? What the poets and story-tellers say — that the wicked prosper and the righteous are afflicted, or that justice is another's gain ? Such misrepresentations cannot be allowed by us. But in this we are anticipating the definition of justice, and had therefore better defer the enquiry. The subjects of poetry have been sufficiently treated ; next follows style.

Now all poetry is a narrative of events past, present, or to come ; and narrative is of three kinds, the simple, the imitative, and a composition of the two. An instance will

xlii Analysis 393-398. Republic III. make my meaning clear. The first scene in Homer is of the last 393 Analysis. or mixed kind, being partly description and partly dialogue.

But if you throw the dialogue into the 'oratio obliqua,' the passage will run thus: The priest came and prayed Apollo that the 394 Achaeans might take Troy and have a safe return if Agamemnon would only give him back his daughter; and the other Greeks assented, but Agamemnon was wroth, and so on — The whole then becomes descriptive, and the poet is the only speaker left ; or, if you omit the narrative, the whole becomes dialogue.

These are the three styles — which of them is to be admitted into our State ? ' Do you ask whether tragedy and comedy are to be admitted ? ' Yes, but also something more — Is it not doubtful whether our guardians are to be imitators at all ?

Or rather, has not the question been already answered, for we have decided that one man cannot in his life play many parts, any more than he can act both 395 tragedy and comedy, or be rhapsodist and actor at once ? Human nature is coined into very small pieces, and as our guardians have their own business already, which is the care of freedom, they will have enough to do without imitating.

If they imitate they should imitate, not any meanness or baseness, but the good only; for the mask which the actor wears is apt to become his face. We cannot allow men to play the parts of women, quarrelling, weeping, scolding, or boasting against the gods, — least of all when making love or in labour.

They must not represent slaves, or bullies, or cowards, or drunkards, or madmen, or blacksmiths, or 396 neighing horses, or bellowing bulls, or sounding rivers, or a raging sea. A good or wise man will be willing to perform good and wise actions, but he will be ashamed to play an inferior part which he has never practised; and he will prefer to employ the descriptive style with as little imitation as possible.

The man 397 who has no self-respect, on the contrary, will imitate anyb'ody and anything ; sounds of nature and cries of animals alike ; his whole performance will be imitation of gesture and voice. Now in the descriptive style there are few changes, but in the dramatic there are a great many. Poets and musicians use either, or a compound of both, and this compound is very attractive to youth and their teachers as well as to the vulgar.

But our State in which one man plays one part only is not adapted for complexity. And when 398 one of these polyphonous pantomimic gentlemen offers to exhibit

Analysis 398-401. xliii himself and his poetry we will show him every observance of Republic in. respect, but at the same time tell him that there is no room for his analysis. kind in our State; we prefer the rough, honest poet, and will not depart from our original models (ii. 379 foil.; cp. Laws, vii. 817). Next as to the music.

A song or ode has three parts, — the subject, the harmony, and the rhythm ; of which the two last are dependent upon the first. As we banished strains of lamentation, so we may now banish the mixed Lydian harmonies, which are the harmonies of lamentation ; and as our citizens are to be temperate, we may also banish convivial harmonies, such as the 399 Ionian and pure Lydian.

Two remain — the Dorian and Phrygian, the first for war, the second for peace ; the one expressive of courage, the other of obedience or instruction or religious feeling. And as we reject varieties of harmony, we shall also reject the many-stringed, variously-shaped instruments which give utterance to them, and in particular the flute, which is more complex than any of them.

The lyre and the harp may be permitted in the town, and the Pan's-pipe in the fields. Thus we have made a purgation of music, and will now make a purgation of metres. 400 These should be like the harmonies, simple and suitable to the occasion. There are four notes of the tetrachord, and there are three ratios of metre, \, f, ^, which have all their characteristics, and the feet have different characteristics as well as the rhythms.

But about this you and I must ask Damon, the great musician, who speaks, if I remember rightly, of a martial measure as well as of dactylic, trochaic, and iambic rhythms, which he arranges so as to equalize the syllables with one another, assigning to each the proper quantity.

We only venture to affirm the general principle that the style is to conform to the subject and the metre to the style ; and that the simplicity and harmony of the soul should be reflected in them all. This principle of simplicity has to be learnt by every one in the days of his youth, and may 401 be gathered anywhere, from the creative and constructive arts, as well as from the forms of plants and animals.

Other artists as well as poets should be warned against meanness or unseemliness. Sculpture and painting equally with music must conform to the law of simplicity. He who violates it cannot be allowed to work in our city, and to corrupt the taste of our citizens. For our guardians must grow up, not amid images of

xliv Analysis 401—405. Republic III. deformity which will gradually poison and corrupt their souls, Analysis. but in a land of health and beauty where they will drink in from every object sweet and harmonious influences. And of all these , influences the greatest is the education given by music, which finds a way into the innermost soul and imparts to it the sense of 402 beauty and of deformity.

At first the effect is unconscious ; but when reason arrives, then he who has been thus trained welcomes her as the friend whom he always knew.

As in learning to read, first we acquire the elements or letters separately, and afterwards their combinations, and cannot recognize reflections of them until we know the letters themselves ; — in like manner we must first attain the elements or essential forms of the virtues, and then trace their combinations in life and experience.

There is a music of the soul which answers to the harmony of the world; and the fairest object of a musical soul is the fair mind in the fair body. Some defect in the latter may be excused, but not in the former. True love is the daughter of temperance, and temperance is 403 utterly opposed to the madness of bodily pleasure. Enough has been said of music, which makes a fair ending with love.

Next we pass on to gymnastics ; about which I would remark, that the soul is related to the body as a cause to an effect, and therefore if we educate the mind we may leave the education of the body in her charge, and need only give a general outline of the course to be pursued. In the first place the guardians must abstain from strong drink, for they should be the last persons to lose their wits.

Whether the habits of the palaestra are suitable 404 to them is more doubtful, for the ordinary gymnastic is a sleepy sort of thing, and if left off suddenly is apt to endanger health. But our warrior athletes must be wide-awake dogs, and must also be inured to all changes of food and climate.

Hence they will require a simpler kind of gymnastic, akin to their simple music ; and for their diet a rule may be found in Homer, who feeds his heroes on roast meat only, and gives them no fish although they are living at the sea-side, nor boiled meats which involve an apparatus of pots and pans ; and, if I am not mistaken, he nowhere mentions sweet sauces.

Sicilian cookery and Attic confections and Corinthian courtezans, which are to gymnastic what Lydian and Ionian melodies are to music, must be forbidden. Where gluttony and intemperance prevail the town quickly fills 405

Anafysis 405-408. xlv with doctors and pleaders ; and law and medicine give themselves Republic in. airs as soon as the freemen of a State take an interest in them, analysis. But what can show a more disgraceful state of education than to have to go abroad for justice because you have none of your own at home ?

And yet there is a worse stage of the same disease — when men have learned to take a pleasure and pride in the twists and turns of the law ; not considering how much better it would be for them so to order their lives as to have no need of a nodding justice.

And there is a like disgrace in employing a physician, not for the cure of wounds or epidemic disorders, but because a man has by laziness and luxury contracted diseases which were unknown in the days of Asclepius. How simple is the Homeric practice of medicine.

Eurypylus after he has been wounded 406 drinks a posset of Pramnian wine, which is of a heating nature ; and yet the sons of Asclepius blame neither the damsel who gives him the drink, nor Patroclus who is attending on him.

The truth is that this modern system of nursing diseases was introduced by Herodicus the trainer; who, being of a sickly constitution, by a compound of training and medicine tortured first himself and then a good many other people, and lived a great deal longer than he had any right.

But Asclepius would not practise this art, because he knew that the citizens of a well-ordered State have no leisure to be ill, and therefore he adopted the 'kill or cure' method, which artisans and labourers employ. ' They must be at their business,' they say, ' and have no time for coddling : if they 407 recover, well; if they don't, there is an end of them. Whereas the rich man is supposed to be a gentleman who can afford to be ill.

Do you know a maxim of Phocylides — that 'when a man begins to be rich ' (or, perhaps, a little sooner) ' he should practise virtue ' ? But how can excessive care of health be inconsistent with an ordinary occupation, and yet consistent with that practice of virtue which Phocylides inculcates? When a student imagines that philosophy gives him a headache, he never does anything; he is always unwell.

This was the reason why Asclepius and his sons practised no such art. They were acting in the interest of the public, and did not wish to preserve useless lives, or raise up a puny offspring to wretched sires. Honest diseases they honestly 408 cured; and if a man was wounded, they applied the proper remedies, and then let hirh eat and drink what he liked. But

xlvi A rialysis 408 -411. Republic III. they declined to treat intemperate and worthless subjects, even Analysis. though they might have made large fortunes out of them. As to the story of Pindar, that Asclepius was slain by a thunderbolt for restoring a rich man to life, that is a lie — following our old rule we must say either that he did not take bribes, or that he was not the son of a god.

Glaucon then asks Socrates whether the best physicians and the best judges will not be those who have had severally the greatest experience of diseases and of crimes. Socrates draws a distinction between the two professions. The physician should have had experience of disease in his own body, for he cures with his mind and not with his body. But the judge controls mind by mind ; 409 and therefore his mind should not be corrupted by crime.

Where then is he to gain experience? How is he to be wise and also innocent? When young a good man is apt to be deceived by evil-doers, because he has no pattern of evil in himself; and therefore the judge should be of a certain age; his youth should have been innocent, and he should have acquired insight into evil not by the practice of it, but by the observation of it in others.

This is the ideal of a judge ; the criminal turned detective is wonderfully suspicious, but when in company with good men who have experience, he is at fault, for he foolishly imagines that every one is as bad as himself. Vice may be known of virtue, but cannot know virtue.

This is the sort of medicine and this the sort of law which will prevail in our State ; they will be healing arts to better natures; but the evil body will be left to die by the 410 one, and the evil soul will be put to death by the other. And the need of either will be greatly diminished by good music which will give harmony to the soul, and good gymnastic which will give health to the body.

Not that this division of music and gymnastic Nreally corresponds to soul and body ; for they are both equally concerned with the soul, which is tamed by the one and aroused and sustained by the other. The two together supply our guardians with their twofold nature. The passionate disposition when it has too much gymnastic is hardened and brutalized, the gentle or philosophic temper which has too much music becomes enervated.

While a man is allowing music to pour like water through the 411 funnel of his ears, the edge of his soul gradually wears away, and the passionate or spirited element is melted out of him. Too little

Analysis 411-414. xlvii spirit is easily exhausted ; too much quickly passes into nervous Republic in. irritability. So, again, the athlete by feeding and training has analysis. his courage doubled, but he soon grows stupid ; he is like a wild beast, ready to do everything by blows and nothing by counsel or policy.

There are two principles in man, reason and passion, 12 and to these, not to the soul and body, the two arts of music and gymnastic correspond. He who mingles them in harmonious concord is the true musician, — he shall be the presiding genius of our State. The next question is. Who are to be our rulers? First, the elder must rule the younger ; and the best of the elders will be the best guardians.

Now they will be the best who love their subjects most, and think that they have a common interest with them in the welfare of the state. These we must select; but they must be watched at every epoch of life to see whether they have retained the same opinions and held out against force 13 and enchantment. For time and persuasion and the love of pleasure may enchant a man into a change of purpose, and the force of grief and pain may compel him.

And therefore our guardians must be men who have been tried by many tests, like gold in the refiner's fire, and have been passed first through danger, then through pleasure, and at every age have come out of such trials victorious and without stain, in full command of themselves and their principles; having all their faculties in harmonious exercise for their country's good.

These shall 14 receive the highest honours both in life and death. (It would perhaps be better to confine the term ' guardians' to this select class: the younger men may be called 'auxiliaries.') And now for one magnificent lie, in the belief of which. Oh that we could train our rulers ! — at any rate let us make the attempt with the rest of the world.

What I am going to tell is only another version of the legend of Cadmus ; but our unbelieving generation will be slow to accept such a story. The tale must be imparted, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, lastly to the people.

We will inform them that their youth was a dream, and that during the time when they seemed to be undergoing their education they were really being fashioned in the earth, who sent them up when they were ready; and that they must protect and cherish her whose children they are, and regard

Republic HI. cacli Other as brothers and sisters. ' 1 do not wonder at your Analysis. being ashamed to propound such a fiction. There is more behind. These brothers and sisters have different natures, and 415 some of them God framed to rule, whom he fashioned of gold; others he made of silver, to be auxiliaries ; others again to be husbandmen and craftsmen, and these were formed by him of brass and iron.

But as they are all sprung from a common stock, a golden parent may have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son, and then there must be a change of rank; the son of the rich must descend, and the child of the artisan rise, in the social scale; for an oracle says 'that the State will come to an end if governed by a man of brass or iron. Will our citizens ever believe all this? ' Not in the present generation, but in the next, perhaps, Yes.

Now let the earthborn men go forth under the command of their rulers, and look about and pitch their camp in a high place, which will be safe against enemies from without, and likewise against insurrections from within. There let them sacrifice and set up their tents; for soldiers they are to be and not shop- 416 keepers, the watchdogs and guardians of the sheep ; and luxury and avarice will turn them into wolves and tyrants.

Their habits and their dwellings should correspond to their education. They should have no property ; their pay should only meet their expenses ; and they should have common meals. Gold and silver we will tell them that they have from God, and this divine gift in their souls they must not alloy with that earthly dross 417 which passes under the name of gold.

They only of the citizens may not touch it, or be under the same roof with it, or drink from it; it is the accursed thing. Should they ever acquire houses or lands or money of their own, they will become householders and tradesmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of helpers, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and the rest of the State, will be at hand.

Introduction.

The religious and ethical aspect of Plato's education will hereafter be considered under a separate head. Some lesser points may be more conveniently noticed in this place. I. The constant appeal to the authority of Homer, whom, with grave irony, Plato, after the manner of his age, summons as a

Plato s onploynient of Hojner. xlix witness about ethics and psychology, as well as about diet and Republic in. medicine; attempting to distinguish the better lesson from the Introducworse (390), sometimes altering the text from design {388, and, "^'^ perhaps, 389) ; more than once quoting or alluding to Homer inaccurately (391,406), after the manner of the early logographers turning the Iliad into prose (393), and delighting to draw farfetched inferences from his words, or to make ludicrous applications of them.

He does not, like Heracleitus, get into a rage with Homer and Archilochus (Heracl. Frag. 1 19, ed. Bywater), but uses their words and expressions as vehicles of a higher truth ; not on a system like Theagenes of Rhegium or Metrodorus, or in later times the Stoics, but as fancy may dictate. And the conclusions drawn from them are sound, although the premises are fictitious.

These fanciful appeals to Homer add a charm to Plato's style, and at the same time they have the effect of a satire on the follies of Homeric interpretation. To us (and probably to himself), although they take the form of arguments, they are really figures of speech. They may be compared with modern citations from Scripture, which have often a great rhetorical power even when the original meaning of the words is entirely lost sight of.

The real, like the Platonic Socrates, as we gather from the Memorabilia of Xenophon, was fond of making similar adaptations (i. 2, 58; ii. 6, 11). Great in all ages and countries, in religion as well as in law and literature, has been the art of interpretation. 2. * The style is to conform to the subject and the metre to the style.

Notwithstanding the fascination which the word ' classical' exercises over us, we can hardly maintain that this rule is observed in all the Greek poetry which has come down to us. We cannot deny that the thought often exceeds the power of lucid expression in .^schylus and Pindar ; or that rhetoric gets the better of the thought in the Sophist-poet Euripides.

Only perhaps in Sophocles is there a perfect harmony of the two ; in him alone do we find a grace of language like the beauty of a Greek statue, in which there is nothing to add or to take away ; at least this is true of single plays or of large portions of them. The connection in the Tragic Choruses and in the Greek lyric poets is not unfrequently a tangled thread which in an age before logic the poet was unable to draw out. Many thoughts and feelings mingled in his mind, and he had no power of disengaging or VOL. III. — 4

1 Style and subject in Poetry. Reptiblic III. arranging them. For there is a subtle influence of logic which Introduc- requires to be transferred from prose to poetry, just as the music and perfection of language are infused by poetry into prose. In all ages the poet has been a bad judge of his own meaning (Apol.

22 B) ; for he does not see that the word which is full of associations to his own mind is difficult and unmeaning to that of another; or that the sequence which is clear to himself is puzzling to others.

There are many passages in some of our greatest modern poets which are far too obscure ; in which there is no proportion between style and subject ; in which any hallexpressed figure, any harsh construction, any distorted collocation of words, any remote sequence of ideas is admitted ; and there is no voice 'coming sweetly from nature,' or music adding the expression of feeling to thought.

As if there could be poetry without beauty, or beauty without ease and clearness. The obscurities of early Greek poets arose necessarily out of the state of language and logic which existed in their age. They are not examples to be followed by us; for the use of language ought in every generation to become clearer and clearer. Like Shakespere, they were great in spite, not in consequence, of their imperfections of expression.

But there is no reason for returning to the necessary obscurity which prevailed in the infancy of literature. The English poets of the last century were certainly not obscure ; and we have no excuse for losing what they had gained, or for going back to the earlier or transitional age which preceded them.

The thought of our own times has not outstripped language ; a want of Plato's ' art of measuring ' is the real cause of the disproportion between them. 3. In the third book of the Republic a nearer approach is made to a theory of art than anywhere else in Plato. His views may be summed up as follows: — True art is not fanciful and imitative, but simple and ideal, — the expression of the highest moral energy, whether in action or repose.

To live among works of plastic art which are of this noble and simple character, or to listen to such strains, is the best of influences, — the true Greek atmosphere, in which youth should be brought up. That is the way to create in them a natural good taste, which will have a feeling of truth and beauty in all things. For though the poets are to be expelled, still art is recognized as another aspect of

reason — like love in the Symposium, extending over the same Republic ill. sphere, but confined to the preliminary education, and acting Introducthrough the power of habit (vii. 522 A) ; and this conception of art is not limited to strains of music or the forms of plastic art, but pervades all nature and has a wide kindred in the world. The Republic of Plato, hke the Athens of Pericles, has an artistic as well as a political side.

There is hardly any mention in Plato of the creative arts ; only in two or three passages does he even allude to them (cp. Rep, iv. 420; Soph. 236 A). He is not lost in rapture at the great works of Phidias, the Parthenon, the Propylea, the statues of Zeus or Athene. He would probably have regarded any abstract truth of number or figure (529 E) as higher than the greatest of them.

Yet it is hard to suppose that some influence, such as he hopes to inspire in youth, did not pass into his own mind from the works of art which he saw around him. We are living upon the fragments of them, and find in a few broken stones the standard of truth and beauty.

But in Plato this feeling has no expression ; he nowhere says that beauty is the object of art; he seems to deny that wisdom can take an external form (Phaedrus, 250 E) ; he does not distinguish the fine from the mechanical arts. Whether or no, like some writers, he felt more than he expressed, it is at any rate remarkable that the greatest perfection of the fine arts should coincide with an almost entire silence about them.

In one very striking passage (iv. 420) he tells us that a work of art, like the State, is a whole; and this conception of a whole and the love of the newly-born mathematical sciences may be regarded, if not as the inspiring, at any rate as the regulating principles of Greek art (cp. Xen. Mem*, iii. 10. 6; and Sophist, 235, 236). 4.

Plato makes the true and subtle remark that the physician had better not be in robust health ; and should have known what illness is in his own person. But the judge ought to have had no similar experience of evil ; he is to be a good man who, having passed his youth in innocence, became acquainted late in life with the vices of others.

And therefore, according to Plato, a judge should not be young, just as a young man according to Aristotle is not fit to be a hearer of moral philosophy. The bad, on the other hand, have a knowledge of vice, but no know-

lii The transposition of ranks. Republic III. Icdgc of virtuc. It may be doubted, however, whether this train Introduc- of reflection is well founded. In a remarkable passage of the Laws (xii. 950 B) it is acknowledged that the evil may form a correct estimate of the good. The union of gentleness and courage in Book ii. at first seemed to be a paradox, yet was afterwards ascertained to be a truth.

And Plato might also have found that the intuition of evil may be consistent with the abhorrence of it (cp. infra, ix. 582). There is a directness of aim in virtue which gives an insight into vice. And the knowledge of character is in some degree a natural sense independent of any special experience of good or evil. 5.

One of the most remarkable conceptions of Plato, because un-Greek and also very different from anything which existed at all in his age of the world, is the transposition of ranks. In the Spartan state there had been enfranchisement of Helots and degradation of citizens under special circumstances. And in the ancient Greek aristocracies, merit was certainly recognized as one of the elements on which government was based.

The founders of states were supposed to be their benefactors, who were raised by their great actions above the ordinary level of humanity ; at a later period, the services of warriors and legislators were held to entitle them and their descendants to the privileges of citizenship and to the first rank in the state.

And although the existence of an ideal aristocracy is slenderly proven from the remains of early Greek history, and we have a difficulty in ascribing such a character, however the idea may be defined, to any actual Hellenic state — or indeed to any state which has ever existed in the world — still the rule of the best was certainly the aspiration of philosophers, who probably accommodated a good deal their views of primitive history to their o\Vn notions of good government.

Plato further insists on applying to the guardians of his state a series of tests by which all those who fell short of a fixed standard were either removed from the governing body, or not admitted to it; and this 'academic' discipline did to a certain extent prevail in Greek states, especially in Sparta.

He also indicates that the system of caste, which existed in a great part of the ancient, and is by no means extinct in the modern European world, should be set aside from time to time in favour of merit. He is aware how deeply the greater part of

The power of music, liii mankind resent any interference with the order of society, and Republic in. therefore he proposes his novel idea in the form of what he Lntroduchimself calls a * monstrous fiction.' (Compare the ceremony of '^'°^- preparation for the two * great waves ' in Book v. ) Two principles are indicated by him : first, that there is a distinction of ranks dependent on circumstances prior to the individual : second, that this distinction is and ought to be broken through by personal qualities.

He adapts mythology like the Homeric poems to the wants of the state, making * the Phoenician tale ' the vehicle of his ideas. Every Greek state had a myth respecting its own origin ; the Platonic republic may also have a tale of earthborn men. The gravity and verisimilitude with which the tale is told, and the analogy of Greek tradition, are a sufficient verification of the * monstrous falsehood.

Ancient poetry had spoken of a gold and silver and brass and iron age succeeding one another, but Plato supposes these differences in the natures of men to exist together in a single state. Mythology supplies a figure under which the lesson may be taught (as Protagoras says, ' the myth is more interesting'), and also enables Plato to touch lightly on new principles without going into details.

In this passage he shadows forth a general truth, but he does not tell us by what steps the transposition of ranks is to be effected. Indeed throughout the Republic he allows the lower ranks to fade into the distance. We do not know whether they are to carry arms, and whether in the fifth book they are or are not included in the communistic regulations respecting property and marriage.

Nor is there any use in arguing strictly either from a few chance words, or from the silence of Plato, or in drawing inferences which were beyond his vision. Aristotle, in his criticism on the position of the lower classes, does not perceive that the poetical creation is ' like the air, invulnerable,' and cannot be penetrated by the shafts of his logic (Pol. ii. 5, § iSfoll.). 6.

Two paradoxes which strike the modern reader as in the highest degree fanciful and ideal, and which suggest to him many reflections, are to be found in the third book of the Republic : first, the great power of music, so much beyond any influence which is experienced by us in modern times, when the art or science has been far more developed, and has found

Republic nr. the secret of harmony, as well as of melody; secondly, the Introduc- indefinite and almost absolute control which the soul is supposed TioN. |.Q exercise over the body. In the first we suspect some degree of exaggeration, such as we may also observe among certain masters of the art, not unknown to us, at the present day.

With this natural enthusiasm, which is felt by a few only, there seems to mingle in Plato a sort of Pythagorean reverence for numbers and numerical proportion to which Aristotle is a stranger. Intervals of sound and number are to him sacred things which have a law of their own, not dependent on the variations of sense. They rise above sense, and become a connecting link with the world of ideas.

But it is evident that Plato is describing what to him appears to be also a fact. The power of a simple and characteristic melody on the impressible mind of the Greek is more than we can easily appreciate. The effect of national airs may bear some comparison with it. And, besides all this, there is a confusion between the harmony of musical notes and the harmony of soul and body, which is so potently inspired by them.

The second paradox leads up to some curious and interesting questions — How far can the mind control the body? Is the relation between them one of mutual antagonism or of mutual harmony ? Are they two or one, and is either of them the cause of the other?

May we not at times drop the opposition between them, and the mode of describing them, which is so familiar to us, and yet hardly conveys any precise meaning, and try to view this composite creature, man, in a more simple manner ? Must we not at any rate admit that there is in human nature a higher and a lower principle, divided by no distinct line, which at times break asunder and take up arms against one another?

Or again, they are reconciled and move together, either unconsciously in the ordinary work of life, or consciously in the pursuit of some noble aim, to be attained not without an effort, and for which every thought and nerve are strained. And then the body becomes the good friend or ally, or servant or instrument of the mind.

And the mind has often a wonderful and almost superhuman power of banishing disease and weakness and calling out a hidden strength. Reason and the desires, the intellect and the senses are brought into harmony and obedience so as to form a

The ma^iagcmcnt of healili. Iv single human being. They are ever parting, ever meeting; and Republic in. the identity or diversity of their tendencies or operations is for Introducthe most part unnoticed by us. When the mind touches the body ^'°^'- through the appetites, we acknowledge the responsibihty of the one to the other. There is a tendency in us which says * Drink. There is another which says, 'Do not drink; it is not good for you.

And we all of us know which is the rightful superior. We are also responsible for our health, although into this sphere there enter some elements of necessity which may be beyond our control. Still even in the management of health, care and thought, continued over many years, may make us almost free agents, if we do not exact too much of ourselves, and if we acknowledge that all human freedom is limited by the laws of nature and of mind.

We are disappointed to find that Plato, in the general condemnation which he passes on the practice of medicine prevailing in his own day, depreciates the effects of diet. He would like to have diseases of a definite character and capable of receiving a definite treatment. He is afraid of invalidism interfering with the business of life.

He does not recognize that time is the great healer both of mental and bodily disorders ; arid that remedies which are gradual and proceed little by little are safer than those which produce a sudden catastrophe.

Neither docs he see that there is no way in which the mind can more surely influence the body than by the control of eating and drinking ; or any other action or occasion of human life on which the higher freedom of the will can be more simply or truly asserted. 7.

Lesser matters of style may be remarked, (i) The affected ignorance of music, which is Plato's way of expressing that he is passing lightly over the subject. (2) The tentative manner in which here, as in the second book, he proceeds with the construction of the State. (3) The description of the State sometimes as a reality (389 D; 416 B), and then again as a work of imagination only (cp.

534 C ; 592 B) ; these are the arts by which he sustains the reader's interest. (4) Connecting links (e. g. 408 C with 379), or the preparation (394 D) for the entire expulsion of the poets in Book x. (5) The companion pictures of the lover of litigation and the valetudinarian (405), the satirical jest about the maxim of Phocylides (407), the manner in which

Ivi

Analysis 419-422.

Republic III. the image of the gold and silver citizens is taken up into the Introuuc- subject (416 E), and the argument from the practice of Asclcpius (407), should not escape notice.

TION.

Analysis. BOOK IV. Adeimantus said: * Suppose a person to argue,Steph. Socrates, that you make your citizens miserable, and this by 4^9 their own free-will; they are the lords of the city, and yet instead of having, like other men, lands and houses and money of their own, they live as mercenaries and are always mounting guard.

You may add, I replied, that they receive no pay but 420 only their food, and have no money to spend on a journey or a mistress. ' Well, and what answer do you give ? ' My answer is, that our guardians may or may not be the happiest of men, — I should not be surprised to find in the long-run that they were, — but this is not the aim of our constitution, which was designed for the good of the whole and not of any one part.

If I went to a sculptor and blamed him for having painted the eye, which is the noblest feature of the face, not purple but black, he would reply : ' The eye must be an eye, and you should look at the statue as a whole.

'Now I can well imagine a fool's paradise, in which everybody is eating and drinking, clothed in purple and fine linen, and potters lie on sofas and have their wheel at hand, that they may work a little when they please; and cobblers and all the other classes of a State 421 lose their distinctive character. And a State may get on without cobblers; but when the -guardians degenerate into boon companions, then the ruin is complete.

Remember that we are not talking of peasants keeping holiday, but of a State in which every man is expected to do his own work. The happiness resides not in this or that class, but in the State as a whole. I have another remark to make : — A middle condition is best for artisans; they should have money enough to buy tools, and not enough to be independent of business. And will not the same condition be best for our citizens?

If 422 they are poor, they will be mean ; if rich, luxurious and lazy ; and in neither case contented. ' But then how will our poor city be able to go to war against an enemy who has money ? ' There may be a difificulty in fighting against one enemy ; against two there will be none. In the first place, the contest will be

Analysis 422-425. Ivii carried on by trained warriors against well-to-do citizens : and Republic iv. is not a regular athlete an easy match for two stout opponents Analysis. at least?

Suppose also, that before engaging we send ambassadors to one of the two cities, saying, 'Silver and gold we have not; do you help us and take our share of the spoil;' — who would fight against the lean, wiry dogs, when they might join with them in preying upon the fatted sheep? ' But if many states join their resources, shall we not be in danger?

I am amused to hear you use the word 'state' of any but our own State. -3 They are ' states,' but not 'a state' — many in one. For in every state there are two hostile nations, rich and poor, which you may set one against the other. But our State, while she remains true to her principles, will be in very deed the mightiest of Hellenic states.

To the size of the state there is no limit but the necessity of unity ; it must be neither too large nor too small to be one. This is a matter of secondary importance, like the principle of transposition which was intimated in the parable of the earthborn men. The meaning there implied was that every man should do that for which he was fitted, and be at one with himself, and then the whole city would be united.

But all these things are secondary, 124 if education, which is the great matter, be duly regarded. When the wheel has once been set in motion, the speed is always increasing; and each generation improves upon the preceding, both in physical and moral qualities. The care of the governors should be directed to preserve music and gymnastic from innovation; alter the songs of a country, Damon says, and you will soon end by altering its laws.

The change appears innocent at first, and begins in play ; but the evil soon becomes serious, working secretly upon the characters of individuals, then upon social and commercial relations, and lastly upon the institutions 1.25 of a state ; and there is ruin and confusion everywhere. But if education remains in the established form, there will be no danger.

A restorative process \vill be always going on; the spirit of law and order will raise up what has fallen down. Nor will any regulations be needed for the lesser matters of life — rules of deportment or fashions of dress. Like invites like for good or for evil. Education will correct deficiencies and supply the power of self-government. Far be it from us to enter into the

particulars of legislation ; let the guardians take care of education, and education will take care of all other things. But without education they may patch and mend as they please ; they will make no progress, any more than a patient who thinks to cure himself by some favourite remedy and will not give up his luxurious mode of living.

If you tell such persons that they 426 must first alter their habits, then they grow angry; they are charming people. * Charming, — nay, the very reverse. Evidently these gentlemen arc not in your good graces, nor the state which is like them.

And such states there are which first ordain under penalty of death that no one shall alter the constitution, and then suffer themselves to be flattered into and out of anything ; and he who indulges them and fawns upon them, is their leader and saviour. ' Yes, the men are as bad as the states. But do you not admire their cleverness? * Nay, some of them are stupid enough to believe what the people tell them.

And when all the world is telling a man that he is six feet high, and he has no measure, how can he believe anything else? But don't get into a passion : to see our statesmen trying their nostrums, and fancying that they can cut off at a blow the Hydra- 427 like rogueries of mankind, is as good as a play. Minute enactments are superfluous in good states, and are useless in bad ones. And now what remains of the work of legislation ?

Nothing for us; but to Apollo the god of Delphi we leave the ordering of the greatest of all things — that is to say, religion. Only our ancestral deity sitting upon the centre and navel of the earth will be trusted by us if we have any sense, in an affair of such magnitude. No foreign god shall be supreme in our realms. . . .

Here, as Socrates would say, let us * reflect on ' (cKOTrufiev) what has preceded: thus far we have spoken not of the happiness of the citizens, but only of the well-being of the State. They may be the happiest of men, but our principal aim in founding the State was not to make them happy. They were to be guardians, not holiday-makers.

In this pleasant manner is presented to us the famous question both of ancient and modern philosophy, touching the relation of duty to happiness, of right to utility. First duty, then happiness, is the natural order of our moral ideas. The utilitarian principle is valuable as a corrective of

Happiness and duty. lix error, and shows to us a side of ethics which is apt to be neglected. Republic iv. It may be admitted further that right and utihty are co-extensive, Introducand that he who makes the happiness of mankind his object ^'°^" has one of the highest and noblest motives of human action. But utility is not the historical basis of morality ; nor the aspect in which moral and religious ideas commonly occur to the mind.

The greatest happiness of all is, as we believe, the far-off result of the divine government of the universe. The greatest happiness of the individual is certainly to be found in a life of virtue and goodness. But we seem to be more assured of a law of right than we can be of a divine purpose, that ' all mankind should be saved ; ' and we infer the one from the other.

And the greatest happiness of the individual may be the reverse of the greatest happiness in the ordinary sense of the term, and may be realised in a life of pain, or in a voluntary death. Further, the word ' happiness ' has several ambiguities ; it may mean either pleasure or an ideal life, happiness subjective or objective, in this world or in another, of ourselves only or of our neighbours and of all men everywhere.

By the modern founder of Utilitarianism the selfregarding and disinterested motives of action are included under the same term, although they are commonly opposed by us as benevolence and self-love. The word happiness has not the definiteness or the sacredness of ' truth ' and * right ' ; it does not equally appeal to our higher nature, and has not sunk into the conscience of mankind.

It is associated too much with the comforts and conveniences of life ; too httle with 'the goods of the soul which we desire for their own sake. In a great trial, or danger, or temptation, or in any great and heroic action, it is scarcely thought of. For these reasons 'the greatest happiness' principle is not the true foundation of ethics.

But though not the first principle, it is the second, which is like unto it, and is often of easier application. For the larger part of human actions are neither right nor wrong, except in so far as they tend to the happiness of mankind (cp. Introd. to Gorgias and Philebus). The same question reappears in politics, where the useful or expedient seems to claim a larger sphere and to have a greater authority.

For concerning political measures, we chiefly ask : How will they affect the happiness of mankind ? Yet here too we may observe that what we term expediency is merely the law of

Ix Idealism ht Politics. Republic IV. right limited by the conditions of human society. Right and truth Intkoduc- arc the highest aims of- government as well as of individuals ; and we ought not to lose sight of them because we cannot directly enforce them. They appeal to the better mind of nations; and sometimes they are too much for merely temporal interests to resist.

They are the watchwords which all men use in matters of public policy •as well as in their private dealings; the peace of Europe may be said to depend upon them. In the most commercial and utilitarian states of society the power of ideas remains. And all the higher class of statesmen have in them something of that idealism which Pericles is said to have gathered from the teaching of Anaxagoras.

They recognise that the true leader of men must be above the motives of ambition, and that national character is of greater value than material comfort and prosperity. And this is the order of thought in Plato ; first, he expects his citizens to do their duty, and then under favourable circumstances, that is to say, in a well-ordered State, their happiness is assured.

That he was far from excluding the modern principle of utility in politics is sufficiently evident from other passages, in which ^ the most beneficial is affirmed to be the most honourable' (v. 457 B), and also 'the most sacred' (v. 458 E). We may note (i) The manner in which the objection of Adeimantus here, as in ii.

357 foil., 363 ; vi. ad init. etc., is designed to draw out and deepen the argument of Socrates. (2) The conception of a whole as lying at the foundation both of politics and of art, in the latter supplying the only principle of criticism, which, under the various names of harmony, symmetry, measure, proportion, unity, the Greek seems to have applied to works of art. (3) The requirement that the State should be limited in size, after the traditional model of a Greek state ; as in the Politics of Aristotle (vii.

4, etc.), the fact that the cities of Hellas were small is converted into a principle. (4) The humorous pictures of the lean dogs and the fatted sheep, of the light active boxer upsetting two stout gentlemen at least, of the 'charming' patients who are always making themselves worse ; or again, the playful assumption that there is no State but our own ; or the grave irony with which the statesman is excused who believes that he is six feet high because he is told so, and having nothing to measure with is to be pardoned for his ignorance — he is too

amusing for us to be seriously angry with him. (5) The Hght and Republic iv. superticial manner in which rehgion is passed over when pro- Introducvision has been made for two great principles, — first, that rehgion '^'"^• shall be based on the highest conception of the gods (ii. 377 foil.), secondly, that the true national or Hellenic type shall be maintained Socrates proceeds: But where amid all this is justice? Son of analysis.

Ariston, tell me where. Light a candle and search the city, and get your brother and the rest of our friends to help in seeking for her. 'That won't do,' replied Glaucon, * you yourself promised to make the search and talked about the impiety of deserting justice. Well, I said, I will lead the way, but do you follow. My notion is, that our State being perfect will contain all the four virtues — wisdom, 4.28 courage, temperance, justice.

If we eliminate the three first, the unknown remainder will be justice. First then, of wisdom : the State which we have called into being will be wise because politic. And policy is one among many kinds of skill, — not the skill of the carpenter, or of the worker in metal, or of the husbandman, but the skill of him who advises about the interests of the whole State.

Of such a kind is 4.29 the skill of the guardians, who are a small class in number, far smaller than the blacksmiths; but in them is concentrated the wisdom of the State. And if this small ruling class have wisdom, then the whole State will be wise. Our second virtue is courage, which we have no difficulty in finding in another class — that of soldiers.

Courage may be defined as a %ox\ of salvation — the never-failing salvation of the opinions which law and education have prescribed concerning dangers. You know the way in which dyers first prepare the white ground and then lay on the dye of purple or of any other colour. Colours dyed in this way become fixed, and no soap or 4.30 lye will ever wash them out.

Now the ground is education, and the laws are the colours; and if the ground is properly laid, neither the soap of pleasure nor the lye of pain or fear will ever wash them out. This power which preserves right opinion about danger I would ask you to call 'courage,' adding the epithet 'political' or 'civilized' in order to distinguish it from mere animal courage and from a higher courage which may hereafter be discussed.

Ixii Analysis 431-434. Republic I y. Two virtues remain; temperance and justice. More than the Analysis. preceding virtues temperance suggests the idea of harmony. 43^ Some light is thrown upon the nature of this virtue by the popular description of a man as * master of himself — which has an absurd sound, because the master is also the servant. The expression really means that the better principle in a man masters tlie worse.

There are in cities whole classes — women, slaves and the like — who correspond to the worse, and a few only to the better ; and in our State the former class are held under control by the latter. Now to which of these classes does temperance belong? ' To both of them.

And our State if any will be the abode of temperance ; and we were right in describing this virtue as a harmony which is diffused through the whole, making the dwellers in the city to 43^ be of one mind, and attuning the upper and middle and lower classes like the strings of an instrument, whether you suppose them to differ in wisdom, strength or wealth.

And now we are near the spot ; let us draw in and surround the cover and watch with all our eyes, lest justice should slip away and escape. Tell me, if you see the thicket move first. ' Nay, I would have you lead. Well then, offer up a prayer and follow. The way is dark and difficult ; but we must push on. I begin to see a track. * Good news. Why, Glaucon, our dulness of scent is quite ludicrous !

While we are straining our eyes into the distance, justice is tumbling out at our feet. We are as bad as people looking for a thing which they have in their hands. Have 43^ you forgotten our old principle of the division of labour, or of every man doing his own business, concerning which we spoke at the foundation of the State — what but this was justice ?

Is there any other virtue remaining which can compete with wisdom and temperance and courage in the scale of political virtue ? For * every one having his own ' is the great object of government ; and the great object of trade is that every man should do his own 43^ business.

Not that there is much harm in a carpenter trying to be a cobbler, or a cobbler transforming himself into a carpenter; but great evil may arise from the cobbler leaving his last and turning into a guardian or legislator, or when a single individual is trainer, warrior, legislator, all in one. And this evil is injustice, or every man doing another's business. I do not say that as yet we are in a condition to arrive at a final conclusion. For the

The definition of justice. Ixiii definition which we believe to hold good in states has still to be Republic i v. tested by the individual. Having read the large letters we will analysis. 435 rio^^' come back to the small. From the two together a brilliant light may be struck out. . . . Socrates proceeds to discover the nature of justice by a method Introducof residues.

Each of the first three virtues corresponds to one of the three parts of the soul and one of the three classes in the State, although the third, temperance, has more of the nature of a harmony than the first two. If there be a fourth virtue, that can only be sought for in the relation of the three parts in the soul or classes in the State to one another. It is obvious and simple, and for that very reason has not been found out.

The modern logician will be inclined to object that ideas cannot be separated like chemical substances, but that they run into one another and may be only different aspects or names of the same thing, and such in this instance appears to be the case.

For the definition here given of justice is verbally the same as one of the definitions of temperance given by Socrates in the Charmides (162 A), which however is only provisional, and is afterwards rejected. And so far from justice remaining over when the other virtues are eliminated, the justice and temperance of the Republic can with difficulty be distinguished.

Temperance appears to be the virtue of a part only, and one of three, whereas justice is a universal virtue of the whole soul. Yet on the other hand temperance is also described as a sort of harmony, and in this respect is akin to justice.

Justice seems to differ from temperance in degree rather than in kind ; whereas temperance is the harmony of discordant elements, justice is the perfect order by which all natures and classes do their own business, the right man in the right place, the division and co-operation of all the citizens.

Justice, again, is a more abstract notion than the other virtues, and therefore, from Plato's point of view, the foundation of them, to which they are referred and which in idea precedes them. The proposal to omit temperance is a mere trick of style intended to avoid monotony (cp. vii. 528). There is a famous question discussed in one of the earlier Dialogues of Plato (Protagoras, 329, 330; cp. Arist. Nic. Ethics, vi. 13.

6), * Whether the virtues are one or many ? This receives an answer which is to the effect that there are four cardinal virtues

Ixiv Analysis 435-437. Republic IV. (iiow for thc first time brought together in ethical philosophy), Introduc- 3nd one supreme over the rest, which is not like Aristotle's TioN. conception of universal justice, virtue relative to others, but ihe whole of virtue relative to the parts.

To this universal conception of justice or order in the first education and in the moral nature of man, the still more universal conception of the good in the second education and in thc sphere of speculative knowledge seems to succeed. Both might be equally described by the terms ' law,* 'order,' 'harmony;' but while the idea of good embraces 'all time and all existence,' the conception of justice is not extended beyond man.

Analysis. . . • Socrates is now going to identify the individual and the State. But first he must prove that there are three parts of the individual soul. His argument is as follows : — Quantity makes no difference in quahty. The word 'just,' whether applied to the individual dr to the State, has the same meaning. And the term 'justice ' implied that the same three principles in the State and in the individual were doing their own business.

But are they really three or one ? The question is difficult, and one which can hardly be solved by the methods which we are now using; but the truer and longer way would take up too much of our time. ' The shorter will satisfy me. Well then, you would admit that the qualities of states mean the qualities of the individuals who compose them?

The Scythians and Thracians are passionate, our own race intellectual, and the Egyptians and Phoenicians 43^ covetous, because the individual members of each have such and such a character ; the difficulty is to determine whether the several principles are one or three; whether, that is to say, we reason with one part of our nature, desire with another, are angry with another, or whether the whole soul comes into play in each sort of action.

This enquiry, however, requires a very exact definition of terms. The same thing in the same relation cannot be affected in two opposite ways. But there is no impossibility in a man standing still, yet moving his arms, or in a top which is fixed on one spot going round upon its axis.

There is no necessity to mention all the possible exceptions; let us pro- 437 visionally assume that opposites cannot do or be or suffer opposites in the same relation. And to the class of opposites belong assent and dissent, desire and avoidance. And one form

Afialysis 437-441. Ixv of desire is thirst and hunger: and here arises a new point — Republic i v. thirst is thirst of drink, hunger is hunger of food; not of warm analysis. 1^38 drink or of a particular kind of food, with the single exception of course that the very fact of our desiring anything implies that it is good.

When relative terms have no attributes, their correlatives have no attributes; when they have attributes, their correlatives also have them. For example, the term ' greater ' is simply relative to * less,' and knowledge refers to a subject of knowledge. But on the other hand, a particular knowledge is of a particular subject.

Again, every science has a distinct character, which is defined by an object; medicine, for example, is the science of j.^^ health, although not to be confounded with health. Having cleared our ideas thus far, let us return to the original instance of thirst, which has a definite object — drink. Now the thirsty soul may feel two distinct impulses ; the animal one saying * Drink ;' the rational one, which says * Do not drink.

The two impulses are contradictory ; and therefore we may assume that they spring from distinct principles in the soul. But is passiort a third principle, or akin to desire ? There is a story of a certain Leontius which throws some light on this question. He was coming up from the Piraeus outside the north wall, and he passed a spot where there were dead bodies lying by the executioner.

He felt a longing desire to see them and also an abhorrence of them ; at first he turned away ^40 ^r^d shut his eyes, then, suddenly tearing them open, he said, — ' Take your fill, ye wretches, of the fair sight. Now is there not here a third principle which is often found to come to the assistance of reason against desire, but never of desire against reason ?

This is passion or spirit, of the separate existence of which we may further convince ourselves by putting the following case : — When a man suffers justly, if he be of a generous nature he is not indignant at the hardships which he undergoes : but when he suffers unjustly, his indignation is his great support; hunger and thirst cannot tame him ; the spirit within him must do or die, until the voice of the shepherd, that is, of reason, bidding his dog bark no more, is heard within.

This shows ^41 that passion is the ally of reason. Is passion then the same with reason? No, for the former exists in children and brutes; and Homer affords a proof of the distinction between them when he says, * He smote his breast, and thus rebuked his soul. VOL. III. — 5

Ixvi A7ialysis 441-445. Republic IV. And now, at last, we have reached firm ground, and are able to Analysis. infer that the virtues of the State and of the individual are the same. For wisdom and courage and justice in the State are severally the wisdom and courage and justice in the individuals who form the State.

Each of the three classes will do the work of its own class in the State, and each part in the individual soul; reason, the superior, and passion, the inferior, will be harmonized 442 by the influence of music and gymnastic. The counsellor and the warrior, the head and the arm, will act together in the town of Mansoul, and keep the desires in proper subjection.

The courage of the warrior is that quality which preserves a right opinion about dangers in spite of pleasures and pains. The wisdom of the counsellor is that small part of the soul which has authority and reason. The virtue of temperance is the friendship of the ruling and the subject principles, both in the State and in the individual. Of justice we have already spoken ; and the notion already given of it may be confirmed by common instances.

Will the just state or the just individual steal, lie, commit adultery, 443 or be guilty of impiety to gods and men ? ' No. And is not the reason of this that the several principles, whether in the state or in the individual, do their own business? And justice is the quality which makes just men and just states.

Moreover, our old division of labour, which required that there should be one man for one use, was a dream or anticipation of what was to follow; and that dream has now been realized in justice, which begins by binding together the three chords of the soul, and then acts harmoniously in every relation of life.

And injustice, which is 444 the insubordination and disobedience of the inferior elements in the soul, is the opposite of justice, and is inharmonious and unnatural, being to the soul what disease is to the body ; for in the soul as well as in the body, good or bad actions produce good or bad habits. And virtue is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul, and vice is the disease and weakness and deformity of the soul.

Again the old question returns upon us : Is justice or injustice 445 the more profitable ? The question has become ridiculous. For injustice, like mortal disease, makes life not worth having. Come up with me to the hill which overhangs the city and look down upon the single form of virtue, and the infinite forms of vice,

The laws of cofitradiction. Ixvii among which are four special ones, characteristic both of states Republic ly. and of individuals. And the state which corresponds to the analysis. single form of virtue is that which we have been describing, * wherein reason rules under one of two names — monarchy and aristocracy. Thus there are five forms in all, both of states and of souls. . . .

In attempting to prove that the soul has three separate faculties, Introduc- Plato takes occasion to discuss what makes difference of faculties. ^'°''*' And the criterion which he proposes is difference in the working of the faculties. The same faculty cannot produce contradictory effects. But the path of early reasoners is beset by thorny entanglements, and he will not proceed a step without first clearing the ground.

This leads him into a tiresome digression, which is intended to explain the nature of contradiction. First, the contradiction must be at the same time and in the same relation. Secondly, no extraneous word must be introduced into either of the terms in which the contradictory proposition is expressed : for example, thirst is of drink, not of warm drink.

He implies, what he does not say, that if, by the advice of reason, or by the impulse of anger, a man is restrained from drinking, this proves that thirst, or desire under which thirst is included, is distinct from anger and reason. But suppose that we allow the term 'thirst' or * desire ' to be modified, and say an * angry thirst,' or a 'revengeful desire,' then the two spheres of desire and anger overlap and become confused.

This case therefore has to be excluded. And still there remains an exception to the rule in the use of the term ' good,' which is always implied in the object of desire. These are the discussions of an age before logic; and any one who is wearied by them should remember that they are necessary to the clearing up of ideas in the first development of the human faculties.

The psychology of Plato extends no further than the division of the soul into the rational, irascible, and concupiscent elements, which, as far as we know, was first made by him, and has been retained by Aristotle and succeeding ethical writers.

The chief difficulty in this early analysis of the mind is to define exactly the place of the irascible faculty {Qvfiog), which may be variously described under the terms righteous indignation, spirit, passion. It is the foundation of courage, which includes in Plata

Ixviii Passion and desire. Republic iv. moral courage, the courage of enduring pain, and of surmounting Introduc- intellectual difficulties, as well as of meeting dangers in war. Though irrational, it inclines to side with the rational : it cannot be aroused by punishment when justly inflicted: it sometimes takes the form of an enthusiasm which sustains a man in the performance of great actions.

It is the * lion heart ' with which the reason makes a treaty (ix. 589 B). On the other hand it is negative rather than positive ; it is indignant at wrong or falsehood, but does not, like Love in the Symposium and Phaedrus, aspire to the vision of Truth or Good, It is the peremptory military spirit which prevails in the government of honour. It differs from anger {bpyr/), this latter term having no accessory notion of righteous indignation.

Although Aristotle has retained the word, yet we may observe that 'passion' {dvuog) has with him lost its affinity to the rational and has become indistinguishable from ' anger ' {opYv). And to this vernacular use Plato himself in the Laws seems to revert (ix. 836 B), though not always (v, 731 A).

By modern philosophy too, as well as in our ordinary conversation, the words anger or passion are employed almost exclusively in a bad sense ; there is no connotation of a just or reasonable cause by which they are aroused. The feeling of ' righteous indignation ' is too partial and accidental to admit of our regarding it as a separate virtue or habit.

We are tempted also to doubt whether Plato is right in supposing that an offender, however justly condemned, could be expected to acknowledge the justice of his sentence ; this is the spirit of a philosopher or martyr rather than of a criminal. We may observe (p. 444 D, E) how nearly Plato approaches Aristotle's famous thesis, that 'good actions produce good habits.

The words ' as healthy practices {kTTLTTjdevfxara) produce health, so do just practices produce justice,' have a sound very like the Nicomachean Ethics. But we note also that an incidental remark in Plato has become a far-reaching principle in Aristotle, and an inseparable part of a great Ethical system. There is a difficulty in understanding what Plato meant by * the longer way ' (435 D ; cp, iii/ra, vi.

504) : he seems to intimate some metaphysic of the future which will not be satisfied with arguing from the principle of contradiction. In the sixth and seventh books (compare Sophist and Parmenides) he has given

us a sketch of such a mctaphysic; but when Glaucon asks for Republic i v. the final revelation of the idea of good, he is put off with the Introducdeclaration that he has not yet studied the preliminary sciences. ^'°^" How he would have filled up the sketch, or argued about such questions from a higher point of view, we can only conjecture.

Perhaps he hoped to find some a priori method of developing the parts out of the whole; or he might have asked which of the ideas contains the other ideas, and possibly have stumbled on the Hegelian identity of the 'ego' and the 'universal. Or he may have imagined that ideas might be constructed in some manner analogous to the construction of figures and numbers in the mathematical sciences.

The most certain and necessary truth was to Plato the universal; and to this he was always seeking to refer all knowledge or opinion, just as in modern times we seek to rest them on the opposite pole of induction and experience.

The aspirations of metaphysicians have always tended to pass beyond the limits of human thought and language: they seem to have reached a height at which they are * moving about in worlds unrealized,' and their conceptions, although profoundly affecting their own minds, become invisible or unintelligible to others.

We are not therefore surprized to find that Plato himself has nowhere clearly explained his doctrine of ideas; or that his school in a later generation, like his contemporaries Glaucon and Adeimantus, were unable to follow him in this region of speculation.

In the Sophist, where he is refuting the scepticism which maintained either that there was no such thing as predication, or that all might be predicated of all, he arrives at the conclusion that some ideas combine with some, but not all with all.

But he makes only one or two steps forward on this path ; he nowhere attains to any connected system of ideas, or even to a knowledge of the most elementary relations of the sciences to one another (see iiif^'o).

Steph. BOOK V. I was going to enumerate the four forms of vice analysis. ■^■^9 or decline in states, when Polemarchus — he was sitting a little farther from me than Adeimantus — taking him by the coat and leaning towards him, said something in an undertone, of which I only caught the words, 'Shall we let him off? 'Certainly not,' said Adeimantus, raising his voice. Whom, I said, are you

Ixx Analysis 449-452. Republic V. not going to let off? ' You,' he said. Why t ' Because we think Analysis. that you are not dcahng fairly with us in omitting women and children, of whom you have slily disposed under the general formula that friends have all things in common. And was I not right? 'Yes,' he replied, 'but there arc many sorts of communism or community, and we want to know which of them is right.

The company, as you have just heard, are resolved to have a further explanation. Thrasymachus said, * Do you 450 think that we have come hither to dig for gold, or to hear you discourse? ' Yes, I said ; but the discourse should be of a reasonable length.

Glaucon added, ' Yes, Socrates, and there is reason in spending the whole of life in such discussions ; but pray, without more ado, tell us how this community is to be carried out, and how the interval between birth and education is to be filled up. Well, I said, the subject has several difficulties — What is possible? is the first question. What is desirable? is the second. ' Fear not,' he replied, ' for you are speaking among friends.

That, I replied, is a sorry consolation; I shall destroy my friends as well as myself. Not that I mind a little innocent 451 laughter; but he who kills the truth is a murderer. ' Then,' said Glaucon, laughing, * in case you should murder us we will acquit you beforehand, and you shall be held free from the guilt of deceiving us. Socrates proceeds : — The guardians of our state are to be watch-dogs, as we have already said.

Now dogs are not divided into hes and shes — we do not take the masculine gender out to hunt and leave the females at home to look after their puppies. They have the same employments — the only difference between them is that the one sex is stronger and the other weaker. But if women are to have the same employments as men, they must have the same education — they must be taught music and gymnastics, and the art of war.

I know that a great joke Ar2 will be made of their riding on horseback and carrying weapons ; the sight of the naked old wrinkled women showing their agility in the palaestra will certainly not be a vision of beauty, and may be expected to become a famous jest. But we must not mind the wits ; there was a time when they might have laughed at our present gymnastics. All is habit : people have at last found out that the exposure is better than the concealment of the

person, and now they laugh no more. Evil only should be the Republic v. subject of ridicule. Analysis. 153 The first question is, whether women are able either wholly or partially to share in the employments of men. And here we may be charged with inconsistency in making the proposal at all. For we started originally with the division of labour; and the diversity of employments was based on the difference of natures.

But is there no difference between men and women? Nay, are they not wholly different? There was the difficulty, Glaucon, which made me unwilling to speak of family relations.

However, when a man is out of his depth, whether in a pool or in an ocean, he can only swim for his life ; and we must try to find a way of escape, if we can. |-^ The argument is, that different natures have different uses, and the natures of men and women are said to differ. But this is only a verbal opposition.

We do not consider that the difference may be purely nominal and accidental ; for example, a bald man and a hairy man are opposed in a single point of view, but you cannot infer that because a bald man is a cobbler a hairy man ought not to be a cobbler. Now why is such an inference erroneous ?

Simply because the opposition between them is partial only, like the difference between a male physician and a female physician, not running through the whole nature, like the difference between a physician and a carpenter. And if the difference of the sexes is only that the one beget and the other bear children, this does not prove that they ought to have _|.^- distinct educations.

Admitting that women differ from men in capacity, do not men equally differ from one another? Has not nature scattered all the qualities which our citizens require indifferently up and down among the two sexes? and even in their peculiar pursuits, are not women often, though in some cases superior to men, ridiculously enough surpassed by them ?

Women are the same in kind as men, and have the same aptitude ^^5 or want of aptitude for medicine or gymnastic or war, but in a less degree. One woman will be a good guardian, another not; and the good must be chosen to be the colleagues of our guardians. If however their natures are the same, the inference is that their education must also be the same ; there is no longer anything unnatural or impossible in a woman learning music

Republic V. and gymnastic. And the education which wc give them will Analysis. bc the very best, far superior to that of cobblers, and will train up the very best women, and nothing can be more advantageous to the State than this. Therefore let them strip, clothed in their 45/ chastity, and share in the toils of war and in the defence of their country ; he who laughs at them is a fool for his pains.

The first wave is past, and the argument is compelled to admit that men and women have common duties and pursuits. A second and greater wave is rolling in — community of wives and children ; is this either expedient or possible ? The expediency I do not doubt ; I am not so sure of the possibility. ' Nay, I think that a considerable doubt will be entertained on both points.

I meant to have escaped the trouble of proving the first, but as you have detected the little stratagem I must even submit. Only allow me to feed my fancy like the solitary in his 45^ walks, with a dream of what might be, and then I will return to the question of what can be. In the first place our rulers will enforce the laws and make new ones where they are wanted, and their allies or ministers will obey.

You, as legislator, have already selected the men ; and now you shall select the women. After the selection has been made, they will dwell in common houses and have their meals in common, and will be brought together by a necessity more certain than that of mathematics. But they cannot be allowed to live in licentiousness; that is an unholy thing, which the rulers are determined to prevent.

For the avoidance of this, holy marriage festivals will be instituted, and their holiness will be in proportion 45( to their usefulness. And here, Glaucon, I should like to ask (as I know that you are a breeder of birds and animals), Do you not take the greatest care in the mating ? ^ Certainly. And there is no reason to suppose that less care is required in the marriage of human beings.

But then our rulers must be skilful physicians of the State, for they will often need a strong dose of falsehood in order to bring about desirable unions between their subjects. The good must be paired with the good, and the bad with the bad, and the offspring of the one must be reared, and of the other destroyed ; in this way the flock will be preserved in prime condition. Hymeneal festivals will be celebrated at times fixed 46c with an eye to population, and the brides and bridegrooms will

Analysis 460-462. Ixxiii meet at them ; and by an ingenious system of lots the rulers will Republic v. contrive that the brave and the fair come together, and that those Analysis. of inferior breed are paired with inferiors — the latter will ascribe to chance what is really the invention of the rulers.

And when children are born, the offspring of the brave and fair will be carried to an enclosure in a certain part of the city, and there attended by suitable nurses ; the rest will be hurried away to places unknown. The mothers will be brought to the fold and will suckle the children ; care however must be taken that none of them recognise their own offspring ; and if necessary other nurses may also be hired.

The trouble of watching and getting up at night will be transferred to attendants. 'Then the wives of our guardians will have a fine easy time when they are having children. And quite right too, I said, that they should.

The parents ought to be in the prime of life, which for a man may be reckoned at thirty years — from twenty- five, when he 461 has 'passed the point at which the speed of life is greatest,' to fifty- five ; and at twenty years for a woman — from twenty to forty.

Any one above or below those ages who partakes in the hymeneals shall be guilty of impiety ; also every one who forms a marriage connexion at other times without the consent of the rulers.

This latter regulation applies to those who are within the specified ages, after which they may range at will, provided they avoid the prohibited degrees of parents and children, or of brothers and sisters, which last, however, are not absolutely prohibited, if a dispensation be procured. ' But how shall we know the degrees of affinity, when all things are common ?

' The answer is, that brothers and sisters are all such as arc born seven or nine months after the espousals, and their parents those 462 ^vho are then espoused, and every one will have many children and every child many parents. Socrates proceeds : I have now to prove that this scheme is advantageous and also consistent with our entire polity. The greatest good of a State is unity ; the greatest evil, discord and distraction.

And there will be unity where there are no private pleasures or pains or interests — where if one member suffers all the members suffer, if one citizen is touched all are quickly sensitive ; and the least hurt to the httle finger of the State runs through the whole body and vibrates to the soul. For the true

Ixxiv Analysis 462-466. Republic V. Statc, like an individual, is injured as a whole when any part Analysis. IS affcctcd.

Evcry State has subjects and rulers, who in a 463 democracy are called rulers, and in other States masters : but in our State they are called saviours and allies; and the subjects who in other States are termed slaves, are by us termed nurturers and paymasters, and those who are termed comrades and colleagues in other places, are by us called fathers and brothers.

And whereas in other States members of the sam.e government regard one of their colleagues as a friend and another as an enemy, in our State no man is a stranger to another ; for every citizen is connected with every other by ties of blood, and these names and this way of speaking will have a corresponding eality — brother, father, sister, mother, repeated from infancy in e ears of children, will not be mere words.

Then again the 464 cidzens will have all things in common, and having common property they will have common pleasures and pains. Can there be strife and contention among those who are of one mind; or lawsuits about property when men have nothing but their bodies which they call their own ; or suits about violence when every one is bound to defend himself?

The permission to strike when insulted will be an ' antidote ' to 465 the knife and will prevent disturbances in the State. But no younger man will strike an elder ; reverence will prevent him from laying hands on his kindred, and he will fear that the rest of the family may retaliate. Moreover, our citizens will be rid of the lesser evils of life ; there will be no flattery of the rich, no sordid household cares, no borrowing and not paying.

Compared with the citizens of other States, ours will be Olympic victors, and crowned with blessings greater still — they and their children having a better maintenance during life, and after death an honourable burial. Nor has the happiness of the individual ^(^d been sacrificed to the happiness of the State (cp. iv. 419 E); our Olympic victor has not been turned into a cobbler, but he has a happiness beyond that of any cobbler.

At the same time, if any conceited youth begins to dream of appropriating the State to himself, he must be reminded that ' half is better than the whole.' * I should certainly advise him to stay where he is when he has the promise of such a brave life. But is such a community possible? — as among the animals, so

Afialysis 466 -46^. Ixxv also among men ; and if possible, in what way possible ? About Republic v. war there is no difficulty ; the principle of communism is adapted Analysis. to miUtary service. Parents will take their children to look on 4.67 at a battle, just as potters' boys are trained to the business by looking on at the wheel.

And to the parents themselves, as to other animals, the sight of their young ones will prove a great incentive to bravery. Young warriors must learn, but they must not run into danger, although a certain degree of risk is worth incurring when the benefit is great.

The young creatures should be placed under the care of experienced veterans, and they should have wings — that is to say, swift and tractable steeds on which ^6g they may fly away and escape. One of the first things to be done is to teach a youth to ride. » r- Cowards and deserters shall be degraded to the class <ifi husbandmen ; gentlemen who allow themselves to be taken prisoners, may be presented to the enemy.

But what shall be done to the hero ? First of all he shall be crowned by aU the youths in the army ; secondly, he shall receive the right hand of fellowship ; and thirdly, do you think that there is any harm in his being kissed? We have already determined that he shall have more wives than others, in order that he may have as many children as possible.

And at a feast he shall have more to eat ; we have the authority of Homer for honouring brave men with 'long chines,' which is an appropriate compliment, because meat is a very strengthening thing. Fill the bowl then, and give the best seats and meats to the brave — may they do them good ! And he who dies in battle will be at once declared to be of the golden race, and will, as we believe, become one of Hesiod's 469 guardian angels.

He shall be worshipped after death in the manner prescribed by the oracle ; and not only he, but all other benefactors of the State who die in any other way, shall be admitted to the same honours. The next question is. How shall we treat our enemies ? Shall Hellenes be enslaved ? No ; for there is too great a risk of the whole race passing under the yoke of the barbarians. Or shall the dead be despoiled ?

Certainly not ; for that sort of thing is an excuse for skulking, and has been the ruin of many an army. There is meanness and feminine malice in making an enemy of the dead body, when the soul which was the owner has fled —

Ixxvi Analysis 469-473. Republic V. like a. dog who cannot reach his assailants, and quarrels with the Analysis. stones which are thrown at him instead. Again, the arms of Hellenes should not be offered up in the temples of the Gods ; they 47c are a pollution, for they arc taken from brethren.

And on similar grounds there should be a Hmit to the devastation of Hellenic territory — the houses should not be burnt, nor more than the annual produce carried off.

For war is of two kinds, civil and foreign; the first of which is properly termed 'discord,' and only the second * war ; ' and war between Hellenes is in reality civil war — a quarrel in a family, which is ever to be regarded as unpatriotic and unnatural, and ought to be prosecuted with a view 471 to reconciliation in a true phil-Hellenic spirit, as of those who would chasten but not utterly enslave.

The war is not against a whole nation who are a friendly multitude of men, women, and children, but only against a few guilty persons; when they are punished peace will be restored. That is the way in which Hellenes should war against one another — and against barbarians, as they war against one another now. ' But, my dear Socrates, you are forgetting the main question : Is such a State possible ?

I grant all and more than you say about the blessedness of being one family — fathers, brothers, mothers, daughters, going out to war together; but I want to ascertain the possibility of this ideal State. You are too un- 472 merciful. The first wave and the second wave I have hardly escaped, and now you will certainly drown me with the third. When you see the towering crest of the wave. I expect you to take pity. ' Not a whit.

Well, then, we were led to form our ideal polity in the search after justice, and the just man answered to the just State. Is this ideal at all the worse for being impracticable? Would the picture of a perfectly beautiful man be any the worse because no such man ever lived? Can any reality come up to the idea?

Nature will not allow words to be fully realized ; but if I am to try and 473 realize the ideal of the State in a measure, I think that an approach may be made to the perfection of which I dream by one or two, I do not say slight, but possible changes in the present constitution of States. I would reduce them to a single one — the great wave, as I call it. Until^ then, kings are philosophers, or philosophers are kings, cities will never cease frotn ill : no, nor the

Analysis 473-477. Ixxvii human race; nor will our ideal polity ever come into beitig. I know Republic V. that this is a hard saying, which few will be able to receive. Analysis. * Socrates, all the world will take off his coat and rush upon you 1-74 with sticks and stones, and therefore I would advise you to prepare an answer. You got me into the scrape, I said.

'And I was right,' he replied; 'however, I will stand by you as a sort of do-nothing, well-meaning ally. Having the help of such a champion, I will do my best to maintain my position. And first, I must explain of whom I speak and what sort of natures these are who are to be philosophers and rulers.

As you are a man of pleasure, you will not have forgotten how indiscriminate lovers are in their attachments ; they love all, and turn blemishes into beauties. The snub-nosed youth is said to have a winning grace; the beak of another has a royal look ; the featureless are faultless ; the dark are manly, the fair angels ; the sickly have a new term of endear- ^75 ment invented expressly for them, which is 'honey-pale.

Lovers of wine and lovers of ambition also desire the objects of their affection in every form. Now here comes the point : — The philosopher too is a lover of knowledge in every form ; he has an insatiable curiosity. ' But will curiosity make a philosopher? Are the lovers of sights and sounds, who let out their ears to every chorus at the Dionysiac festivals, to be called philosophers ? ' They are not true philosophers, but only an imitation.

' Then how are we to describe the true ? ' You would acknowledge the existence of abstract ideas, such as 1.76 justice, beauty, good, evil, which are severally one, yet in their various combinations appear to be many.

Those who recognize these realities are philosophers ; whereas the other class hear sounds and see colours, and understand their use in the arts, but cannot attain to the true or waking vision of absolute justice or beauty or truth ; they have not the light of knowledge, but of opinion, and what they see is a dream only. Perhaps he of whom we say the last will be angry with us; can we pacify him without revealing the disorder of his mind?

Suppose we say that, if he has knowledge we rejoice to hear it, but knowledge must be of something which is, as ignorance is of ^77| something which is not ; and there is a third thing, which both is >■ . ' and is not, and is matter of opinion only. Opinion and knowledge,'^ ^ then, having distinct objects, must also be distinct faculties. And .jj^ V

^.

Ixxviii

Analysis 477-480.

Republic V. by fiicultics I mean powers unseen and distinguishable only by the Analysis. difference in their objects, as opinion and knowledge differ, since the one is liable to err, but the other is unerring and is the mightiest of all our faculties. If being is the object of knowledge, and not-being of ignorance, and these are the extremes, opinion 47^ must lie between them, and may be called darker than the one and brighter than the other. This intermediate or contingent matter is and is not at the same time, and partakes both of existence and of non-existence. Now I would ask my good 47< friend, who denies abstract beauty and justice, and affirms a many beautiful and a many just, whether everything he sees is not in some point of view different — the beautiful ugly, the pious impious, the just unjust? Is not the double also the half, and are not heavy and light relative terms which pnss into one another ? Everything is and is not, as in the old riddle — 'A man and not a man shot and did not shoot a bird and not a bird with a stone and not a stone.' The mind cannot be fixed on either alternative; and these ambiguous, intermediate, erring, half-lighted objects, which have a disorderly movement in the region between being and not-being, are the proper matter of opinion, as the immutable 48( objects are the proper matter of knowledge. And he who grovels in the world of sense, and has only this uncertain perception of things, is not a philosopher, but a lover of opinion only. . . .

Introduction.

The fifth book is the new beginning of the Republic, in which the community of property and of family are first maintained, and the transition is made to the kingdom of philosophers. For both of these Plato, after his manner, has been preparing in some chance words of Book IV (424 A), which fall unperceived on the reader's mind, as they are supposed at first to have fallen on the ear of Glaucon and Adeimantus. The ' paradoxes,* as Morgenstern terms them, of this book of the Republic will be reserved for another place ; a few remarks on the style, and some explanations of difficulties, may be briefly added. First, there is the image of the waves, which serves for a sort of scheme or plan of the book. The first wave, the second wave, the third and greatest wave come rolling in, and we hear the roar of them. All that can be said of the extravagance of Plato's proposals is anticipated by himself. Nothing is more admirable than the

The 'tabic of affinities'

Ixxix

hesitation with which he proposes the solemn text * Until kings Republic v. are philosophers,' &c. ; or the reaction from the sublime to the introducridiculous, when Glaucon describes the manner in which the new ^'°^- truth will be received by mankind. Some defects and difficulties may be noted in the execution of the communistic plan.

Nothing is told us of the application of communism to the lower classes; nor is the tabic of prohibited degrees capable of being made out. It is quite possible that a child born at one hymeneal festival may marry one of its own brothers or sisters, or even one of its parents, at another.

Plato is afraid of incestuous unions, but at the same time he does not wish to bring before us the fact that the city would be divided into families of those born seven and nine months after each hymeneal festival.

If it were worth while to argue seriously about such fancies, we might remark that while all the old affinities are abolished,., the newly prohibited affinity rests not on any natural or rational principle, but only upon the accident of children having been born in the same month and year. Nor does he explain how the lots could be so manipulated by the legislature as to bring together the fairest and best.

The singular expression (460 E) which is employed to describe the age of five-and-twenty may perhaps be taken from some poet. In the delineation of the philosopher, the illustrations of the nature of philosophy derived from love are more suited to the apprehension of Glaucon, the Athenian man of pleasure, than to modern tastes or feelings (cp.V.474, 475). They are partly facetious, but also contain a germ of truth.

That science is a whole, remains a true principle of inductive as well as of metaphysical philosophy; and the love of universal knowledge is still the characteristic of the philosopher in modern as well as in ancient times.

At the end of the fifth book Plato introduces the figment of con- h tingent matter, which has exercised so great an influence both on ^-Kf the Ethics and Theology of the modern world, and which occurs J here for the first time in the history of philosophy. He did not remark that the degrees of knowledge in the subject have nothing corresponding to them in the object.

With him a word must answer to an idea; and he could not conceive of an opinion which was an opinion about nothing. The influence of analogy led him to invent ^ parallels and conjugates ' and to overlook facts. To us

Ixxx

Necessary confusion of ideas in Plato.

liepitblk V Introduction.

V V

^.

/,

Vs

*f

some of his difficulties arc puzzling only from their simplicity : we do not perceive that the answer to them * is tumbling out at our feet.' To the mind of early thinkers, the conception of not-being was dark and mysterious (Sophist, 254 A) ; they did not see that this terrible apparition which threatened destruction to all knowledge was only a logical determination. The common term under which, through the accidental use of language, two entirely different ideas were included was another source of confusion. Thus through the ambiguity of 6ok€Iv^ ^aivtrai^ Iolkev, k.t/a. Plato, attempting to introduce order into the first chaos of human thought, seems to have confused perception and opinion, and to have failed to distinguish the contingent from the relative. In the Theaetetus the first of these difficulties begins to clear up; in the Sophist the second; and for this, as well as for other reasons, both these dialogues are probably to be regarded as later than the Republic.

Analysis. BOOK VI. Having determined that the many have no know- step ledge of true being, and- have no clear patterns in their minds of 48- justice, beauty, truth, and that philosophers have such patterns, we have now to ask whether they or the many shall be rulers in our State. But who can doubt that philosophers should be chosen, if they have the other qualities which are required in a ruler?

For 48c they are lovers of the knowledge of the eternal and of all truth ; they are haters of falsehood ; their meaner desires are absorbed in the interests of knowledge ; they are spectators of all time and all existence ; and in the magnificence of their contemplation the life 48^ of man is as nothing to them, nor is death fearful. Also they are of a social, gracious disposition, equally free from cowardice and arrogance.

They learn and remember easily ; they have harmonious, well-regulated minds; truth flows to them sweetly by nature. Can the god of Jealousy himself find any fault with such 48^ an assemblage of good qualities ? Here Adeimantus interposes: — 'No man can answer you, Socrates; but every man feels that this is owing to his own deficiency in argument.

He is driven from one position to another, until he has nothing more to say, just as an unskilful player at draughts is reduced to his last move by a more skilled opponent. And yet all the time he may be right.

Analysis 487-490. Ixxxi He may know, in this very instance, that those who make Republic vi. philosophy the business of their hvcs, generally turn out rogues if analysis. they are bad men, and fools if they are good. What do you say ? ' I should say that he is quite right. * Then how is such an admission reconcileable with the doctrine that philosophers should be kings ?

' , gg I shall answer you in a parable which will also let you see how poor a hand I am at the invention of allegories. The relation of good men to their governments is so peculiar, that in order to defend them I must take an illustration from the world of fiction. Conceive the captain of a ship, taller by a head and shoulders than any of the crew, yet a little deaf, a little blind, and rather ignorant of the seaman's art.

The sailors want to steer, although they know nothing of the art ; and they have a theory that it cannot be learned. If the helm is refused them, they drug the captain's posset, bind him hand and foot, and take possession of the ship.

He who joins in the mutiny is termed a good pilot and what not ; they have no conception that the true pilot must observe the winds and the stars, and must be their master, whether they like it or not ; — such an one would be called by them fool, prater, ^.gn star-gazer.

This is my parable ; which I will beg you to interpret for me to those gentlemen who ask why the philosopher has such an evil name, and to explain to them that not he, but those who will not use him, are to blame for his uselessness. The philosopher should not beg of mankind to be put in authority over them.

The wise man should not seek the rich, as the proverb bids, but every man, whether rich or poor, must knock at the door of the physician when he has need of him. Now the pilot is the philosopher — he whom in the parable they call star-gazer, and the mutinous sailors are the mob of politicians by whom he is rendered useless.

Not that these are the worst enemies of philosophy, who is far more dishonoured by her own professing sons when they are corrupted 4.90 by the world. Need I recall the original image of the philosopher.^ . Did we not say of him just now, that he loved truth and hated falsehood, and that he could not rest in the multiplicity of phenomena, but was led by a sympathy in his own nature to the contemplation of the absolute ?

All the virtues as well as truth, who is the leader of them, took up their abode in his soul. But as you were observing, if we turn aside to view the reality, we see VOL. III. — 6

Republic VI. that the persons who were thus described, with the exception of a Analysis. small and useless class, are utter rogues. The point which has to be considered, is the origin of this corruption in nature. Every one will admit that the philosopher, 491 in our description of him, is a rare being. But what numberless causes tend to destroy these rare beings !

There is no good thing which may not be a cause of evil — health, wealth, strength, rank, and the virtues themselves, when placed under unfavourable circumstances.

For as in the animal or vegetable world the strongest seeds most need the accompaniment of good air and soil, so the best of human characters turn out the worst when they fall upon an unsuitable soil ; whereas weak natures hardly ever do any considerable good or harm ; they are not the stuff out of which either great criminals or great heroes are made. The philosopher 492 follows the same analogy : he is either the best or the worst of all men.

Some persons say that the Sophists are the corrupters of youth ; but is not public opinion the real Sophist who is everywhere present — in those very persons, in the assembly, in the courts, in the camp, in the applauses and hisses of the theatre reechoed by the surrounding hills? Will not a young man's heart leap amid these discordant sounds? and will any education save him from being carried away by the torrent ? Nor is this all.

For if he will not yield to opinion, there follows the gentle compulsion of exile or death. What principle of rival Sophists or anybody else can overcome in such an unequal contest ? Characters there may be more than human, who are exceptions — God may save a 493 man, but not his own strength.

Further, I would have you consider that the hireling Sophist only gives back to the world their own opinions ; he is the keeper of the monster, who knows how to flatter or anger him, and observes the meaning of his inarticulate grunts. Good is what pleases him, evil what he dislikes; truth and beauty are determined only by the taste of the brute.

Such is the Sophist's wisdom, and such is the condition of those who make public opinion the test of truth, whether in art or in morals. The curse is laid upon them of being and doing what it approves, and when they attempt first principles the failure is ludicrous. Think of all this and ask yourself whether the world is more likely to be a believer in the unity of the idea, or in the multiplicity of phenomena. And the world if not a believer

Analysis 494-497. Ixxxiii [.04 in the idea cannot be a philosopher, and must therefore be a Republic vi. persecutor of philosophers. There is another evil: — the world Analysis. does not like to lose the gifted nature, and so they flatter the young [Alcibiades] into a magnificent opinion of his own capacity ; the tall, proper youth begins to expand, and is dreaming of kingdoms and empires.

If at this instant a friend whispers to him, * Now the gods lighten thee ; thou art a great fool ' and must be educated — do you think that he will listen ? Or suppose a better sort of man who is attracted towards philosophy, will they not 1^95 make Herculean efforts to spoil and corrupt him ? Are we not right in saying that the love of knowledge, no less than riches, may divert him?

Men of this class [Critias] often become politicians — they are the authors of great mischief in states, and sometimes also of great good. And thus philosophy is deserted by her natural protectors, and others enter in and dishonour her. Vulgar little minds see the land open and rush from the prisons of the arts into her temple. A clever mechanic having a soul coarse as his body, thinks that he will gain caste by becoming her suitor.

For philosophy, even in her fallen estate, has a dignity of her own \ — and he, like a bald little blacksmith's apprentice as he is, having made some money and got out of durance, washes and dresses 1-96 himself as a bridegroom and marries his master's daughter. What will be the issue of such marriages? Will they not be vile and bastard, devoid of truth and nature? 'They will.

Small, then, is the remnant of genuine philosophers; there may be a few who are citizens of small states, in which politics are not worth thinking of, or who have been detained by Theages' bridle of ill health ; for my own case of the oracular sign is almost unique, and too rare to be worth mentioning.

And these few when they have tasted the pleasures of philosophy, and have taken a look at that den of thieves and place of wild beasts, which is human life, will stand aside from the storm under the shelter of a wall, and try to preserve their own innocence and to depart in peace.

' A great work, too, will have been accomplished by them.* Great, yes, but J not the greatest ; for man is a social being, and can only attain his highest development in the society which is best suited to him. /j^Qy Enough, then, of the causes why philosophy has such an evil name. Another question is. Which of existing states is suited to her? Not one of them; at present she is like some exotic seed

Ixxxiv Analysis 497-499. Republic VI. wliich clcgcncrates in a strange soil; only in her proper state will Analysis. she be shown to be of heavenly growth. ' And is her proper state ours or some other? Ours in all points but one, which was left undetermined. You may remember our saying that some living mind or witness of the legislator was needed in states.

But we were afraid to enter upon a subject of such difficulty, and now the question recurs and has not grown easier: — How may philosophy be safely studied ? Let us bring her into the light of day, and make an end of the inquiry. In the first place, I say boldly that nothing can be worse than the present mode of study.

Persons usually pick up a little 498 philosophy in early youth, and in the intervals of business, but they never master the real difficulty, which is dialectic. Later, perhaps, they occasionally go to a lecture on philosophy. Years advance, and the sun of philosophy, unlike that of Heracleitus, sets never to rise again.

This order of education should be reversed; it should begin with gymnastics in youth, and as the man strengthens, he should increase the gymnastics of his soul. . Then, when active life is over, let him finally return to philosophy. * You are in earnest, Socrates, but the world w^ill be equally earnest in withstanding you — no one more then Thrasymachus.

Do not make a quarrel between Thrasymachus and me, who were never enemies and are now good friends enough. And I shall do my best to convince him and all mankind of the truth of my words, or at any rate to prepare for the future when, in another life, we may again take part in similar discussions. 'That will be a long time hence. Not long in comparison with eternity.

The many will probably remain incredulous, for they have never seen the natural unity of ideas, but only artificial juxtapositions; not free and generous thoughts, but tricks of controversy and quips of law; — a perfect man ruling in a perfect state, even a single 49 > one they have not known.

And we foresaw that there was no chance of perfection either in states or individuals until a necessity was laid upon philosophers — not the rogues, but those whom we called the useless class — of holding office; or until the sons of kings were inspired with a true love of philosophy.

Whether in the infinity of past time there has been, or is in some distant land, or ever will be hereafter, an ideal such as we have described, we stoutly maintain that there has been, is, and

Analysis 499-502. Ixxxv will be such a state whenever the Muse of philosophy rules. Republic vi. 500 Will you say that the world is of another mind? O, my friend, Analysis. do not revile the world ! They will soon change their opinion if they are gently entreated, and are taught the true nature of the philosopher. Who can hate a man who loves him ? or be jealous of one who has no jealousy ?

Consider, again, that the many hate not the true but the false philosophers — the pretenders who force their way in without invitation, and are always speaking of persons and not of principles, which is unlike the spirit of philosophy.

For the true philosopher despises earthly strife ; his eye is fixed on the eternal order in accordance with which he moulds himself into the Divine image (and not himself only, but other men), and is the creator of the virtues private as well as public. When mankind see that the happiness of states is only to be found in that image, will they be angry with us for attempting to delineate it ? * Certainly not.

But what will be the process 501 of delineation? The artist will do nothing until he has made a tabula rasa ; on this he will draw the constitution of a state, glancing often at the divine truth of nature, and from that deriving the godlike among men, mingling the two elements, rubbing out and painting in, until there is a perfect harmony or fusion of the divine and human. But perhaps the world will doubt the existence of such an artist.

What will they doubt ? That the philosopher is a lover of truth, having a nature akin to the best ? — and if they admit this will they still quarrel with us for making philosophers our kings? * They will be less disposed to quarrel. 502 Let us assume then that they are pacified. Still, a person may hesitate about the probability of the son of a king being a philosopher.

And we do not deny that they are very liable to be corrupted ; but yet surely in the course of ages there might be one exception — and one is enough. If one son of a king were a philosopher, and had obedient citizens, he might bring the ideal polity into being. Hence we conclude that our laws arc not only the best, but that they are also possible, though not free from difficulty.

I gained nothing by evading the troublesome questions which arose concerning women and children. I will be wiser now and acknowledge that we must go to the bottom of another question : What is to be the education of our guardians ? It was

Republic VI. agrccd that they were to be lovers of their country, and were cq-* Analysis. to be tested in the refiner's fire of pleasures and pains, and those who came forth pure and remained fixed in their principles were to have honours and rewards in life and after death. But at this point, the argument put on her veil and turned into another path. I hesitated to make the assertion which I now hazard, — that our guardians must be philosophers.

You remember all the contradictory elements, which met in the philosopher — how difficult to find them all in a single person ! Intelligence and spirit are not often combined with steadiness; the stolid, fearless, nature is averse to intellectual toil.

And yet these opposite elements are all necessary, and therefore, as we were saying before, the aspirant must be tested in pleasures and dangers ; and also, as we must now further add, in the highest branches of knowledge. 504 You will remember, that when we spoke of the virtues mention was made of a longer road, w^hich you were satisfied to leave unexplored. ' Enough. seemed to have been said.

Enough, my friend; but what is enough while anything remains wanting?

Of all men the guardian must not faint in the search after truth ; he must be prepared to take the longer road, or he will never ; reach that higher region which is above the four virtues ; and of the virtues too he must not only get an outline, but a clear and distinct vision. (Strange that we should be so precise about trifles, so careless about the highest truths!) *And what are the highest?

You to pretend unconsciousness, when you have 50c so often heard me speak of the idea of good, about which we know so little, and without which though a man gain the world he has no profit of it ! Some people imagine that the good is wisdom ; but this involves a circle, — the good, they say, is wisdom, wisdom has to do with the good.

According to others the good is pleasure ; but then comes the absurdity that good is bad, for there are bad pleasures as well as good. Again, the good must have reality ; a man may desire the appearance of virtue, but he will not desire the appearance of good. Ought our guardians then to be ignorant of this supreme principle, of which every man 506 has a presentiment, and without which no man has any real knowledge of anything?

'But, Socrates, what is this supreme principle, knowledge or pleasure, or what ? You may think me troublesome, but I say that you have no business to be always

repeating the doctrines of others instead of giving us your own. Can I say what I do not know? 'You may offer an opinion. And will the blindness and crookedness of opinion content you when you might have the light and certainty of science ? ' I will only ask you to give such an explanation of the good as you have given already of temperance and justice.

I wish that I could, but in my present mood I cannot reach to the height of the knowledge 507 of the good.

To the parent or principal I cannot introduce you, but to the child begotten in his image, which I may compare with the interest on the principal, I will. (Audit the account, and do not let me give you a false statement of the debt.) You remember our old distinction of the many beautiful and the one beautiful, the particular and the universal, the objects of sight and the objects of thought?

Did you ever consider that the objects of V sight imply a faculty of sight which is the most complex and t* costly of our senses, requiring not only objects of sense, but also a medium, which is Hght ; without which the sight will not distin- 508 guish between colours and all will be a blank?

For light is the noble bond between the perceiving faculty and the thing perceived, and the god who gives us light is the sun, who is the eye of the day, but is not to be confounded with the eye of man. This eye of the day or sun is what I call the child of the good, standing in the same relation to the visible world as the good to the intellectual.

When the sun shines the eye sees, and in the intellectual world where truth is, there is sight and light. Now that which is the sun of intelligent natures, is the idea of good, the cause of knowledge and truth, yet ^09 other and fairer than they are, and standing in the same relation to them in which the sun stands to light. O inconceivable height of beauty, which is above knowledge and above truth ! ('You cannot surely mean pleasure,' he said.

Peace, I replied.) And this idea of good, like the sun, is also the cause of growth, and the author not of knowledge only, but of being, yet greater far than either in dignity and power. ' That is a reach of thought more than human ; but, pray, go on with the image, for I suspect that there is more behind.

There is, I said; and bearing in mind our two suns or principles, imagine further their corresponding worlds — one of the visible, the other of the intelligible ; you may assist your fancy by figuring the distinction under the image

Repnbik VI. of a linc dividcd into two unequal parts, and may again subdivide Analysis. each part into two lesser segments representative of the stages of knowledge in either sphere. The lower portion of the lower or . visible sphere will consist of shadows and reflections, and its 510 upper and smaller portion will contain real objects in the world of nature or of art.

The sphere of the intelligible will also have two divisions, — one of mathematics, in which there is no ascent but all is descent; no inquiring into premises, but only drawing of inferences. In this division the mind works with figures and numbers, the images of which are taken not from the shadows, but from the objects, although the truth of them is .seen only with the mind's eye; and they are used as hypotheses ■without being analysed.

Whereas in the other division reason 511 uses the hypotheses as stages or steps in the ascent to the idea of good, to which she fastens them, and then again descends, walking firmly in the region of ideas, and of ideas only, in her ascent as well as descent, and finally resting in them.

' I partly understand,' he rephed; * you mean that the ideas of science are superior to the hypothetical, metaphorical conceptions of geometry and the other arts or sciences, whichever is to be the name of them ; and the latter conceptions you refuse to make subjects of pure intellect, because they have no first principle, although when resting on a first principle, they pass into the higher sphere. You understand me very well, I said.

And now to those four divisions of knowledge you may assign four corresponding faculties — pure intelligence to the highest sphere ; active intelligence to the second ; to the third, faith ; to the fourth, the perception of shadows — and the clearness of the several faculties will be in the same ratio as the truth of the objects to which they are related

Introduction.

Like Socrates, we may recapitulate the virtues of the philosopher. In language which seems to reach beyond the horizon of that age and country, he is described as ' the spectator of all time and all existence.' He has the noblest gifts of nature, and makes the highest use of them. All his desires are absorbed in the love of wisdom, which is the love of truth. None of the graces of a beautiful soul are wanting in him ; neither can he fear death, or think much of human life. The ideal of modern

Portrait of the Philosopher.

Ixxxix

times hardly retains the simplicity of the antique ; there is not the Republic vi. same originality either in truth or error which characterized the Introduc- Greeks. The philosopher is no longer living in the unseen, nor ^"^'^ is he sent by an oracle to convince mankind of ignorance; nor does he regard knowledge as a system of ideas leading upwards by regular stages to the idea of good.

The eagerness of the pursuit has abated ; there is more division of labour and less of comprehensive reflection upon nature and human life as a whole ; more of exact observation and less of anticipation and inspiration. Still, in the altered conditions of knowledge, the parallel is not wholly lost ; and there may be a use in translating the conception of Plato into the language of our own age.

The philosopher in modern times is one who fixes his mind on the laws of nature in their sequence and connexion, not on fragments or pictures of nature; on history, not on controversy; on the truths which are acknowledged by the few, not on the opinions of the many. He is aware of the importance of ' classifying according to nature,' and will try to ^ separate the limbs of science without breaking them ' (Phaedr. 265 E).

There is no part of truth, whether great or small, which he will dishonour; and in the least things he will discern the greatest (Parm. 130 C). Like the ancient philosopher he sees the world pervaded by analogies, but he can also tell 'why in some cases a single instance is sufficient for an induction' (Mill's Logic, 3, 3, 3), while in other cases a thousand examples would prove nothing.

He inquires into a portion of knowledge only, because the whole has grown too vast to be embraced by a single mind or life. He has a clearer conception of the divisions of science and of their relation to the mind of man than was possible to the ancients.

Like Plato, he has a vision of the unity of knowledge, not as the beginning of philosophy to be attained by a study of elementary mathematics, but as the far-off result of the working of many minds in many ages. He is aware that mathematical studies are preliminary to almost every other ; at the same time, he will not reduce all varieties of knowledge to the type of mathematics.

He too must have a nobility of character, without which genius loses the better half of greatness. Regarding the world as a point in immensity, and each individual as a link in a never-ending chain of existence, he will not think much of his own life, or be greatly afraid of death.

Adeimantus objects first of all to the form of the Socratic reasoning, thus showing that Plato is aware of the imperfection of his own method. He brings the accusation against himself which might be brought against him by a modern logician — that he extracts the answer because he knows how to put the question.

In a long argument words are apt to change their meaning slightly, or premises may be assumed or conclusions inferred with rather too much certainty or universality; the variation at each step may be unobserved, and yet at last the divergence becomes considerable. Hence the failure of attempts to apply arithmetical or algebraic formulae to logic.

The imperfection, or rather the higher and more elastic nature of language, does not allow words to have the precision of numbers or of symbols. And this quality in language impairs the force of an argument which has many steps. The objection, though fairly met by Socrates in this particular instance, may be regarded as implying a reflection upon the Socratic mode of reasoning.

And here, as at p. 506 B, Plato seems to intimate that the time had come when the negative and interrogative method of Socrates must be superseded by a positive and constructive one, of which examples are given in some of the later dialogues. Adeimantus further argues that the ideal is wholly at variance with facts ; for experience proves philosophers to be either useless or rogues.

Contrary to all expectation (cp. p. 497 for a similar surprise) Socrates has no hesitation in admitting the truth of this, and explains the anomaly in an allegory, first characteristically depreciating his own inventive powers.

In this allegory the people are distinguished from the professional politicians, and, as at pp. 499, 500, are spoken of in a tone of pity rather than of censure under the image of ^ the noble captain who is not very quick in his perceptions. The uselessness of philosophers is explained by the circumstance that mankind will not use them.

The world in all ages has been divided between contempt and fear of those who employ the power of ideas and know no other weapons. Concerning the i false philosopher, Socrates argues that the best is most liable to corruption; and that the finer nature is more likely to suffer from alien conditions. We too observe that there are some kinds

The paradoxical reply of Socrates. xci of excellence which spring from a peculiar delicacy of consti- Republic vi. tution ; as is evidently true of the poetical and imaginative tern- introducperament, which often seems to depend on impressions, and ^'°^ hence can only breathe or live in a certain atmosphere.

The man of genius has greater pains and greater pleasures, greater powers and greater weaknesses, and often a greater play of character than is to be found in ordinary men.

He can assume the disguise of virtue or disinterestedness without having them, or veil personal enmity in the language of patriotism and philosophy,— he can say the word which all men are thinking, he has an insight which is terrible into the follies and weaknesses of his fellow-men.

An Alcibiades, a Mirabeau, or a Napoleon the First, are born either to be the authors of great evils in states, or ' of great good, when they are drawn in that direction. Yet the thesis, *corruptio optimi pessima,' cannot be maintained generally or without regard to the kind of excellence which is corrupted. The alien conditions which are corrupting to one nature, may be the elements of culture to another.

In general a man can only receive his highest development in a congenial state or family, among friends or fellow-workers. But also he may sometimes be stirred by adverse circumstances to such a degree that he rises up against them and reforms them.

And while weaker or coarser characters will extract good out of evil, say in a corrupt state of the church or of society, and live on happily, allowing the evil to remain, the finer or stronger natures may be crushed or spoiled by surrounding influences — may become misanthrope and philanthrope by turns; or in a few instances, like the founders of the monastic orders, or the Reformers, owing to some peculiarity in themselves or in their age, may break away entirely from the world and from the church, sometimes into great good, sometimes into great evil, sometimes into both.

And the same holds in the lesser sphere of a convent, a school, a family. Plato would have us consider how easily the best natures are overpowered by pubhc opinion, and what efforts the rest of mankind will make to get possession of them. The world, the church, their own profession, any political or party organization, are always carrying them off their legs and teaching them to apply high and holy names to their own prejudices and interests.

xcii The better miiid of the many. Republic VI. i Thc ' moHstcr * corporation to which they belong judges right Intkoduc- ' '^"d truth to be the pleasure of the community. The individual '"'^'^ becomes one with his order; or, if he resists, the world is too much for him, and will sooner or later be revenged on him.

This is, perhaps, a one-sided but not wholly untrue picture of the maxims and practice of mankind when they 'sit down together at an assembly,' either in ancient or modern times. When the higher natures are corrupted by politics, the lower take possession of the vacant place of philosophy.

This is described in one of those continuous images in which the argument, to use a Platonic expression, 'veils herself,' and which is dropped and reappears at intervals. The question is asked, — Why are \f the citizens of states so hostile to philosophy ? The answer is, \\ that they do not know her. And yet there is also a better mind of the many; they would believe if they were taught.

But hitherto they have only known a conventional imitation of philosophy, words without thoughts, systems which have no life in them ; a [divine] person uttering the words of beauty and freedom, the friend of man holding communion with the Eternal, and seeking to frame the state in that image, they have never known. The same double feeling respecting the mass of mankind has always existed among men.

The first thought is that the people are the enemies of truth and right ; the second, that this only arises out of an accidental error and confusion, and that they do not really hate those who love them, if they could be educated to know them.

In the latter part of the sixth book, three questions have to be considered: ist, the nature of the longer and more circuitous way, which is contrasted with the shorter and more imperfect method of Book IV ; 2nd, the heavenly pattern or idea of the state ; 3rd, the relation of the divisions of knowledge to one another and to the corresponding faculties of the soul. I. Of the higher method of knowledge in Plato we have only a glimpse.

Neither here nor in the Phaedrus or Symposium, nor yet in the Philebus or Sophist, does he give any clear explanation of his meaning. He would probably have described his method as proceeding by regular steps to a system of universal knowledge, which inferred the parts from the whole rather than the whole from the parts. This ideal logic is not practised by him

The better and longer ivay. xciii in the search after justice, or in the analysis of the parts of the Republic I'l. soul; there, Hke Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, he argues introducfrom experience and the common use of language.

But at the '^'°'** end of the sixth book he conceives another and more perfect method, in which all ideas arc only steps or grades or moments of thought, forming a connected whole which is self-supporting, and in which consistency is the test of truth. He does not explain to us in detail the nature of the process.

Like many other thinkers both in ancient and modern times his mind seems to be filled with a vacant form which he is unable to realize. He supposes the sciences to have a natural order and connexion in an age when they can hardly be said to exist. He is hastening on to the ' end of the intellectual world ' without even making a beginning of them.

In modern times we hardly need to be reminded that the process of acquiring knowledge is here confused with the contemplation of absolute knowledge. In all science a priori and a posteriori truths mingle in various proportions.

The a priori part is that which is derived from the most universal experience of men, or is universally accepted by them; the a posteriori is that which grows up around the more general principles and becomes imperceptibly one with them. But Plato erroneously imagines that the synthesis is separable from the analysis, and that the method of science can anticipate science.

In entertaining such a vision of a priori knowledge he is sufficiently justified, or at least his meaning may be sufficiently explained by the similar attempts of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and even of Bacon himself, in modern philosophy. Anticipations or divinations, or prophetic glimpses of truths whether concerning man or nature, seem to stand in the same relation to ancient philosophy which hypotheses bear to modern inductive science.

These ' guesses at truth' were not made at random ; they arose from a superficial impression of uniformities and first principles in nature which t4ie genius of the Greek, contemplating the expanse of heaven and earth, seemed to recognize in the distance.

Nor can we deny that in ancient times knowledge must have stood still, and the human mind been deprived of the very instruments of thought, if philosophy had been strictly confined to the results of experience.

2. Plato supposes that when the tablet has been made blank the artist will fill in the lineaments of the ideal state. Is this a pattern laid up in heaven, or mere vacancy on which he is supposed to gaze with wondering eye ? The answer is, that such ideals arc framed partly by the omission of particulars, partly by imagination perfecting the form which experience supplies (Phaedo, 74).

Plato represents these ideals in a figure as belonging to another world ; and in modern times the idea will sometimes seem to precede, at other times to co-operate with the hand of the artist. As in science, so also in creative art, there is a synthetical as well as an analytical method. One man will have the whole in his mind before he begins ; to another the processes of mind and hand will be simultaneous. 3.

There is no difficulty in seeing that Plato's divisions of knowledge are based, first, on the fundamental antithesis of sensible and intellectual which pervades the whole pre-Socratic philosophy ; in which is implied also the opposition of the permanent and transient, of the universal and particular. But the age of philosophy in which he lived seemed to require a further distinction ; — numbers and figures were beginning to separate from ideas.

The world could no longer regard justice as a cube, and was learning to see, though imperfectly, that the abstractions of sense were distinct from the abstractions of mind. Between the Eleatic being or essence and the shadows of phenomena, the Pythagorean principle of number found a place, and was, as Aristotle remarks, a conducting medium from one to the other.

Hence Plato is led to introduce a third term which had not hitherto entered into the scheme of his philosophy. He had observed the use of mathematics in education ; they were the best preparation for higher studies. The subjective relation between them further suggested an objective one ; although the passage from one to the other is really imaginary (Metaph. i, 6, 4).

For metaphysical and moral philosophy has no connexion with mathematics ; number and figure are the abstractions of time and space, not the expressions of purely intellectual conceptions. When divested of metaphor, a straight line or a square has no more to do with right and justice than a crooked line with vice.

The figurative association was mistaken for a real one ; and thus the three latter divisions of the Platonic proportion were constructed.

There is more difficulty in comprehending how he arrived at Republic vi. the first term of the series, which is nowhere else mentioned, introducand has no reference to any other part of his system. Nor indeed ^'°'^* does the relation of shadows to objects correspond to the relation of numbers to ideas. Probably Plato has been led by the love of analogy (cp.

Timaeus, p. 32 B) to make four terms instead of three, although the objects perceived in both divisions of the lower sphere are equally objects of sense. He is also preparing the way, as his manner is, for the shadows of images at the beginning of the seventh book, and the imitation of an imitation in the tenth.

The line may be regarded as reaching from unity to infinity, and is divided into two unequal parts, and subdivided into two more ; each lower sphere is the multiplication of the preceding.

Of the four faculties, faith in the lower division has an intermediate position (cp. for the use of the word faith or belief, nioTigj Timaeus, 29 C, 37 B), contrasting equally with the vagueness of the perception of shadows {eiKaala) and the higher certainty of understanding {6idvoia) and reason {vovg).

The difference between understanding and mind or reason (vovg) is analogous to the difference between acquiring knowledge in the parts and the contemplation of the whole. True knowledge is a whole, and is at rest ; consistency and universality are the tests of truth. To this self-evidencing knowledge of the whole the faculty of mind is supposed to correspond.

But there is a knowledge of the understanding which is incomplete and in motion always, because unable to rest in the subordinate ideas. Those ideas are called both images and hypotheses — images because they are clothed in sense, hypotheses because they are assumptions only, until they are brought into connexion with the idea of good.

The general meaning of the passage 508-511, so far as the thought contained in it admits of being translated into the terms of. modern philosophy, may be described or explained as follows: — There is a truth, one and self-existent, to which by the help of' a ladder let down from above, the human intelligence may ascend.

This unity is like the sun in the heavens, the light by which all things are seen, the being by which they are created and sustained. It is the i^ea of good. And the steps of the ladder leading up to this highest or universal existence are the mathe-

matical sciences, which also contain in themselves an element of the universal. These, too, wc see in a new manner when we connect them with the idea of good. They then cease to be hypotheses or pictures, and become essential parts of a higher truth which is at once their first principle and their final cause.

We cannot give any more precise meaning to this remarkable passage, but we may trace in it several rudiments or vestiges of thought which are common to us and to Plato: such as (i) the unity and correlation of the sciences, or rather of science, for in Plato's time they were not yet parted off or distinguished ; (2) the existence of a Divine Power, or life or idea or cause or reason, not yet conceived or no longer conceived as in the Timaeus and elsewhere under the form of a person ; (3) the recognition of the hypothetical and conditional character of the mathematical sciences, and in a measure of every science when isolated from the rest ; (4) the conviction of a truth which is invisible, and of a law, though hardly a law of nature, which permeates the intellectual rather than the visible world.

The method of Socrates is hesitating and tentative, awaiting the fuller explanation of the idea of good, and of the nature of dialectic in the seventh book. The imperfect intelligence of Glaucon, and the reluctance of Socrates to make a beginning, mark the difficulty of the subject.

The allusion to Theages' bridle, and to the internal oracle, or demonic sign, of Socrates, which here, as always in Plato, is only prohibitory ; the remark that the salvation of any remnant of good in the present evil state of the world is due to God only; the reference to a future state of existence, 498 D, which is unknown to Glaucon in the tenth book, 608 D, and in which the discussions of Socrates and his disciples would be resumed ; the surprise in the answers at 487 E and 497 B ; the fanciful irony of Socrates, where he pretends that he can only describe the strange position of the philosopher in a figure of speech; the original observation that the Soj^hists, after all, are only the representatives and not the leaders of public opinion ; the picture of the philosopher standing aside in the shower of sleet under a wall ; the figure of * the great beast ' followed by the expression of good-will towards the common people who would not have rejected the philosopher if they had known him ; the ' right noble thought ' that the highest

truths demand the greatest exactness ; the hesitation of Socrates Republic vi. in returning once more to his well-worn theme of the idea of good; the ludicrous earnestness of Glaucon ; the comparison of philosophy to a deserted maiden who marries beneath her — are some of the most interesting characteristics of the sixth book.

Yet a io."^ more words may be added, on the old theme, which was so oft discussed in the Socratic circle, of which we, like Glaucon and Adcimantus, would fain, if possible, have a clearer notion. Like them, we are dissatisfied when we are told that the idea of good can only be revealed to a student of the mathematical sciences, and we are inclined to think that neither we nor they could have been led along that path to any satisfactory goal.

For we have learned that differences of quantity cannot pass into differences of quality, and that the mathematical sciences can never rise above themselves into the sphere of our higher thoughts, although they may sometimes furnish symbols and expressions of them, and may train the mind in habits of abstraction and self-concentration. The illusion which was natural to an ancient philosopher has ceased to be an illusion to us.

But if the process by which we are supposed to arrive at the idea of good be really imaginary, may not the idea itself be also a mere abstraction ? We remark, first, that in all ages, and especially in primitive philosophy, words such as being, essence, unity, good, have exerted an extraordinary influence over the minds of men. The meagreness or ncgativeness of their content has been in an inverse ratio to their power.

They have become the forms under which all things were comprehended. There was a need or instinct in the human soul which they satisfied ; they were not ideas, but gods, and to this new mythology the men of a later generation began to attach the powers and associations of the elder deities. The idea of good is one of those sacred words or forms of thought, which were beginning to take the place of the old mythology.

It meant unity, in which all time and all existence were gathered up. It was the truth of all things, and also the light in which they shone forth, and became evident to intelligences human and divine. It was the cause of all things, the power by which they were brought into being. It was the universal reason divested of a human personality. It was the life as well as the VOL. III. — 7

Repjiblic VI. light of tlic world, all knowledge and all power were comprehended in it. The way to it was through the mathematical sciences, and these too were dependent on it. To ask whether God was the maker of it, or made by it, would be like asking whether God could be conceived apart from goodness, or goodness apart from God.

The God of the Timaeus is not really at variance with the idea of good; they are aspects of the same, differing only as the personal from the impersonal, or the masculine from the neuter, the one being the expression or language of mythology, the other of philosophy. This, or something like this, is the meaning of the idea of good as conceived by Plato. Ideas of number, order, harmony, development may also be said to enter into it.

The paraphrase which has just been given of it goes beyond the actual words of Plato. We have perhaps arrived at the stage of philosophy which enables us to understand what he is aiming at, better than he did himself. We are beginning to realize what he saw darkly and at a distance.

But if he could have been told that this, or some conception of the same kind, but higher than this, was the truth at which he was aiming, and the need which he sought to supply, he would gladly have recognized that more was contained in his own thoughts than he himself knew. As his words are few and his manner reticent and tentative, so must the style of his interpreter be.

We should not approach his meaning more nearly by attempting to define it further. In translating him into the language of modern thought, we might insensibly lose the spirit of ancient philosophy. It is remarkable that although Plato / speaks of the idea of good as the first principle of truth and ' being, it is nowhere mentioned in his writings except in this passage.

Nor did it retain any hold upon the minds of his I disciples in a later generation ; it was probably unintelligible to them. Nor does the mention of it in Aristotle appear to have any reference to this or any other passage in his extant writings.

Analysis. BOOK VII. And now I will describe in a figure theSteph enlightenment or unenlightenment of our nature: — Imagine ^ ^ human beings living in an underground den which is open towards the light ; they have been there from childhood, having their necks and legs chained, and can only see into the den.

Ajialysis 514-517. xcix At a distance there is a fire, and between the fire and the RepubUcvn. prisoners a raised way, and a low wall is built along the way. Analysis. like the screen over which marionette players show their 515 puppets.

Behind the wall appear moving figures, who hold in their hands various works of art, and among them images of men and animals, wood and stone, and some of the passers-by are talking and others silent. * A strange parable,' he said, 'and strange captives.

They are ourselves, I replied; and they see only the shadows of the images which the fire throws on the wall of the den; to these they give names, and if we add an echo which returns from the wall, the voices of the passengers will seem to proceed from the shadows. Suppose now that you suddenly turn them round and make them look with pain and grief to themselves at the real images; will they believe them to be real?

Will not their eyes be dazzled, and will they not try to get away from the light to something which they are able to behold without 516 blinking? And suppose further, that they are dragged up a steep and rugged ascent into the presence of the sun himself, will not their sight be darkened with the excess of light ?

Some time will pass before they get the habit of perceiving at all ; and at first they will be able to perceive only shadows and reflections in the water; then they will recognize the moon and the stars, and will at length behold the sun in his own proper place as he is. Last of all they will conclude : — This is he who gives us the year and the seasons, and is the author of all that we see.

How will they rejoice in passing from darkness to light ! How worthless to them will seem the honours and glories of the den !

But now imagine further, that they descend into their old habitations; — in that underground dwelling they will not see as well as their r ly fellows, and will not be able to compete with them in the measurement of the shadows on the wall ; there will be many jokes about the man who went on a visit to the sun and lost his eyes, and if they find anybody trying to set free and enlighten one of their number, they will put him to death, if they can catch him.

Now the cave or den is the world of sight, the fire is the sun, the way upwards is the way to knowledge, and in the world of knowledge the idea of good is last seen and with difficulty, but when seen is inferred to be the author of good and right — parent of the lord ' of light in this world, and of truth and understanding in the other.

c A nalysis 517-5 20. Republic VI I. He who attains to the beatific vision is always going upwards; Analysis. he is unwilling to descend into political assemblies and courts of law ; for his eyes are apt to blink at the images or shadows of images which they behold in them — he cannot enter into the ideas of those who have never in their lives understood the relation of the shadow to the substance.

But blindness is of 518 two kinds, and may be caused either by passing out of darkness into light or out of light into darkness, and a man of sense will distinguish between them, and will not laugh equally at both of them, but the blindness which arises from fulness of light he will deem blessed, and pity the other; or if he laugh at the puzzled soul looking at the sun, he will have more reason to laugh than the inhabitants of the* den at those who descend from above.

There is a further lesson taught by this parable of ours. Some persons fancy that instruction is like giving eyes to the blind, but we say that the faculty of sight was always there, and that the soul only requires to be turned round towards the light.

And this is conversion; other virtues are almost like bodily habits, and may be acquired in the same manner, but intelligence / has a diviner life, and is indestructible, turning either to good or evil according to the direction given. Did you never observe 519 how the mind of a clever rogue peers out of his eyes, and the more clearly he sees, the more evil he does ?

Now if you take such an one, and cut away from him those leaden weights of pleasure and desire which bind his soul to earth, his intelligence will be turned round, and he will behold the truth as clearly as he now discerns his meaner ends. And have we not decided that our rulers must neither be so uneducated as to have no fixed rule of life, nor so over-educated as to be unwilling to leave their paradise for the business of the world?

We must choose out therefore the natures who are most likely to ascend to the light and knowledge of the good ; but we must not allow them to remain in the region of light ; they must be forced down again among the captives in the den to partake of their labours and honours. 'Will they not think this a hardship?

You should remember that our purpose in framing the State was not that our citizens should do what they like, but that they should serve the State for the common good of all. May we not fairly say ^20 to our philosopher, — Friend, we do you no wrong; for in other

Analysis 520-523. ci States philosophy grows wild, and a wild plant owes nothing Republic vii, to the gardener, but you have been trained by us to be the rulers Analysis. and kings of our hive, and therefore we must insist on your descending into the den.

You must, each of you, take your turn, and become able to use your eyes in the dark, and with a little practice you will see far better than those who quarrel about the shadows, whose knowledge is a dream only, whilst yours is a waking reality. It may be that the saint or philosopher who is best fitted, may also be the least inclined to rule, but necessity is laid upon him, and he must no longer live in the heaven of 521 ideas.

And this will be the salvation of the State. For those who rule must not be those who are desirous to rule ; and, if you can offer to our citizens a better life than that of rulers generally is, there will be a chance that the rich, not only in this world's goods, but in virtue and wisdom, may bear rule.

And the only life which is better than the life of political ambition is that of philosophy, which is also the best preparation for the government of a State. Then now comes the question, — How shall we create our rulers ; what way is there from darkness to light ? The change is effected by philosophy ; it is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the conversion of a soul from night to day, from becoming to being.

And what training will draw the soul upwards ? Our former education had two branches, gymnastic, which was occupied with the body, and music, the sister art, which infused a 522 natural harmony into mind and literature; but neither of these sciences gave any promise of doing what we want. Nothing remains to us but that universal or primary science of which all the arts and sciences are partakers, I mean number or calculation. 'Very true.

Including the art of war? ' Yes, certainly. Then there is something ludicrous about Palamedes in the tragedy, coming in and saying that he had invented number, and had counted the ranks and set them in order. For if Agamemnon could not count his feet (and without number how could he ?) he must have been a pretty sort of general indeed. No man should be a soldier who cannot count, and indeed he is hardly to be called a man.

But I am not speaking of these practical applica- 523 tions of arithmetic, for number, in my view, is rather to be regarded as a conductor to thought and being. I will explain

cii Analysis 523-526. Republic VII. what I mean by the last expression: — Things sensible are of two Analysis. kinds; the onc class invite or stimulate the mind, while in the other the mind acquiesces. Now the stimulating class are the things which suggest contrast and relation.

For example, suppose that I hold up to the eyes three fingers — a fore finger, a middle finger, a little finger — the sight equally recognizes all three fingers, but without number cannot further distinguish them. Or again, suppose two objects to be relatively great and small, these ideas of greatness and smallness are supplied not by the sense, but by the mind.

And the perception of their contrast or relation 524 quickens and sets in motion the mind, which is puzzled by the confused intimations of sense, and has recourse to number in order to find out whether the things indicated are one or more than one. Number replies that they are two and not one, and are to be distinguished from one another.

Again, the sight beholds great and small, but only in a confused chaos, and not until they are distinguished does the question arise of their respective natures ; we are thus led on to the distinction between the visible and intelligible. That was what I meant when I spoke of stimulants to the intellect ; I was thinking of the contradictions which arise in perception.

The idea of unity, for example, like that of a finger, does not arouse thought unless involving some conception of plurality; but when the one is also the opposite of one, the 525 contradiction gives rise to reflection; an example of this is afforded by any object of sight. All number has also an elevating effect ; it raises the mind out of the foam and flux of generation to the contemplation of being, having lesser military and retail uses also.

The retail use is not required by us ; but as our guardian is to be a soldier as well as a philosopher, the military one may be retained. And to our higher purpose no science can be better adapted ; but it must be pursued in the spirit of a philosopher, not of a shopkeeper.

It is concerned, not with visible objects, but with abstract truth ; for numbers are pure abstractions — the true / arithmetician indignantly denies that his unit is capable of division. When you divide, he insists that you are only multiplying; his 526 ' one ' is not material or resolvable into fractions, but an unvarying and absolute equality ; and this proves the purely intellectual character of his study. Note also the great power which arithmetic has of sharpening the wits ; no other discipline is equally

Analysis 526-528. ciii severe, or an equal test of general ability, or equally improving to Republic vii. a stupid person. Analysis. Let our second branch of education be geometry. ' I can easily see,' replied Glaucon, ' that the skill of the general will be doubled by his knowledge of geometry.

That is a small matter; the use of geometry, to which I refer, is the assistance given by it in the contemplation of the idea of good, and the compelling the mind to look at true being, and not at generation only. Yet the present mode of pursuing these studies, as any one who is the least of a mathematician is aware, is mean and ridiculous; they are made to lobk downwards to the arts, and not upwards to external existence.

527 The geometer is always talking of squaring, subtending, apposing, as if he had in view action ; whereas knowledge is the real object of the study. It should elevate the soul, and create the mind of philosophy ; it should raise up what has fallen down, not to speak of lesser uses in war and military tactics, and in the improvement of the faculties. Shall we propose, as a third branch of our education, astronomy?

'Very good,' repHed Glaucon; * the knowledge of the heavens is necessary at once for husbandry, navigation, military tactics. I like your way of giving useful reasons for everything in order to make friends of the world. And there is a difficulty in proving to mankind that education is not only useful information but a purification of the eye of the soul, which is better than the bodily r 28 ^y^> ^^^ by this alone is truth seen.

Now, will you appeal to mankind in general or to the philosopher ? or would you prefer to look to yourself only? * Every man is his own best friend. Then take a step backward, for we are out of order, and insert the third dimension which is of solids, after the second which is of planes, and then you may proceed to solids in motion.

But solid geometry is not popular and has not the patronage of the State, nor is the use of it fully recognized ; the difficulty is great, and the votaries of the ' study are conceited and impatient. Still the charm of the pursuit [ wins upon men, and, if government would lend a httle assistance, there might be great progress made.

' Very true,' replied Glaucon ; *but do I understand you now to begin with plane geometry, and to place next geometry of solids, and thirdly, astronomy, or the motion of solids ? * Yes, I said ; my hastiness has only hindered us.

civ Analysis 528-531. Republic III. ' Vcry good, and now let us proceed to astronomy, about which Analysis. ^ ^"^ willing to Speak in your lofty strain. No one can fail to see 520 that the contemplation of the heavens draws the soul upwards. 1 am an exception, then ; astronomy as studied at present appears to me to draw the soul not upwards, but downwards.

Star-gazing is just looking up at the ceiling — no better; a man may lie on his back on land or on water — he may look up or look down, but there is no science in that. The vision of knowledge of which I speak is seen not with the eyes, but with the mind. All the magnificence of the heavens is but the embroidery of a copy which falls far short of the divine Original, and teaches nothing about the absolute harmonies or motions of things.

Their beauty is like the beauty of figures drawn by the hand of Daedalus or any other great artist, which may be used for illustration, but no mathemati- c^o cian would seek to obtain from them true conceptions of equality or numerical relations.

How ridiculous then to look for these in I the map of the heavens, in which the imperfection of matter comes • 1 in everywhere as a disturbing element, marring the symmetry of day and night, of months and years, of the sun and stars in their courses. Only by problems^ can we place astronomy on a truly scientific basis. Let the heavens alone, and exert the intellect.

Still, mathematics admit of other applications, as the Pythagoreans say, and we agree. There is a sister science of harmonical motion, adapted to the ear as astronomy is to the eye, and there may be other applications also. Let us inquire of the Pythagoreans about them, not forgetting that we have an aim higher j than theirs, which is the relation of these sciences to the idea of good. The error which pervades astronomy also pervades harmonics.

The musicians put their ears in the place of their 531 minds. * Yes,' replied Glaucon, ' I like to see them laying their ears alongside of their neighbours' faces — some saying, ^' That 's a new note," others declaring that the two notes are the same.

Yes, I said; but you mean the empirics who are always twisting and torturing the strings of the lyre, and quarrelling about the tempers of the strings; I am referring rather to the Pythagorean harmonists, who are almost equally in error.

For they investigate only the numbers of the consonances which are heard, and ascend no higher, — of the true numerical harmony which is unheard, and is only to be found in problems, they have not even a conception.

Analysis 531-533- cv * That last,* he said, 'must be a marvellous thing. A thing, I RepubUcVii, replied, which is only useful if pursued with a view to the good. Analysis. All these sciences are the prelude of the strain, and are profitable if they are regarded in their natural relations to one another. ' I dare say, Socrates,' said Glaucon ; '■ but such a study will be an endless business. What study do you mean — of the prelude, or what ?

For all these things are only the prelude, and you surely do not suppose that a mere mathematician is also a dialectician ? 532 'Certainly not. I have hardly ever known a mathematician who could reason.

And yet, Glaucon, is not true reasoning that hymn of dialectic which is the music of the intellectual world, and which was by us compared to the effort of sight, when from beholding the shadows on the wall we arrived at last at the images which gave the shadows ?

Even so the dialectical faculty withdrawing from sense arrives by the pure intellect at the contemplation of the idea of good, and never rests but at the very end of the intellectual world.

And the royal road out of the cave into the light, and the blinking of the eyes at the sun and turning to contemplate the shadows of reality, not the shadows of an image only — this progress and gradual acquisition of a new faculty of sight by the help of the mathematical sciences, is the elevation of the soul to the contemplation of the highest ideal of being. * So far, I agree with you. But now, leaving the prelude, let us proceed to the hymn.

What, then, is the nature of dialectic, and 533 what are the paths which lead thither? Dear Glaucon, you cannot follow me here. There can be no revelation of the absolute truth to one who has not been disciplined in the previous sciences. But that there is a science of absolute truth, which 1 is attained in some way very different from those now practised, ' I am confident.

For all other arts or sciences are relative to human needs and opinions ; and the mathematical sciences are I but a dream or hypothesis of true being, and never analyse their own principles.

Dialectic alone rises to the principle which is above hypotheses, converting and gently leading the eye of the soul out of the barbarous slough of ignorance into the light of the upper world, with the help of the sciences which we have been describing — sciences, as they are often termed, although they require some other name, implying greater clearness than opinion and less clearness than science, and this in our previous sketch

cvi Aiialysis 533-537. Republic VII. vvas Understanding. And so we get four names — two for intellect, Analysis. / j^nd two for opinion, — reason or mind, understanding, faith, per- I ception ofshadows — which make a proportion — being: becoming:: 534 intellect: opinion — and science: belief: : understanding: perception of shadows.

Dialectic may be further described as that science which defines and explains the essence or being of each nature, which distinguishes and abstracts the good, and is ready to do battle against all opponents in the cause of good. To him who is not a dialectician life is but a sleepy dream ; and many a man is in his grave before he is well waked up.

And would you have the future rulers of your ideal State intelligent beings, or stupid as posts? * Certainly not the latter. Then you must train them in dialectic, which will teach them to ask and answer questions, and is the coping-stone of the sciences.

I dare say that you have not forgotten how our rulers were 535 chosen ; and the process of selection may be carried a step further : — As before, they must be constant and valiant, goodlooking, and of noble manners, but now they must also have natural ability which education will improve ; that is to say, they must be quick at learning, capable of mental toil, retentive, solid, diligent natures, who combine intellectual with moral virtues; not lame and one-sided, diligent in bodily exercise and indolent in mind, or conversely; not a maimed soul, which hates falsehood and yet unintentionally is always wallowing in the mire of £-.,5 ignorance ; not a bastard or feeble person, but sound in wind and limb, and in perfect condition for the great gymnastic trial of the mind.

Justice herself can find no fault with natures such as these ; and they will be the saviours of our State ; disciples of another sort would only make philosophy more ridiculous than she is at present. Forgive my enthusiasm; I am becoming excited; but when I see her trampled under foot, I am angry at the authors of her disgrace. '■ I did not notice that you were more excited than you ought to have been. But I felt that I was.

Now do not let us forget another point in the selection of our disciples — that they must be young and not old. For Solon is mistaken in saying that an old man can be always learning ; youth is the time of study, and here we must remember that the mind is free and dainty, and, I unlike the body, must not be made to work against the grain. / Learning should be at first a sort of play, in which the natural bent 537

is detected. As in training them for war, the young dogs should RepjMicVii. at first only taste blood ; but when the necessary gymnastics are Analysis. over which during two or three years divide life between sleep and bodily exercise, then the education of the soul will become a more serious matter. At twenty years of age, a selection must be made of the more promising disciples, with whom a new epoch of education will begin.

The sciences which they have hitherto learned in fragments will now be brought into relation with each other and with true being ; for the power of combining them is the test of speculative and dialectical ability. And afterwards at thirty a further selection shall be made of those who are able to withdraw from the world of sense into the abstraction of ideas.

But at this point, judging from present experience, there is a danger that dialectic may be the source of many evils. The danger may be illustrated by a parallel case : — Imagine a person who has been brought up in wealth and luxury amid a crowd of flatterers, and who is suddenly informed that he is a supposititious son. He has hitherto honoured his reputed parents and disregarded the flatterers, and now he does the reverse.

This is just what happens with a man's principles. There are certain doctrines which he learnt at home and which exercised a parental authority over him. Presently he finds that imputations are cast upon them ; a troublesome querist comes and asks, * What is the just and good ? ' or proves that virtue is vice and vice virtue, and his mind becomes unsettled, and he ceases to love, honour, and 539 obey them as he has hitherto done.

He is seduced into the life of pleasure, and becomes a lawless person and a rogue. The case of such speculators is very pitiable, and, in order that our thirty years' old pupils may not require this pity, let us take every possible care that young persons do not study philosophy too early.

For a young man is a sort of puppy who only plays with an argument; and is reasoned into and out of his opinions every day ; he soon begins to believe nothing, and brings himself and philosophy into discredit. A man of thirty does not run on in this way ; he will argue and not merely contradict, and adds new honour to philosophy by the sobriety of his conduct.

What time shall we allow for this second gymnastic training of the soul? — say, twice the time required for the gymnastics of the body ; six, or perhaps five years, to commence at thirty, and then for fifteen

CVlll

The Divisions of Knowledge.

RepjiblkVli. years let the student go down into the den, and command armies, Analysis. ^"^^ g^i'^ cxpcricncc of Hfe. At fifty let him return to the end of 540 all things, and have his eyes uplifted to the idea of good, and order his life after that pattern; if necessary, taking his turn at the helm of State, and training up others to be his successors. When his time comes he shall depart in peace to the Islands of the Blest. He shall be honoured with sacrifices, and receive such worship as the Pythian oracle approves. ' You are a statuary, Socrates, and have made a perfect image of our governors.' Yes, and of our governesses, for the women will share in all things with the men. And you will admit that our State is not a mere aspiration, but may really come into being when there shall arise philosopher-kings, one or more, who will despise earthly vanities, and will be the servants of justice only. 'And how will they begin their work?' Their 541 first act will be to send away into the country all those who are more than ten years of age, and to proceed with those who are left. . . .

Introduction.

At the commencement of the sixth book, Plato anticipated his explanation of the relation of the philosopher to the world in an allegory, in this, as in other passages, following the order which he prescribes in education, and proceeding from the concrete to the abstract. At the commencement of Book VII, under the figure of a cave having an opening towards a fire and a way upwards to the true light, he returns to view the divisions of knowledge, exhibiting familiarly, as in a picture, the result which had been hardly won by a great effort of thought in the previous discussion ; at the same time casting a glance onward at the dialectical process, which is represented by the way leading from darkness to light. The shadows, the images, the reflection of the sun and stars in the water, the stars and sun themselves, severally correspond, — the first, to the realm of fancy_and_poetry, — the second, to the world of sense, — the third, to the abstractions or universals of sense, of which the mathematical sciences furnish the type, — the fourth and last to the same abstractions, when seen in the unity of the idea, from which they derive a new meaning and power. The true dialectical process begins with the contemplation of the real stars, and not mere reflections of them.

TION.

The growth of Abstractions. cix and ends with the recognition of the sun, or idea of good, as the Repubikvii. parent not only of light but of warmth and growth.

To the introducdivisions of knowledge the stages of education partly answer: — first, there is the early education of childhood and youth in the fancies of the poets, and in the laws and customs of the State ; — then there is the training of the body to be a warrior athlete, and a good servant of the mind; — and thirdly, after an interval follows the education of later life, which begins with mathematics and proceeds to philosophy in general.

There seem to be two great aims in the philosophy of Plato, — first, to realize abstractions ; secondly, to connect them. According to him, the true education is that which draws men from becoming to being, and to a comprehensive survey of all being. He desires to develop in the human mind the faculty of seeing the universal in all things ; until at last the particulars of sense drop away and the universal alone remains.

He then seeks to combine the universals which he has disengaged from sense, not perceiving that the correlation of them has no other basis but the common use of language. He never understands that abstractions, as Hegel says, are ' mere abstractions ' — of use when employed in the arrangement of facts, but adding nothing to the sum of knowledge when pursued apart from them, or with reference to an imaginary idea of good.

Still the exercise of the faculty of abstraction apart from facts has enlarged the mind, and played a great part in the education of the human race. Plato appreciated the value of this faculty, and saw that it might be quickened by the study of number and relation. All things in which there is opposition or proportion are suggestive of reflection.

The mere impression of sense evokes no power of thought or of mind, but when sensible objects ask to be compared and distinguished, then philosophy begins. The science of arithmetic first suggests such distinctions. There follow in order the other sciences of plane and solid geometry, and of solids in motion, one branch of which is astronomy or the harmony of the spheres, — to this is appended the sister science of the harmony of sounds.

Plato seems also to hint at the possibility of \ other applications of arithmetical or mathematical proportions, such as we employ in chemistry and natural philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and even Aristotle make use of in Ethics

ex A priori Astronomy. RepublicVll. and Politics, e. g. his distinction between arithmetical and gco- Intkoduc- metrical proportion in the Ethics (Book V), or between numerical HON. ^^^ proportional equahty in the Politics (iii. 8, iv. 12, &c.). The modern mathematician will readily sympathise with Plato's delight in the properties of pure mathematics.

He will not be disinclined to say with him: — Let alone the heavens, and study the beauties of number and figure in themselves. He too will be apt to depreciate their application to the arts. He will observe that Plato has a conception of geometry, in which figures are to be dispensed with; thus in a distant and shadowy way seeming to anticipate the possibility of working geometrical problems by a more general mode of analysis.

He will remark with interest on the backward state of solid geometry, which, alas ! was not encouraged by the aid of the State in the age of Plato; and he will recognize the grasp of Plato's mind in his abilit}' to conceive of one science of solids in motion including the earth as well as the heavens, — not forgetting to notice the intimation to which allusion has been already made, that besides astronomy and harmonics the science of solids in motion may have other applications.

Still more will he be struck with the comprehensiveness of view which led Plato, at a time when these sciences hardly existed, to say that they must be studied in relation to one another, and to the idea of good, or common principle of truth and being.

But he will also see (and perhaps without surprise) that in that stage of physical and mathematical knowledge, Plato has fallen into the error of supposing that he can construct the heavens a priori by mathematical problems, and determine the principles of harmony irrespective of the adaptation of sounds to the human ear. The illusion was a natural one in that age and country.

The simplicity and certainty of astronomy and harmonics seemed to contrast with the variation and complexity of the world of sense; hence the circumstance that there was some elementary basis of fact, some measurement of distance or time or vibrations on which they must ultimately rest, was overlooked by him.

The modern predecessors of Newton fell into errors equally great ; and Plato can hardly be said to have been very far wrong, or may even claim a sort of prophetic insight into the subject, when we consider that the greater part / 1 of astronomy at the present day consists of abstract dynamics.

by the help of which most astronomical discoveries have been Republic vu. made. The metaphysical philosopher from his point of view recognizes mathematics as an instrument of education, — which strengthens the power of attention, developes the sense of order and the faculty of construction, and enables the mind to grasp under simple formulae the quantitative dififerences of physical phenomena.

But while acknowledging their value in education, he sees also that they have no connexion with our higher moral and intellectual ideas. In the attempt which Plato makes to connect them, we easily trace the influences of ancient Pythagorean notions.

There is no reason to suppose that he is speaking of the ideal numbers at p. 525 E ; but he is describing numbers which are pure abstractions, to which he assigns a real and separate existence, which, as 'the teachers of the art' (meaning probably the Pythagoreans) would have affirmed, repel all attempts at subdivision, and in which unity and every other number are conceived of as absolute.

The truth and certainty of numbers, when thus disengaged from phenomena, gave them a kind of sacredness in the eyes of an ancient philosopher. Nor is it easy to say how far ideas of order and fixedness may have had a moral and elevating influence on the minds of men, ^who,' in the words of the Timaeus, * might learn to regulate their erring lives according to them ' (47 C).

It is worthy of remark that the old Pythagorean ethical symbols still exist as figures of speech among ourselves. And those who in modern times see the world pervaded by universal law, may also see an anticipation of this last word of modern philosophy in the Platonic idea of good, which is the source and measure of all things, an4 yet only an abstraction. (Cp. Philebus, sub fin.) Two passages seem to require more particular explanations.

First, that which relates to the analysis of vision. The difficulty in this passage may be explained, like many others, from differences in the modes of conception prevailing among ancient and modern thinkers. To us, the perceptions of sense are inseparable from the act of the mind which accompanies them. The consciousness of form, colour, distance, is indistinguishable from the simple sensation, which is the medium of them. Whereas to Plato sense is the Heraclitean flux of sense, not

cxii A priori Harmonics. Rcpubikyil. tlic vision of objects in the order in which they actually present Intkoduc- themselves to the experienced sight, but as they may be imagined to appear confused and blurred to the half-awakened eye of the infant.

The first action of the mind is aroused by tlie attempt to set in order this chaos, and the reason is required to frame distinct conceptions under which the confused impressions of sense may be arranged. Hence arises the question, 'What is great, what is small ? ' and thus begins the distinction of the visible and the intelligible. The second difficulty relates to Plato's conception of harmonics.

Three classes of harmonists are distinguished by him : — first, the Pythagoreans, whom he proposes to consult as in the previous discussion on music he was to consult Damon — they are acknowledged to be masters in the art, but are altogether deficient in the knowledge of its higher import and relation to the good ; secondly, the mere empirics, whom Glaucon appears to confuse with them, and whom both he and Socrates ludicrously describe as experimenting by mere auscultation on the intervals of sounds.

Both of these fall short in different degrees of the Platonic idea of harmony, which must be studied in a purely abstract way, first by the method of problems, and secondly as a part of universal knowledge in relation to the idea of good. The allegory has a political as well as a philosophical meaning.

The den or cave represents the narrow sphere of politics or law (cp. the description of the philosopher and lawyer in the Theaetetus, 172-176), and the light of the eternal ideas is supposed to exercise a disturbing influence on the minds of those who return to this lower world. In other words, their principles are too wide for practical application ; they are looking far away into the past and future, when their business is with the present.

The ideal is not easily reduced to the conditions of actual life, and may often be at variance with them. And at first, those who return are unable to compete with the inhabitants of the den in the measurement of the shadows, and are derided and persecuted by them; but after a while they see the things below in far truer proportions than those who have never ascended into the upper world.

The difference between the politician turned into a philosopher and the philosopher turned into a politician, is symbolized by the two kinds of disordered eyesight.

The effects of Political Ideals. cxiii the one which is experienced by the captive who is transferred Republic vu. from darkness to day, the other, of the heavenly messenger who Introducvoluntarily for the good of his fcllow-mcn descends into the den. '^'°''' In what way the brighter hght is to dawn on the inhabitants of the lower world, or how the idea of good is to become the guiding principle of politics, is left unexplained by Plato.

Like the nature and divisions of dialectic, of which Glaucon impatiently demands to be informed, perhaps he would have said that the explanation could not be given except to a disciple of the previous sciences. (Compare Symposium 210 A.) Many illustrations of this part of the Republic may be found in modern Politics and in daily life.

For among oursdves, too, there have been two sorts of Politicians or Statesmen, whose eyesight has become disordered in two different ways. First, there have been great men who, in the language of Burke, ' have been too much given to general maxims,' who, like J. S.

Mill or Burke himself, have been theorists or philosophers before they were politicians, or who, having been students of history, have allowed some great historical parallel, such as the English Revolution of 1688, or possibly Athenian democracy or Roman Imperialism, to be the medium through which they viewed contemporary events. Or perhaps the long projecting shadow of some existing institution may have darkened their vision.

The Church of the future, the Commonwealth of the future, the Society of the future, have so absorbed their minds, that they are unable to see in their true proportions the Politics of to-day.

They have been intoxicated with great ideas, such as liberty, or equality, or the greatest happiness of the greatest number, or the brotherhood of humanity, and they no longer care to consider how these ideas must be limited in practice or harmonized with the conditions of human life. They are full of light, but the light to them has become only a sort of luminous mist or blindness.

Almost every one has known some enthusiastic half-educated person, who sees everything at false distances, and in erroneous proportions. With this disorder of eyesight may be contrasted another — of those who see not far into the distance, but what is near only; who have been engaged all their lives in a trade or a profession ; who are limited to a set or sect of their own. Men of this kind VOL. III. — 8

cxiv The dangers which beset youth KepublicVii. havc 110 universal except their own interests or the interests Introduc- of their class, no principle but the opinion of persons Hke them- TioN. selves, no knowledge of affairs beyond what they pick up in the streets or at their club.

Suppose them to be sent into a larger world, to undertake some higher calling, from being tradesmen to turn generals or politicians, from being schoolmasters to become philosophers : — or imagine them on a sudden to receive an inward light which reveals to them for the first time in their lives a higher idea of God and the existence of a spiritual world, by this sudden conversion or change is not their daily life likely to be upset; and on the other hand will not many of their old prejudices and narrownesses still adhere to them long after they have begun to take a more comprehensive view of human things?

From familiar examples like these we may learn what Plato meant by the eyesight which is liable to two kinds of disorders. Nor have we any difficulty in drawing a parallel between the young Athenian in the fifth century before Christ who became unsettled by new ideas, and the student of a modern University who has been the subject of a similar *aufklarung.

We too observe that when young men begin to criticise customary beliefs, or to analyse the constitution of human nature, they are apt to lose hold of solid principle [aizav to ^k'^aiov avrov kqoix^Tai). They are like trees which have been frequently transplanted. The earth about them is loose, and they have no roots reaching far into the soil. They * light upon every flower,' following their own wayward wills, or because the wind blows them.

They catch opinions, as diseases are caught — when they are in the air. Borne hither and thither, •' they speedily fall into beliefs ' the opposite of those in which they were brought up. They ■ hardly retain the distinction of right and wrong ; they seem to think one thing as good as another. They suppose themselves to be searching after truth when they are playing the game of 'follow my leader.

They fall in love ' at first sight ' with paradoxes respecting morality, some fancy about art, some novelty or eccentricity in religion, and like lovers they are so absorbed for a time in their new notion that they can think of nothing else. The resolution of some philosophical or theological question seems to them more interesting and important than any substantial knowledge of

literature or science or even than a good life. Like the youth RepHbUcVii. in the Philebus, they are ready to discourse to any one about a Introducnew philosophy. They are generally the disciples of some '^'°'^- eminent professor or sophist, whom they rather imitate than understand.

They may be counted happy if in later years they retain some of the simple truths which they acquired in early education, and which they may, perhaps, find to be worth all the rest. Such is the picture which Plato draws and which we only reproduce, partly in his own words, of the dangers which beset youth in times of transition, when old opinions are fading away and the new are not yet firmly established.

Their condition is ingeniously compared by him to that of a supposititious son, who has made the discovery that his reputed parents are not his real ones, and, in consequence, they have lost their authority over him. The distinction between the mathematician and the dialectician is also noticeable.

Plato is very well aware that the faculty of the mathematician is quite distinct from the higher philosophical sense which recognizes and combines first principles (531 E). The contempt which he expresses at p. 533 for distinctions of words, the danger of involuntary falsehood, the apology which Socrates makes for his earnestness of speech, are highly characteristic of the Platonic style and mode of thought.

The quaint notion that if Palamedes was the inventor of number Agamemnon could not have counted his feet ; the art by which we are made to believe that this State of ours is not a dream only ; the gravity with which the first step is taken in the actual creation of the State, namely, the sending out of the city all who had arrived at ten years of age, in order to expedite the business of education by a generation, are also truly Platonic. (For the last, compare the passage at the end of the third book (415 D), in which he expects the lie about the earthborn men to be believed in the second generation.)

iteph. BOOK VIII. And so we have arrived at the conclusion, that analysis. ^^^ in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common ; and the education and pursuits of men and women, both in war and peace, are to be common, and kings are to be philosophers and warriors, and the soldiers of the State are to live together.

cxvi Analysis 543-546. Republic having all things in common ; and they arc to be warrior athletes, receiving no pay but only their food, from the other citizens. Analysis. ]vjow let US return to the point at which we digressed.

' That is easily done,' he replied: 'You were speaking of the State which you had constructed, and of the individual who answered to this, both of whom you affirmed to be good ; and you said that of 54^ inferior States there were four forms and four individuals corresponding to them, which although deficient in various degrees, were all of them worth inspecting with a view to determining the relative happiness or misery of the best or worst man.

Then Polemarchus and Adeimantus interrupted you, and this led to another argument, — and so here we are. Suppose that we put ourselves again in the same position, and do you repeat your question. ' I should like to know of what constitutions you were speaking ?

' Besides the perfect State there are only four of any note in Hellas: — first, the famous Lacedaemonian or Cretan commonwealth; secondly, oligarchy, a State full of evils ; thirdly, democracy, which follows next in order ; fourthly, tyranny, which is the disease or death of all government.

Now, States are not made of ' oak and rock,' but of flesh and blood ; and therefore as there are five States there must be five human natures in individuals, which correspond to them. And first, there is the ambitious nature, which answers to the Lacedaemonian State ; 54| secondly, the oligarchical nature ; thirdly, the democratical ; and fourthly, the tyrannical.

This last will have to be compared with the perfectly just, which is the fifth, that we may know which is the happier, and then we shall be able to determine whether the argument of Thrasymachus or our own is the more convincing. / And as before we began with the State and went on to the individual, so now, beginning with timocracy, let us go on to the timocratical man, and then proceed to the other forms of government, and the individuals who answer to them.

But how did timocracy arise out of the perfect State ? Plainly, like all changes of government, from division in the rulers. But whence came division ? ' Sing, heavenly Muses,' as Homer says ; — let them condescend to answer us, as if we were children, to whom they put on a solemn face in jest. ' And what will they say? They will say that human things are fated to decay, and t^^{ I even the perfect State will not escape from this law of destiny,

when ' the wheel comes full circle ' in a period short or long. Plants Republic VIII or animals have times of fertility and sterility, which the intelligence of rulers because alloyed by sense will not enable them to ascertain, and children will be born out of season.

For whereas divine creations are in a perfect cycle or number, the human creation is in a number which declines from perfection, and has four terms and three intervals of numbers, increasing, waning, assimilating, dissimilating, and yet perfectly commensurate with each other.

The base of the number with a fourth added (or which is 3 : 4), multiplied by five and cubed, gives two harmonies: — The first a square number, which is a hundred times the base (or a hundred times a hundred) ; the second, an oblong, being a hundred squares of the rational diameter of a figure the side of which is five, subtracting one from each square or two perfect squares from all, and adding a hundred cubes of three.

This entire number is geometrical and contains the rule or law of generation. When this law is neglected marriages will be unpropitious ; the inferior offspring who are then born will in time become the rulers; the State will decline, and education fall into decay ; gymnastic will be preferred to music, and the gold and 547 silver and brass and iron will form a chaotic mass — thus division will arise.

Such is the Muses' answer to our question. * And a true answer, of course: — but what more have they to say?

They say that the two races, the iron and brass, and the silver and gold, will draw the State different ways ; — the one will take to trade and moneymaking, and the others, having the true riches and not caring for money, will resist them : the contest will end in a compromise; they will agree to have private property, and will enslave their fellow-citizens who were once their friends and nurturers.

But they will retain their warlike character, and will be chiefly occupied in fighting and exercising rule. Thus arises timocracy, which is intermediate between aristocracy and oligarchy. The new form of government resembles the ideal in obedience to rulers and contempt for trade, in having common meals, and in devotion to warlike and gymnastic exercises.

But corruption has crept into philosophy, and simplicity of character, which was once 548 ^»er note, is now looked for only in the military class. Arts of war begin to prevail over arts of peace; the ruler is no longer a

cxviii Analysis 548-551.

Republic philosoplicr ; as in oligarchies, there springs up among them an extravagant love of gain — get another mans and save your NALYsis. own, is their principle ; and they have dark places in which they hoard their gold and silver, for the use of their women and others ; they take their pleasures by stealth, like boys who arc running away from their father — the law; and their education is not inspired by the Muse, but imposed by the strong arm of power.

The leading characteristic of this State is party spirit and ambition. And what manner of man answers to such a State ? ' In love of contention,' replied Adeimantus, *he will be like our friend Glaucon. In that respect, perhaps, but not in others.

He is self-asserting and ill-educated, yet fond of literature, al- 549 though not himself a speaker, — fierce with slaves^ but obedient to rulers, a lover of power and honour, which he hopes to gain by deeds of arms, — fond, too, of gymnastics and of hunting. As he advances in years he grows avaricious, for he has lost philosophy, which is the only saviour and guardian of men.

His origin is as follows: — His father is a good man dwelling in an ill-ordered State, who has retired from politics in order that he may lead a quiet life. His mother is angry at her loss of precedence among other women ; she is disgusted at her husband's selfishness, and she expatiates to her son on the unmanliness and indolence of his father.

The old family servant takes up the tale, and says to the youth : — ' When you grow up you must be more of a man than your father. All the world are agreed that 550 he who minds his own business is an idiot, while a busybody is highly honoured and esteemed.

The young man compares this spirit with his father's words and ways, and as he is naturally well disposed, although he has suffered from evil influences, he rests at a middle point and becomes ambitious and a lover of honour. And now let us set another city over against another man. The next form of government is oligarchy, in which the rule isjof the rich only; nor is it difficult to see how such a State arises.

The decline begins with the possession of gold and silver; illegal modes of expenditure are invented ; one draws another on, and the multitude are infected; riches outweigh virtue; lovers of money take the place of lovers of honour; misers of 551

Analysis 551-553. cxix politicians ; and, in time, political privileges are confined by law Republic VIII to the rich, who do not shrink from violence in order to effect ^1 . ^ Analysis. their purposes. Thus much of the origin, — let us next consider the evils of ohgarchy. Would a man who wanted to be safe on a voyage take a bad pilot because he was rich, or refuse a good one because he was poor?

And does not the analogy apply still more to the State? And there are yet greater evils: two nations are struggling together in one — the rich and the poor; and the rich dare not put arms into the hands of the poor, and are unwilling to pay for defenders out of their own money. And have we not 552 already condemned that State in which the same persons are warriors as well as shopkeepers ?

The greatest evil of all is that a man may sell his property and have no place in the State ; while there is one class which has enormous wealth, the other is entirely destitute. But observe that these destitutes had not really any more of the governing nature in them when they were rich than now that they are poor ; they were miserable spendthrifts always.

They are the drones of the hive ; only whereas / the actual drone is unprovided by nature with a sting, the twolegged things whom we call drones are some of them without stings and some of them have dreadful stings; in other words, there \\ I are paupers and there arc rogues. These are never far apart ; and in oligarchical cities, where nearly everybody is a pauper who is not a ruler, you will find abundance of both.

And this evil state of society originates in bad education and bad government. 553 Like State, like man, — the change in the latter begins with the representative of timocracy ; he walks at first in the ways of his father, who may have been a statesman, or general, perhaps; and presently he sees him 'fallen from his high estate,' the victim of informers, dying in prison or exile, or by the hand of the executioner.

The lesson which he thus receives, makes him cautious; he leaves politics^ represses his pride, and saves pence. Avarice is enthroned as his bosom's lord, and assumes the style of the Great King ; the rational and spirited elements sit humbly on the ground at either side, the one immersed in calculation, the other absorbed in the admiration of wealth. The love of honour turns to love of money ; the conversion is instantaneous. The

cxx Analysis 554-557. Kc-pubiic man is mean, saving, toiling, the slave of one passion which is cc VI 11 the master of the rest : Is he not the very image of the State ? He has had no education, or he would never have allowed the blind god of riches to lead the dance within him. And being uneducated he will have many slavish desires, some beggarly, some knavish, breeding in his soul.

If he is the trustee of an orphan, and has the power to defraud, he will soon prove that he is not without the will, and that his passions are only restrained by fear and not by reason. Hence he leads a divided existence ; in which the better desires mostly prevail.

But when he is con- 55, tending for prizes and other distinctions, he is afraid to incur a loss which is to be repaid only by barren honour ; in time of war he fights with a small part of his resources, and usually keeps his money and loses the victory. Next comes democracy and the democratic man, out of oligarchy and the oligarchical man.

Insatiable avarice is the ruling passion of an oligarchy ; and they encourage expensive habits in order that they may gain by the ruin of extravagant youth. Thus men of family often lose their property or rights of citizenship ; but they remain in the city, full of hatred against the new owners of their estates and ripe for revolution.

The usurer with stooping walk pretends not to see them ; he passes by, and leaves his sting — that is, his money — in some other victim; and many a man has to pay the parent or principal sum multiplied into a family of children, and is reduced into a state of dronage by him. 55' The only way of diminishing the evil is either to limit a man in his use of his property, or to insist that he shall lend at his own risk.

But the ruling class do not want remedies; they care only for money, and are as careless of virtue as the poorest of the citizens. Now there are occasions on which the governors and the governed meet together, — at festivals, on a journey, voyaging or fighting.

The sturdy pauper finds that in the hour of danger he is not despised ; he sees the rich man puffing and panting, and draws the conclusion which he privately imparts to his companions,— 'that our people are not good for much;' and as a sickly frame is made ill by a mere touch from without, or sometimes without external impulse is ready to fall to pieces of itself, so from the least cause, or with none at all, the city falls ill and fights a battle for life or death. And democracy comes into 55;

V The manner of life in such a State is that of democrats ; there " is freedom and plainness of speech, and every man does what is right in his own eyes, and has his own way of Yiie. Hence arise the most various developments of character; the State is hke a piece of embroidery of which the colours and figures are the manners of men, and there are many who, like women and children, prefer this variety to real beauty and excellence.

The State is not one but many, like a bazaar at which you can buy anything. The great charm is, that you may do as you like; you may govern if you like, let it alone if you like ; go to war r rg and make peace if you feel disposed, and all quite irrespective of anybody else.

When you condemn men to death they remain alive all the same ; a gentleman is desired to go into exile, and he stalks about the streets like a hero ; and nobody sees him or cares for him. Observe, too, how grandly Democracy sets her foot upon all our fine theories of education, — how little she cares for the training of her statesmen ! The only qualification which she demands is the profession of patriotism.

Such is democracy ; — a pleasing, lawless, various sort of government, distributing equality to equals and unequals alike. Let us now inspect the individual democrat; and first, as in the case of the State, we will trace his antecedents. He is the son of a miserly oligarch, and has been taught by him to restrain the love of unnecessary pleasures.

Perhaps I ought to explain 559 this latter term: — Necessary pleasures arc those which are good, and which we cannot do without ; unnecessary pleasures are those which do no good, and of which the desire might be eradicated by early training. For example, the pleasures of eating and drinking are necessary and healthy, up to a certain point ; beyond that point they are alike hurtful to body and mind, and the excess may be avoided.

When in excess, they may be rightly called expensive pleasures, in opposition to the useful ones. And the drone, as we called him, is the slave of these unnecessary pleasures and desires, whereas the miserly oligarch is subject only to the necessary. The oligarch changes into the democrat in the following manner: — The youth who has had a miserly bringing up, gets

a taste of the drone's honey ; he meets with wild companions, who introduce him to every new pleasure. As in the State, so in the individual, there are allies on both sides, temptations from without and passions from within; there is reason also nnd external influences of parents and friends in alliance with the oligarchical principle; and the two factions are in violent conflict 5^*^ with one another.

Sometimes the party of order prevails, but then again new desires and new disorders arise, and the whole mob of passions gets possession of the Acropolis, that is to say, the soul, which they find void and unguarded by true words and works. Falsehoods and illusions ascend to take their place ; the prodigal goes back into the country of the Lotophagi or drones, and, openly dwells there.

And if any offer of alliance or parley of individual elders comes from home, the false spirits shut the gates of the castle and permit no one to enter, — there is a battle, and they gain the victory ; and straightway making alliance with the desires, they banish modesty, which they call folly, and send temperance over the border.

When the house has been swept and garnished, they dress up the exiled vices, and, crowning them with garlands, bring them back under new names. Insolence they call good breeding, anarchy freedom, waste magnificence, impudence courage. Such is the process by which the [-5 youth passes from the necessary pleasures to the unnecessary.

After a while he divides his time impartially between them ; and perhaps, when he gets older and the violence of passion has abated, he restores some of the exiles and lives in a sort of equilibrium, indulging first one pleasure and then another; and if reason comes and tells him that some pleasures are good and honourable, and others bad and vile, he shakes his head and says that he can make no distinction between them.

Thus he lives in the fancy of the hour ; sometimes he takes to drink, and then he turns abstainer; he practises in the gymnasium or he does nothing at all; then again he would be a philosopher or a politician ; or again, he would be a warrior or a man of business ; he is 'Every thing by starts and nothing long. There remains still the finest and fairest of all men and all 56: States — tyranny and the tyrant. Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise

from excess ; the one from excess of wealth, the other from Republic yjii excess of freedom. ' The great natural good of life/ says the democrat, *is freedom. And this exclusive love of freedom and regardiessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny.

The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them ; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals.

Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level ; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women.

Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she-mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. ' That has often been my experience. At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten ; they would have no man call himself their master.

Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs. ' Glorious, indeed; but what is to follow? The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; for there is a law of contraries; the excess of freedom passes into the excess of slavery, and the greater the freedom the greater the slavery. You will remember that in the oligarchy were found two classes — rogues and paupers, whom we compared to drones with and without stings.

These two classes are to the State what phlegm and bile are to the human body; and the State-physician, or legislator, must get rid of them, just as the bee-master keeps the drones out of the hive.

Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation ; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard. And there is another class in democratic States,

cxxiv Analysis 564-567. Republic of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of tlicir possessions; there is more- ^Cc over a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.

When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason.

The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf.

Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a 5^^ wolf — that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile ; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination.

Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full blown tyrant : Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.

In the early days of his tyranny he smiles and beams upon everybody; he is not a * dominus,' no, not he : he has only come to put an end to debt and the monopoly of land. Having got rid of foreign enemies, he makes himself necessary to the State by 567 always going to war. He is thus enabled to depress the poor by heavy taxes, and so keep them at work ; and he can get rid of bolder spirits by handing them over to the enemy.

Then comes unpopularity; some of his old associates have the courage to oppose him. The consequence is, that he has to make a purgation of the State ; but, unlike the physician who purges

Analysis 567-569. cxxv away the bad, he must get rid of the high-spirited, the wise and Republic VIII the wealthy ; for he has no choice between death and a Ufe of shame and dishonour. And the more hated he is, the more he will require trusty guards ; but how will he obtain them ? ' They will come flocking like birds — for pay? Will he not rather obtain them on the spot ?

He will take the slaves from their owners ;68 and make them his body-guard; these are his trusted friends, who admire and look up to him. Are not the tragic poets wise who magnify and exalt the tyrant, and say that he is wise by association with the wise ? And are not their praises of tyranny y alone a sufficient reason why we should exclude them from our State ?

They may go to other cities, and gather the mob dbout them with fine words, and change commonwealths into tyrannies and democracies, receiving honours and rewards for their services ; but the higher they and their friends ascend constitution hill, the more their honour will fail and become ' too asthmatic to mount. To return to the tyrant — How will he support that rare army of his ?

First, by robbing the temples of their treasures, which will enable him to lighten the taxes; then he will take all his father's property, and spend it on his companions, male or female.

Now his father is the demus, and if the demus gets 569 angry, and says that a great hulking son ought not to be a burden on his parents, and bids him and his riotous crew begone, then will the parent know what a monster he has been nurturing, and that the son whom he would fain expel is too strong for him. * You do not mean to say that he will beat his father? Yes, he will, after having taken away his arms.

' Then he is a parricide and a cruel, unnatural son. And the people have jumped from the fear of slavery into slavery, out of the smoke into the fire. Thus liberty, when out of all order and reason, passes into the worst form of servitude. . . . In the previous books Plato has described the ideal State ; now Introduche returns to the perverted or declining forms, on which he had lightly touched at the end of Book iv.

These he describes in a succession of parallels between the individuals and the States, tracing the origin of either in the State or individual which has preceded them. He begins by asking the point at which he digressed ; and is thus led shortly to recapitulate the substance

of the three former books, which also contain a parallel of the philosopher and the State. Of the first decline he gives no intelligible account; he would not have liked to admit the most probable causes of the fall of his ideal State, which to us would appear to be the impracticability of communism or the natural antagonism of the ruling and subject classes.

He throws a veil of mystery over the origin of the decline, which he attributes to ignorance of the law of population. ' Of this law the famous geometrical figure or number is the ;, expression. Like the ancients in general, he had no idea of the \ gradual perfectibility of man or of the education of the human race. His ideal was not to be attained in the course of ages, but was to spring in full armour from the head of the legislator.

When good laws had been given, he thought only of the manner in which they were likely to be corrupted, or of how they might be filled up in detail or restored in accordance with their original spirit. He appears not to have reflected upon the full meaning of his own words, ^ In the brief space of human life, nothing great can be accomplished ' (x. 608 B) ; or again, as he afterwards says in the Laws (iii.

676), 'Infinite time is the maker of cities. The order of constitutions which is adopted by him represents an order- of thought rather than a succession of time, and may be considered as the first attempt to frame a philosophy of history.

The first of these declining States is timocracy, or the government of soldiers and lovers of honour, which answers to the Spartan State ; this is a government of force, in which education is not inspired by the Muses, but imposed by the law, and in which all the finer elements of organization have disappeared. The philosopher himself has lost the love of truth, and the soldier, who is of a simpler and honester nature, rules in his stead.

The individual who answers to timocracy has some noticeable qualities. He is described as ill educated, but, like the Spartan, a lover of hterature ; and although he is a harsh master to his servants he has no natural superiority over them.

His character is based upon a reaction against the circumstances of his father, who in a troubled city has retired from politics ; and his mother, who is dissatisfied at her own position, is always urging him towards the life of political ambition. Such a character may have had this origin, and indeed Livy attributes the Licinian laws to a

feminine jealousy of a similar kind (vii. 34). But there is obviously Republic VIII no connection between the manner in which the timocratic State springs out of the ideal, and the mere accident by which the timocratic man is the son of a retired statesman. The two next stages in the decline of constitutions have even less historical foundation.

For there is no trace in Greek history of a polity like the Spartan or Cretan passing into an oligarchy of wealth, or of the oligarchy of wealth passing into a democracy.

The order of history appears to be different; first, in the Homeric times there is the royal or patriarchal form of government, which a century or two later was succeeded by an oligarchy of birth rather than of wealth, and in which wealth was only the accident of the hereditary possession of land and power.

Sometimes this oligarchical government gave way to a government based upon a qualification of property, which, according to Aristotle's mode of using words, would have been called a timocracy ; and this in some cities, as at Athens, became the conducting medium to democracy.

But such was not the necessary order of succession in States ; nor, indeed, can any order be discerned in the endless fluctuation of Greek history (like the tides in the Euripus), except, perhaps, in the almost uniform tendency from monarchy to aristocracy in the earliest times.

At first sight there appears to be a similar inversion in the last step of the Platonic succession ; for tyranny, instead of being the natural end of democracy, in early Greek history appears rather as a stage leading to democracy ; the reign of Peisistratus and his sons is an episode which comes between the legislation of Solon and the constitution of Cleisthenes ; and some secret cause common to them all seems to have led the greater part of Hellas at her first appearance in the dawn of history, e. g.

Athens, Argos, Corinth, Sicyon, and nearly every State with the exception of Sparta, through a similar stage of tyranny which ended either in oligarchy or democracy. But then we must remember that Plato is describing rather the contemporary governments of the Sicilian States, which alternated between democracy and tyranny, than the ancient history of Athens or Corinth.

The portrait of the tyrant himself is just such as the later Greek delighted to draw of Phalaris and Dionysius, in which, as in the lives of mediaeval saints or mythic heroes, the conduct and actions

of one were attributed to another in order to fill up the outline. There was no enormity which the Greek was not ready to believe of them ; the tyrant was the negation of government and law ; his assassination was glorious; there was no crime, however unnatural, which might not with probability be attributed to him.

In this, Plato was only following the common thought of his countrymen, which he embellished and exaggerated with all the power of his genius. There is no need to suppose that he drew from life ; or that his knowledge of tyrants is derived from a personal acquaintance with Dionysius.

The manner in which he speaks of them would rather tend to render doubtful his ever having 'consorted.' with them, or entertained the schemes, which are attributed to him in the Epistles, of regenerating Sicily by their help. Plato in a hyperbolical and serio-comic vein exaggerates the follies of democracy which he also sees reflected in social life.

To him democracy is a state of individualism or dissolution ; in which every one is doing what is right in his own eyes. Of a people animated by a common spirit of liberty, rising as one man to repel the Persian host, which is the leading idea of democracy in Herodotus and Thucydides, he never seems to think. But if he is not a believer in liberty, still less is he a lover of tyranny.

His deeper and more serious condemnation is reserved for the tyrant, who is the ideal of wickedness and also of weakness, and who in his utter helplessness and suspiciousness is leading an almost impossible existence, without that remnant of good which, in Plato's opinion, was required to give powder to evil (Book i. p. 352).

This ideal of wickedness living in helpless misery, is the reverse of that other portrait of perfect injustice ruling in happiness and splendour, which first of all Thrasymachus, and afterwards the sons of Ariston had drawn, and is also the reverse of the king whose rule of life is the good of his subjects.

Each of these governments and individuals has a corresponding ethical gradation : the ideal State is under the rule of reason, not extinguishing but harmonizing the passions, and training them in virtue ; in the timocracy and the timocratic man the constitution, whether of the State or of the individual, is based, first, upon courage, and secondly, upon the love of honour; this latter virtue.

disappeared, and the love of gain has succeeded to them ; in the third stage, or democracy, the various passions are allowed to have free play, and the virtues and vices are impartially cultivated. But this freedom, which leads to many curious extravagances of character, is in reality only a state of weakness and dissipation. At last, one monster passion takes possession of the whole nature of man — this is tyranny.

In all of them excess — the excess first of wealth and then of freedom, is the element of decay. The eighth book of the Republic abounds in pictures of life and fanciful allusions ; the use of metaphorical language is carried to a greater extent than anywhere else in Plato.

We may remark, (i), the description of the two nations in one, which become more and more divided in the Greek Republics, as in feudal times, and perhaps also in our own ; (2), the notion of democracy expressed in a sort of Pythagorean formula as equality among unequals; (3), the free and easy ways of men and animals, which are characteristic of liberty, as foreign mercenaries and universal mistrust are of the tyrant ; (4), the proposal that mere debts should not be recoverable by law is a speculation which has often been entertained by reformers of the law in modern times, and is in harmony with the tendencies of modern legislation.

Debt and land were the two great difficulties of the ancient lawgiver : in modern times we may be said to have almost, if not quite, solved the first of these difficulties, but hardly the second.

Still more remarkable are the corresponding portraits of individuals: there is the family picture of the father and mother and the old servant of the timocratical man, and the outward respectability and inherent meanness of the oligarchical ; the uncontrolled licence and freedom of the democrat, in which the young Alcibiades seems to be depicted, doing right or wrong as he pleases, and who at last, like the prodigal, goes into a far country (note here the play of language by which the democratic man is himself represented under the image of a State having a citadel and receiving embassies) ; and there is the wild-beast nature, which breaks loose in his successor. The hit about the tyrant being a parricide; the representation of the tyrant's life as VOL. III. — 9

an obscene dream ; the rhetorical surprise of a more miserable than the most miserable of men in Book ix ; the hint to the poets that if they are the friends of tyrants there is no place for them in a constitutional State, and that they are too clever not to see the propriety of their own expulsion ; the continuous image of the drones who are of two kinds, swelling at last into the monster drone having wings (see infra, Book ix), — are among Plato's happiest touches.

There remains to be considered the great difficulty of this book of the Republic, the so-called number of the State. This is a puzzle almost as great as the Number of the Beast in the Book of Revelation, and though apparently known to Aristotle, is referred to by Cicero as a proverb of obscurity (Ep. ad. Att. vii. 13, 5). And some have imagined that there is no answer to the puzzle, and that Plato has been practising upon his readers.

But such a deception as this is inconsistent with the manner in which Aristotle speaks of the number (Pol. v. 12, § 7), and would have been ridiculous to any reader of the Republic who was acquainted with Greek mathematics. As little reason is there for supposing that Plato intentionally used obscure expressions ; the obscurity arises from our want of familiarity with the subject.

' On the other hand, Plato himself indicates that he is not altogether serious, and in describing his number as a solemn jest of the Muses, he appears to imply some degree of satire on the symbolical use of number. (Cp. Cratylus, passitnj Protag. 342 ff.) Our hope of understanding the passage depends principally on an accurate study of the words themselves ; on which a faint light is thrown by the parallel passage in the ninth book.

Another help is the allusion in Aristotle, who makes the important remark that the latter part of the passage (from wv eTzirpiTog nv6fj.?)v, k. t. /..) describes a solid figure^. Some further clue may be gathered from the appearance of the Pythagorean triangle, which is denoted by the numbers 3, 4, 5, and in which, as in every right-angled

1 Pol. V. 12, $ 8 : — ' He only says that nothing is abiding, but that all things change in a certain cycle; and that the origin of the change is a base of numbers which are in the ratio of 4 : 3 ; and this when combined with a figure of five gives two harmonies ; he means when the number of this figure becomes solid.*

The Number of the State.

CXXXl

Introdic- TION.

triangle, the squares of the two lesser sides equal the square of the Republic VUl hypotenuse (3^ + 42 = 32^ or 9 + 16 = 25). Plato begins by speaking of a perfect or cyclical number (cp. Tim. 39 D), i. e. a number in which the sum of the divisors equals the whole ; this is the divine or perfect number in which all lesser cycles or revolutions arc complete.

He also speaks of a human or imperfect number, having four terms and three intervals of numbers which are related to one another in certain proportions; these he converts into figures, and finds in them when they have been raised to the third power certain elements of number, which give two 'harmonies,' the one square, the other oblong; but he docs not say that the square number answers to the divine, or the oblong number to the human cycle; nor is any intimation given that the first or divine number represents the period of the world, the second the period of the state, or of the human race as Zeller supposes ; nor is the divine number afterwards mentioned (cp.

Arist.). The second is the number of generations or births, and presides over them in the same mysterious manner in which the stars preside over them, or in which, according to the Pythagoreans, opportunity, justice, marriage, are represented by some number or figure. This is probably the number 216. The explanation given in the text supposes the two harmonies to make up the number 8000.

This explanation derives a certain plausibility from the circumstance that 8000 is the ancient number of the Spartan citizens (Herod, vii. 34), and would be what Plato might have called 'a number which nearly concerns the population of a city ' (588 A) ; the mysterious disappearance of the Spartan population may possibly have suggested to him the first cause of his decline of States.

The lesser or square ' harmony,' of 400, might be a symbol of the guardians, — the larger or oblong * harmony,' of the people, and the numbers 3, 4, 5 might refer respectively to the three orders in the State or parts of the soul, the four virtues, the five forms of government. The harmony of the musical scale, which is elsewhere used as a symbol of the harmony of the state (Rep. iv. 443 D), is also indicated.

For the numbers 3,4, 5, which represent the sides of the Pythagorean triangle, also denote the intervals of the scale. The terms used in the statement of the problem may be

explained as follows. A perfect number {jOjuoq apSfihr), as already stated, is one which is equal to the sum of its divisors. Thus 6, which is the first perfect or cyclical number, = 1+2+3. The words hpoi^ ' terms' or 'notes,' and (nToardaeiry * intervals,' arc applicable to music as well as to number and figure. Upcjru is the 'base' on which the whole calculation depends, or the 'lowest term ' from which it can be worked out.

The words dwdfitvai re Kal dwaarevofievat have been variously translated — ' squared and cubed' (Donaldson), ' equalling and equalled in power' (Weber), ' by involution and evolution,' i. e. by raising the power and extracting the root (as in the translation). Numbers are called 'like and unlike ' {6[xolovvteq re koI dvofioiovvreg) when the factors or the sides of the planes and cubes which they represent are or are not in the same ratio : e. g.

8 and 27 = 2^ and 3^ ; and conversely. 'Waxing' {av^oureg) numbers, called also 'increasing' {vTrepreXelg) , are those which are exceeded by the sum of their divisors : e. g. 12 and 18 are less than 16 and 21. ' Waning ' {(l>6ivovTeg) numbers, called also ' decreasing ' {e2,?iinElg) , are those which exceed the sum of their divisors : e. g. 8 and 27 exceed 7 and 13.

The words translated ' commensurable and agreeable to one another ' (Trpoa^- ■yopa Kol pr]Ta) seem to be different ways of describing the same relation, with more or less precision. They are equivalent to ' expressible in terms having the same relation to one another,' like the series 8, 12, 18, 27, each of which numbers is in the relation of i^ to the preceding.

The 'base,' or 'fundamental number, which has 3 added to it' (i^) = | or a musical fourth. 'Apjuovia is a ' proportion ' of numbers as of musical notes, applied either to the parts or factors of a single number or to the relation of one number to another.

The first harmony is a ' square ' number {iojp^ laaKig) ; the second harmony is an * oblong ' number {TrpofiTjKri), i. e. a number representing a figure of which the opposite sides only are equal. 'Apid/nol airo diaperpuv = ' numbers squared from' or 'upon diameters'; pr/To)v= 'rational,' i.e. omitting fractions, apprjruv, 'irrational,' i. e. including fractions ; e. g.

49 is a square of the rational diameter of a figure the side of which = 5 ; 50, of an irrational diameter of the same. For several of the explanations here given and for a good deal besides I am indebted to an excellent article on the Platonic Number by Dr. Donaldson (Proc. of the Philol. Society, vol. i. p. 81 ff.).

The Number of the State. cxxxiii The conclusions which he draws from these data are summed Republic up by him as follows.

Having assumed that the number of the perfect or divine cycle is the number of the world, and the number of the imperfect cycle the number of the state, he proceeds : * The period of the world is defined by the perfect number 6, that of the state by the cube of that number or 216, which is the product of the last pair of terms in the Platonic Tetiactys^ ; and if we take this as the basis of our computation, we shall have two cube numbers {av^^aeig dwd/ueval re nal 6vvaarevd/ievai), viz.

8 and 27 ; and the mean proportionals between these, viz. 12 and 18, will furnish three intervals and four terms, and these terms and intervals stand related to one another in the sesqui-altera ratio, i. e. each term is to the preceding as §. Now if we remember that the number 216 = 8 x 27 = 3^ + 43 + 5^^ and that 32 4- 42 _ ^2^ ^ye must admit that this number implies the numbers 3, 4, 5, to which musicians attach so much importance.

And if we combine the ratio ^ with the number 5, or multiply the ratios of the sides by the hypotenuse, we shall by first squaring and then cubing obtain two expressions, which denote the ratio of the two last pairs of terms in the Platonic Tctractys, the former multiplied by the square, the latter by the cube of the number 10, the sum of the first four digits which constitute the Platonic Tetractys.

The two dptiovlat he elsewhere explains as follows : * The first dpfiovia is larp^ lauKig EKarov roaavraKig, in other words (f X 5)2 = 100 X |l The second dpfiovla, a cube of the same root, is described as 100 multiplied (a) by the rational diameter of 5 diminished by unity, i. e., as shown above, 48 : (/?) by two incommensurable diameters, i. e. the two first irrationals, or 2 and 3 : and (7) by the cube of 3, or 27.

Thus we have (48 + 5 + 27) 100 = 1000 X 2^. This second harmony is to be the cube of the number of which the former harmony is the square, and therefore must be divided by the cube of 3. In other words, the whole expression will be: (i), for the first harmony, H^: (2), for the second harmony, ^^.

The reasons which have inclined me to agree with Dr. Donaldson and also with Schleiermacher in supposing that 216 is the Platonic number of births are : (i) that it coincides with the description of the number given in the first part of the passage {ku w rrpdru . . . iThe Platonic Tetractys consisted of a series of seven terms, i, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27.

a-Kk^-nvaiy) : (2) that the number 216 with its permutations would have been famihar to a Greek mathematician, though unfamiliar to us: (3) that 216 is the cube of 6, and also the sum of 3^, 4^^ ^3^ the numbers 3, 4, 5 representing the Pythagorean triangle, of which the sides when squared equal the square of the hypotenuse (3^ + 4^ = 5^) • (4) that it is also the period of the Pythagorean Metempsychosis: (5) the three ultimate terms or bases (3, 4, 5) of which 216 is composed answer to the third, fourth, fifth in the musical scale : (6) that the number 216 is the product of the cubes of 2 and 3, which are the two last terms in the Platonic Tetractys : (7) that the Pythagorean triangle is said by Plutarch (de Is. et Osir., 373 E), Proclus (super prima Eucl. iv. p. iii), and Quintilian (de Musica iii. p. 152) to be contained in this passage, so that the tradition of the school seems to point in the same direction : (8) that the Pythagorean triangle is called also the figure of marriage {yanifALov 6idypafj.fj.a).

But though agreeing with Dr. Donaldson thus far, I see no reason for supposing, as he does, that the first or perfect number is the world, the human or imperfect number the state ; nor has he given any proof that the second harmony is a cube.

Nor do I think that apprjroyv 6e Svelv can mean 'two incommensurables,' which he arbitrarily assumes to be 2 and 3, but rather, as the preceding clause implies, dvelv apid/uolv a-ird dpprjruv diajuerpuv ireju- 7rd(hg, i. e. two square numbers based upon irrational diameters of a figure the side of which is 5 = 50 x 2.

The greatest objection to the translation is the sense given to the words kniTpiTog nvd/uT^v K.T.I. , * a base of three with a third added to it, multiplied by 5. In this somewhat forced manner Plato introduces once more the numbers of the Pythagorean triangle. But the coincidences in the numbers which follow are in favour of the explanation.

The first harmpny of 400, as has been already remarked, probably represents the rulers; the second and oblong harmony of 7600, the people. And here we take leave of the difficulty. The discovery of the riddle would be useless, and would throw no light on ancient mathematics. The point of interest is that Plato should have used such a symbol, and that so much of the Pythagorean spirit should have prevailed in him. His general meaning is that divine creation is perfect, and is represented or presided

The Number of the State.

cxxxv

over by a perfect or cyclical number ; human generation is imperfect, and represented or presided over by an imperfect number or series of numbers. The number 5040, which is the number of the citizens in the Laws, is expressly based by him on utilitarian grounds, namely, the convenience of the number for division ; it is also made up of the first seven digits multiplied by one another. The contrast of the perfect and imperfect number may have been easily suggested by the corrections of the cycle, which were made first by Meton and secondly by Callippus; (the latter is said to have been a pupil of Plato). Of the degree of importance or of exactness to be attributed to the problem, the number of the tyrant in Book ix. (729 = 365 + 2), and the slight correction of the error in the number 5040-^12 (Laws, 771 C), may furnish a criterion. There is nothing surprising in the circumstance that those who were seeking for order in nature and had found order in number, should have imagined one to give law to the other. Plato believes in a power of number far beyond what he could see realized in the world around him, and he knows the great influence which ' the little matter of i, 2, 3 ' (vii. 522 C) exercises upon education. He may even be thought to have a prophetic anticipation of the discoveries of Quetelet and others, that numbers depend upon numbers ; e. g. — in population, the numbers of births and the respective numbers of children born of either sex, on the respective ages of parents, i. e. on other numbers.

Republic VIII. Introditc- TION.

Steph. BOOK IX. Last of all comes the tyrannical man, about whom p^^, 571 we have to enquire. Whence is he, and how does he live — in happiness or in misery ? There is, however, a previous question of the nature and number of the appetites, which I should like to consider first. Some of them are unlawful, and yet admit of being chastened and weakened in various degrees by the power of reason and law. ' What appetites do you mean ? ' I mean those which are awake when the reasoning powers are asleep, which get up and walk about naked without any self-respect or shame ; and there is no conceivable folly or crime, however cruel or unnatural, of which, in imagination, they may not be guilty. 'True,' he said; * very true.' But when a man's pulse beats temperately, and he has supped on a feast of reason and come to a knowledge of himself

ALYSIS.

CXXXVl

Analysis 572-574.

Republic IX. bcforc going to rest, and has satisfied his desires just enough to 572 Analysis. prevent their perturbing his reason, which remains clear and luminous, and when he is free from quarrel and heat, — the visions which he has on his bed are least irregular and abnormal. Even in good men there is such an irregular wild-beast nature, which peers out in sleep.

To return: — You remember what was said of the democrat; that he was the son of a miserly father, who encouraged the saving desires and repressed the ornamental and expensive ones; presently the youth got into fine company, and began to entertain a dislike to his father's narrow ways ; and being a better man than the corrupters of his youth, he came to a mean, and led a life, not of lawless or slavish passion, but of regular and successive indulgence.

Now imagine that the youth has become a father, and has a son who is exposed to the same temptations, and has companions who lead him into every sort of iniquity, and parents and friends who try to keep him right.

The counsellors of evil find that their 57^ only chance of retaining him is to implant in his soul a monster drone, or love; while other desires buzz around him and mystify him with sweet sounds and scents, this monster love takes possession of him, and puts an end to every true or modest thought or wish.

Love, like drunkenness and madness, is a tyranny ; and the tyrannical man, whether made by nature or habit, is just a drinking, lusting, furious sort of animal. And how does such an one live? 'Nay, that you must tell me. Well then, I fancy that he will live amid revelries and harlotries, and love will be the lord and master of the house.

Many desires require much money, and so he spends all that he has and borrows more; and when he has nothing the young ravens are still in the nest in which they were hatched, crying for food.

Love ^7^ urges them on ; and they must be gratified by force or fraud, or if not, they become painful and troublesome; and as the new pleasures succeed the old ones, so will the son take possession of the goods of his parents ; if they show signs of refusing, he will defraud and deceive them ; and if they openly resist, what then ? ' I can only say, that I should not much like to be in their place.

'- But, O heavens, Adeimantus, to think that for some new-fangled and unnecessary love he will give up his old father and mother, best and dearest of friends, or enslave them to the fancies of the hour !

Truly a tyrannical son is a blessing to his father and mother ! Republic ix. When there is no more to be got out of them, he turns burglar or analysis. pickpocket, or robs a temple. Love overmasters the thoughts of his youth, and he becomes in sober reality the monster that he 75 was sometimes in sleep. He waxes strong in all violence and lawlessness; and is ready for any deed of daring that will supply the wants of his rabble-rout.

In a well-ordered State there are only a few such, and these in time of war go out and become the mercenaries of a tyrant. But in time of peace they stay at home and do mischief; they are the thieves, footpads, cut-purses, man-stealers of the community ; or if they are able to speak, they turn false- witnesses and informers. ' No small catalogue of crimes truly, even if the perpetrators are few.

Yes, I said ; but small and great are relative terms, and no crimes which are committed by them approach those of the tyrant, whom this class, growing strong and numerous, create out of themselves. If the people yield, well and good ; but, if they resist, then, as before he beat his father and mother, so now he beats his fatherland and motherland, and places his mercenaries over them.

Such men in their early days live \yith flatterers, and they themselves flatter others, in order to gain their ends; but* they soon discard their followers when they have no longer any need of them ; they are always either masters or servants, — the joys of friendship are unknown to them. And they are utterly treacherous and unjust, if the nature of justice be at all understood by us.

They realize our dream ; and he who is the most of a tyrant by nature, and leads the life of a tyrant for the longest time, will be the worst of them, and being the worst of them, will also be the most miserable. Like man, like State, — the tyrannical man will answer to tyranny, which is the extreme opposite of the royal State ; for one is the best and the other the worst. But which is the happier ?

Great and terrible as the tyrant may appear enthroned amid his satellites, let us not be afraid to go in and ask ; and the answer is, that the monarchical is the happiest, and the tyrannical the most ;77 miserable of States. And may we not ask the same question about the men themselves, requesting some one to look into them who is able to penetrate the inner nature of man, and will not be panic-struck by the vain pomp of tyranny ? I will suppose that he

cxxxviii Analysis 577-579- Republic IX. is onc who lias lived with him, and has seen him in family life, Analysis. ^^ perhaps in the hour of trouble and danger. Assuming that we ourselves are the impartial judge for whom we seek, let us begin by comparing the individual and State, and ask first of all, whether the State is likely to be free or enslaved — Will there not be a little freedom and a great deal of slavery ?

And the freedom is of the bad, and the slavery of the good ; and this applies to the man as well as to the State ; for his soul is full of meanness and slavery, and the better part is enslaved to the worse. He cannot do what he would, and his mind is full of confusion ; he is the very reverse of a freeman.

The State will be 57! poor and full of misery and sorrow ; and the man's soul will also be poor and full of sorrows, and he will be the most miserable of men. No, not the most miserable, for there is yet a more miserable. ' Who is that ? ' The tyrannical man who has the misfortune also to become a public tyrant. ' There I suspect that you are right. Say rather, ' I am sure;' conjecture is out of place in an enquiry of this nature.

He is like a wealthy owner of slaves, only he has more of them than any private individual. You will say, ' The owners of slaves are not generally in any fear of them. But why ? Because the* whole city is in a league which protects the individual.

Suppose however that one of these owners and his household is carried off by a god into a wilderness, where there are no freemen to help him — will he not be in an agony of terror ? — will he not be compelled to flatter his slaves and to promise them 57' many things sore against his will ?

And suppose the same god who carried him off were to surround him with neighbours who declare that no man ought to have slaves, and that the owners of them should be punished with death. * Still worse and worse ! He will be in the midst of his enemies.

And is not our tyrant such a captive soul, who is tormented by a swarm of passions which he cannot indulge ; living indoors always like a woman, and jealous of those who can go out and see the world ? Having so many evils, will not the most miserable of men be still more miserable in a public station?

Master of others when he is not master of himself; like a sick man who is compelled to be an athlete ; the meanest of slaves and the most abject of flatterers; wanting all things, and never able to satisfy his desires ; always in fear and distraction, like the State of which he is the representative.

Analysis 580-583. cxxxix j8o His jealous, hateful, faithless temper grows worse with com- Reptiblk ix. mand; he is more and more faithless, envious, unrighteous, — the Analysis. most wretched of men, a misery to himself and to others. And so let us have a final trial and proclamation ; need we hire a herald, or shall 1 proclaim the result ? * Make the proclamation yourself.

The son of Arisfon {the best) is of opinion that the best andJHstest of men is also the happiest^ and that this is he who is the most royal tnaster of himself J and that the Jinjust man is he who is the greatest tyrant of himself and of his State. Atid I add further — '■seen or unseen by gods or men.^ This is our first proof.

The second is derived from the three kinds of pleasure, which answer to the three elements of the soul 581 — reason, passion, desire; under which last is comprehended avarice as well as sensual appetite, while passion includes ambition, party-feeling, love of reputation. Reason, again, is solely directed to the attainment of truth, and careless of money and reputation.

In accordance with the difference of men's natures, one of these three principles is in the ascendant, and they have their several pleasures corresponding to them. Interrogate now the three natures, and each one will be found praising his own pleasures and depreciating those of others. The money-maker will contrast the vanity of knowledge with the solid advantages of wealth.

The ambitious man will despise knowledge which brings no honour ; whereas the philosopher will regard only the fruition of truth, and will call other pleasures necessary rather than good. y^- Now, how shall we decide between them ? Is there any better criterion than experience and knowledge ? And which of the three has the truest knowledge and the widest experience ?

The experience of youth makes the philosopher acquainted with the two kinds of desire, but the avaricious and the ambitious man never taste thC'.pleasures of truth and wisdom. Honour he has equally with them; they are 'judged of him,' but he is ' not judged of them,' for they never attain to the knowledge of true being.

And his instrument is reason, whereas their standard is only wealth and honour; and if by reason we are to judge, his good will be the truest. And so we arrive at the result that the pleasure of the rational part of the soul, and a life passed in such pleasure is the 583 pleasantest. He who has a right to judge judges thus. Next comes the life of ambition, and, in the third place, that of money-making.

cxl Analysis 583-585. Republic IX. Twice has the just man overthrown the unjust — once more, as in Analysis. ^.n Olympian contest, first offering up a prayer to the saviour Zeus, let him try a fall. A wise man whispers to me that the pleasures of the wise are true and pure ; all others are a shadow only. Let us examine this : Is not pleasure opposed to pain, and is there not a mean state which is neither?

When a man is sick, nothing is more pleasant to him than health. But this he never found out while he was well. In pain he desires only to cease from pain ; on the other hand, when he is in an ecstasy of pleasure, rest is painful to him. Thus rest or cessation is both pleasure and pain. But can that which is neither become both ?

Again, pleasure and pain are motions, and the absence of them is rest; but if so, how can r84 the absence of either of them be the other? Thus we are led to infer that the contradiction is an appearance only, and witchery of the senses. And these are not the only pleasures, for there are others which have no preceding pains.

Pure pleasure then is not the absence of pain, nor pure pain the absence of pleasure ; although most of the pleasures which reach the mind through the body are reliefs of pain, and have not only their reactions when they depart, but their anticipations before they come. They can be best described in a simile.

There is in nature an upper, lower, and middle region, and he who passes from the lower to the middle imagines that he is going up and is already in the upper world ; and if he were taken back again would think, and truly think, that he was descending. All this arises out of his ignorance of the true upper, middle, and lower regions. And a like confusion happens with pleasure and pain, and with many other things.

The man who compares grey with black, calls grey white ; and S^S the man who compares absence of pain with pain, calls the absence of pain pleasure. Again, hunger and thirst are inanitions of the body, ignorance and folly of the soul ; and food is the ssrtisfaction of the one, knowledge of the other. Now which is the purer satisfaction — that of eating and drinking, or that of knowledge?

Consider the matter thus : The satisfaction of that which has more existence is truer than of that which has less. The invariable and immortal has a more real existence than the variable and mortal, and has a corresponding measure of knowledge and truth. The soul, again, has more existence and truth and knowledge than the body, and is therefore more really satisfied and has a more

Analysis 586-588. cxli ,86 natural pleasure. Those who feast only on earthly food, are Ri-pubik ix. always going at random up to the middle and down again ; but analysis. they never pass into the true upper world, or have a taste of true pleasure. They are like fatted beasts, full of gluttony and sensuality, and ready to kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust; for they are not filled with true being, and their vessel is leaky (cp.

Gorgias, 243 A, foil.). Their pleasures are mere shadows of pleasure, mixed with pain, coloured and intensified by contrast, and therefore intensely desired ; and men go fighting about them, as Stesichorus says that the Greeks fought about the shadow of Helen at Troy, because they know not the truth. The same may be said of the passionate element: — the desires of the ambitious soul, as well as of the covetous, have an inferior satisfaction.

Only when under the guidance of reason do either of ,87 the other principles do their own business or attain the pleasure which is natural to them. When not attaining, they compel the other parts of the soul to pursue a shadow of pleasure which is not theirs. And the more distant they are from philosophy and reason, the more distant they will be from law and order, and the more illusive will be their pleasures.

The desires of love and tyranny are the farthest from law, and those of the king are nearest to it. There is one genuine pleasure, and two spurious ones : the tyrant goes beyond even the latter ; he has run away altogether from law and reason. Nor can the measure of his inferiority be told, except in a figure. The tyrant is the third removed from the oligarch, and has therefore, not a shadow of his pleasure, but the shadow of a shadow only.

The oligarch, again, is thrice removed from the king, and thus we get the formula 3x3, which is the number of a surface, representing the shadow which is the tyrant's pleasure, and if you like to cube this 'number of the beast,' you will find that the measure of the difference amounts to 729 ; the king is 729 times more happy than the tyrant.

And this extraordinary number is nearly equal to the number of days and nights in a year (365 x 2 = 730); and ;88 is therefore concerned with human life. This is the interval between a good and bad man in happiness only : what must be the difference between them in comeliness of life and virtue ! Perhaps you may remember some one saying at the beginning of our discussion that the unjust man was profited if he had the

cxlii Analysis 588-590. Republic IX. icputation of justice. Now that we know the nature of justice Analysis. iind injustice, let US make an image of the soul, which will personify his words. First of all, fashion a multitudinous beast, having a ring of heads of all manner of animals, tame and wild, and able to produce and change them at pleasure.

Suppose now another form of a lion, and another of a man ; the second smaller than the first, the third than the second ; join them together and cover them with a human skin, in which they are completely concealed. When this has been done, let us tell the supporter of injustice that he is feeding up the beasts and 589 starving the man.

The maintainer of justice, on the other hand, is trying to strengthen the man; he is nourishing the gentle principle within him, and making an alliance with the lion heart, in order that he may be able to keep down the many-headed hydra, and bring all into unity with each other and with themselves. Thus in every point of view, whether in relation to pleasure, honour, or advantage, the just man is right, and the unjust wrong.

But now, let us reason with the unjust, who is not intentionally in error. Is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the God in man ; the ignoble, that which subjects the man to the beast ? And if so, who would receive gold on condition that he was to degrade the noblest part of himself under the worst? — who would sell his son or daughter into the hands of brutal and evil men, for any amount of money ?

And will he sell his own fairer and diviner part without any compunction to the most godless and foul ? Would he not be worse than ^go Eriphyle, who sold her husband's life for a necklace? And intemperance is the letting loose of the multiform monster, and pride and sullenness are the growth and increase of the lion and serpent element, while luxury and effeminacy are caused by a too great relaxation of spirit.

Flattery and meanness again arise when the spirited element is subjected to avarice, and the lion is habituated to become a monkey.

The real disgrace of handicraft arts is, that those who are engaged in them have to flatter, instead of mastering their desires ; therefore we say that they should be placed under the control of the better principle in another because they have none in themselves ; not, as Thrasymachus imagined, to the injury of the subjects, but for

Analysis 591, 592. cxliii • their good. And our intention in educating the young, is to Republic ix. )! give them self-control; the law desires to nurse up in them a analvsis. higher principle, and when they have acquired this, they may go their ways. ' What, then, shall a man profit, if he gain the whole world ' and become more and more wicked ? Or what shall he profit by escaping discovery, if the concealment of evil prevents the cure?

If he had been punished, the brute within him would have been silenced, and the gentler element liberated; and he would have united temperance, justice, and wisdom in his soul — a union better far than any combination of bodily gifts.

The man of understanding will honour knowledge above all ; in the next place he will keep under his body, not only for the sake of health and strength, but in order to attain the most perfect harmony of body and soul. In the acquisition of riches, too, he will aim at order and harmony ; he will not desire to heap up wealth without measure, but he will fear that the increase of wealth will disturb the constitution of his own soul.

For the same )2 reason he will only accept such honours as will make him a better man ; any others he will decline. ' In that case,' said he, 'he will never be a politician. Yes, but he will, in his own city ; though probably not in his native country, unless by some divine accident. * You mean that he will be a citizen of the ideal city, which has no place upon earth.

But in heaven, I replied, there is a pattern of such a city, and he who wishes may order his life after that image. Whether such a state is or ever will be matters not ; he will act according to that pattern and no other The most noticeable points in the 9th Book of the Republic Introduc- TION are: — (i) the account of pleasure; (2) the number of the interval which divides the king from the tyrant ; (3) the pattern which is in heaven. I.

Plato's account of pleasure is remarkable for moderation, and in this respect contrasts with the later Platonists and the ' views which are attributed to them by Aristotle. He is not, like the Cynics, opposed to all pleasure, but rather desires that the several parts of the soul shall have their natural satisfaction; he even agrees with the Epicureans in describing pleasure

cxliv Plato s Account of pleasure. Republic IX. as soiiictbing more than the absence of pain. This is proved Introduc- hy the circumstance that there are pleasures which have no TioN. antecedent pains (as he also remarks in the Philebus), such as the pleasures of smell, and also the pleasures of hope and anticipation.

In the previous book (pp. 558, 559) he had made the distinction between necessary and unnecessary pleasure, which is repeated by Aristotle, and he now observes that there are a further class of ^ wild beast' pleasures, corresponding to Aristotle's drjptorrig.

He dwells upon the relative and unreal character of sensual pleasures and the illusion which arises out of the contrast of pleasure and pain, pointing out the superiority of the pleasures of reason, which are at rest, over the fleeting pleasures of sense and emotion.

The pre-eminence of royal pleasure is shown by the fact that reason is able to form a judgment of the lower pleasures, while the two lower parts of the soul are incapable of judging the pleasures of reason.

Thus, in his treatment of pleasure, as in many other subjects, the philosophy of Plato is 'sawn up into quantities' by Aristotle; the analysis which was originally made by him became in the next generation the foundation of further technical distinctions.

Both in Plato and Aristotle we note the illusion under which the ancients fell of regarding the transcience of pleasure as a proof of its unreality, and of confounding the permanence of the intellectual pleasures with the unchangeableness of the knowledge from which they are derived.

Neither do we like to admit that the pleasures of knowledge, though more elevating, are not more lasting than other pleasures, and are almost equally dependent on the accidents of our bodily state (cp. In trod, to Philebus). 2.

The number of the interval which separates the king from . the tyrant, and royal from tyrannical pleasures, is 729, the cube of 9, which Plato characteristically designates as a number concerned with human life, because nearly equivalent to the number of days and nights in the year. He is desirous of proclaiming ' that the interval between them is immeasurable, and invents a formula to give expression to his idea.

Those who spoke of justice as a cube, of virtue as an art of measuring (Prot. 357 A), saw no inappropriateness in conceiving the soul under the figure of a line, or the pleasure of the tyrant as separated from the

^The kingdom of heaven is within you.' cxlv pleasure of the king by the numerical interval of 729. And in Republic ix. modern times we sometimes use metaphorically what Plato Introducemployed as a philosophical formula. Mt is not easy to estimate "°'''' the loss of the tyrant, except perhaps in this way,' says Plato.

So we might say, that although the life of a good man is not to be compared to that of a bad man, yet you may measure the difference between them by valuing one minute of the one at an hour of the other ('One day in thy courts is better than a thousand '), or you might say that 'there is an infinite difference. But this is not so much as saying, in homely phrase, 'They are a thousand miles asunder.

And accordingly Plato finds the natural vehicle of his thoughts in a progression of numbers ; this arithmetical formula he draws out with the utmost seriousness, and both here and in the number of generation seems to find an additional proof of the truth of his speculation in forming the number into a geometrical figure ; just as persons in our own day are apt to fancy that a statement is verified when it has been only thrown into an abstract form.

In speaking of the number 729 as proper to human life, he probably intended to intimate that one year of the tyrannical = 12 hours of the royal life. The simple observation that the comparison of two similar solids is effected by the comparison of the cubes of their sides, is the mathematical groundwork of this fanciful expression.

There is some difficulty in explaining the steps by which the number , 729 is obtained ; the oligarch is removed in the third degree from the royal and aristocratical, and the tyrant in the third degree from the oligarchical ; but we have to arrange the terms as the sides of a square and to count the oligarch twice over, thus reckoning them not as = 5 but as = 9. The square of 9 is passed lightly over as only a step towards the cube. 3.

Towards the close of the Republic, Plato seems to be more and more convinced of the ideal character of his own speculations. At the end of the 9th Book the pattern which is in heaven takes the place of the city of philosophers on earth. The vision which has received form and substance at his hands, is now discovered to be at a distance. And yet this distant kingdom is also the rule of man's life (Bk. vii.

540 E). ('Say not lo ! here, or lo ! there, for the kingdom of Ciod is within you.') Thus a note is struck which prepares for the revelation of a future VOL. III. — 10

BOOK X. Many things pleased me in the order of our State, steph. but there was nothing which I liked better than the regulation 595 about poetry. The division of the soul throws a new light on our exclusion of imitation. I do not mind telling you in confidence that all poetry is an outrage on the understanding, unless the hearers have that balm of knowledge which heals error.

I have loved Homer ever since I was a boy, and even now he appears to me to be the great master of tragic poetry. But much as I love the man, I love truth more, and therefore I must speak out : and first of all, will you explain what is imitation, for really I do not understand? * How likely then that I should understand ! ' That might very well be, for the duller often 596 sees better than the keener eye.

'True, but in your presence I can hardly venture to say what I think. Then suppose that we begin in our old fashion, with the doctrine of universals. Let us assume the existence of beds and tables. There is one idea of a bed, or of a table, which the maker of each had in his mind when making them ; he did not make the ideas of beds and tables, but he made beds and tables according to the ideas.

And is there not a maker of the works of all workmen, who makes not only vessels but plants and animals, himself, the earth and heaven, and things in heaven and under the earth ? He makes the Gods also. ' He must be a wizard indeed ! ' But do you not see that there is a sense in which you could do the same ? You have only to take a mirror, and catch the reflection of the sun, and the earth, or anything else — there now you have made them.

'Yes, but only in appearance. Exactly so ; and the painter is such a creator as you are with the mirror, and he is even more unreal than the carpenter; although neither the carpenter nor any other artist can be supposed to make 597 the absolute bed. 'Not if philosophers maybe believed. Nor need we wonder that his bed has but an imperfect relation to the truth.

Reflect: — Here are three beds; one in nature, which is made by God; another, which is made by the carpenter; and the third, by the painter. God only made one, nor could he have made more than one; for if there had been two, there

Ajialysis 597-600. cxlvii would always have been a third — more absolute and abstract Republic x. than either, under which they would have been included. We Analysis. may therefore conceive God to be the natural maker of the bed, and in a lower sense the carpenter is also the maker ; but the painter is rather the imitator of what the other two make; he has to do with a creation which is thrice removed from reality.

And the tragic poet is an imitator, and, like every other imitator, is thrice removed from the king and from the truth. The painter 598 imitates not the original bed, but the bed made by the carpenter. And this, without being really different, appears to be different, and has many points of view, of which only one is caught by the painter, who represents everything because he represents a piece oi everything, and that piece an image.

And he can paint any other artist, although he knows nothing of their arts; and this with sufficient skill to deceive children or simple people. Suppose now that somebody came to us and told us, how he had met a man who knew all that everybody knows, and better than anybody : — should we not infer him to be a simpleton who, having no discernment of truth and falsehood, had met with a wizard or enchanter, whom he fancied to be all-wise ?

And when we hear persons saying that Homer and the tragedians know all the arts and all the virtues, must we not infer that they are 599 under a similar delusion ? they do not see that the poets are imitators, and that their creations are only imitations. * Very true.

But if a person could create as well as imitate, he would rather leave some permanent work and not an imitation only; he would rather be the receiver than the giver of praise? * Yes, for then he would have more honour and advantage. Let us now interrogate Homer and the poets.

Friend Homer, say I to him, I am not going to ask you about medicine, or any art to which your poems incidentally refer, but about their main subjects — war, military tactics, politics. If you are only twice and not thrice removed from the truth — not an imitator or an image-maker, please to inform us what good you have ever done to mankind?

Is there any city which professes to have received laws from you, as Sicily and Italy have from Charondas, 600 Sparta from Lycurgus, Athens from Solon ? Or was any war ever carried on by your counsels? or is any invention attributed to you, as there is to Thales and Anacharsis ? Or is there any

cxlviii Analysis 600-602. Republic X. Hoiiicric way of life, such as the Pythagorean was, in which you Analysis. instructed men, and which is called after you ? ' No, indeed ; and Creophylus [Flesh-child] was even more unfortunate in his breeding than he was in his name, if, as tradition says. Homer in his lifetime was allowed by him and his other friends to starve.

Yes, but could this ever have happened if Homer had really been the educator of Hellas ? Would he not have had many devoted followers ?

If Protagoras and Prodicus can persuade their contemporaries that no one can manage house or State without them, is it likely that Homer and Hesiod would have been allowed to go about as beggars — I mean if they had really been able to do the world any good ? — would not men have compelled them to stay where they were, or have followed them about in order to get education?

But they did not; and therefore we may infer that Homer and all the poets are only imitators, who do but imitate the appearances of things.

For 601 as a painter by a knowledge of figure and colour can paint a cobbler without any practice in cobbling, so the poet can delineate any art in the colours of language, and give harmony and rhythm to the cobbler and also to the general; and you know how mere narration, when deprived of the ornaments of metre, is like a face which has lost the beauty of youth and never had any other.

Once more, the imitator has no knowledge of reality, but only of appearance. The painter paints, and the artificer makes a bridle and reins, but neither understands the use of them — the knowledge of this is confined to the horseman; and so of other things. Thus we have three arts: one of use, another of invention, a third of imitation ; and the user furnishes the rule to the two others.

The flute-player will know the good and bad flute, and the maker will put faith in him ; but the imitator will neither know nor have faith — neither science 602 nor true opinion can be ascribed to him. Imitation, then, is devoid of knowledge, being only a kind of play or sport, and the tragic and epic poets are imitators in the highest degree. And now let us enquire, what is the faculty in man which answers to imitation.

Allow me to explain my meaning: Objects are differently seen when in the water and when out of the water, when near and when at a distance; and the painter or juggler makes use of this variation to impose upon us. And

Analysis 602-605. cxlix the art of measuring and weighing and calculating comes in to Republic x. save our bewildered minds from the power of appearance ; for, analysis. >03 as we were saying, two contrary opinions of the same about the same and at the same time, cannot both of them be true.

But which of them is true is determined by the art of calculation; and this is allied to the better faculty in the soul, as the arts of imitation are to the worse. And the same holds of the ear as well as of the eye, of poetry as well as painting. The imitation is of actions voluntary or involuntary, in which there is an expectation of a good or bad result, and present experience of pleasure and pain.

But is a man in harmony with himself when he is the subject of these conflicting influences ? Is there not rather a contradiction in him ? Let me further ask, whether )04 he is more likely to control sorrow when he is alone or when he is in company. Mn the latter case.

Feeling would lead him to indulge his sorrow, but reason and law control him and enjoin patience ; since he cannot know whether his affliction is good or evil, and no human thing is of any great consequence, while sorrow is certainly a hindrance to good counsel. For when we stumble, we should not, like children, make an uproar ; we should take the measures which reason prescribes, not raising a lament, but finding a cure.

And the better part of us is ready to follow reason, while the irrational principle is full of sorrow and distraction at the recollection of our troubles. Unfortunately, however, this latter furnishes the chief materials of the imitative arts. Whereas reason is ever in repose and cannot easily be displayed, especially to a mixed 305 multitude who have no experience of her.

Thus the poet is like the painter in two ways : first he paints an inferior degree of truth, and secondly, he is concerned with an inferior part of the soul. He indulges the feelings, while he enfeebles the reason ; and we refuse to allow him to have authority over the mind of man ; for he has no measure of greater and less, and is a maker of images and very far gone from truth.

But we have not yet mentioned the heaviest count in the indictment — the power which poetry has of injuriously exciting the feelings. When we hear some passage in which a hero laments his sufferings at tedious length, you know that we sympathize with him and praise the poet ; and yet in our own

cl Analysis 605-608. Republic X. sorrows such an exhibition of feeling is regarded as effeminate Analysis. 3-nd unmanly (cp. Ion, 535 E). Now, ought a man to feel pleasure in seeing another do what he hates and abominates in himself?

Is he not giving way to a sentiment which in his own case he 606 would control? — he is off his guard because the sorrow is another's; and he thinks that he may indulge his feelings without disgrace, and will be the gainer by the pleasure. But the inevitable consequence is that he who begins by weeping at the sorrows of others, will end by weeping at his own.

The same is true of comedy, — you may often laugh at buffoonery which you would be ashamed to utter, and the love of coarse merriment on the stage will at last turn you into a buffoon at home. Poetry feeds and waters the passions and desires ; she lets them rule instead of ruling them.

And therefore, when we hear the encomiasts of Homer affirming that he is the educator of Hellas, and that all life should be regulated by his precepts, 607 we may allow the excellence of their intentions, and agree with them in thinking Homer a great poet and tragedian. But we I shall continue to prohibit all poetry which goes beyond hymns ' to the Gods and praises of famous men. Not pleasure and pain, but law and reason shall rule in our State.

These are our grounds for expelling poetry ; but lest she should charge us with discourtesy, let us also make an apology to her. We will remind her that there is an ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy, of which there are many traces in the writings of the poets, such as the saying of ' the she-dog, yelping at her mistress,' and 'the philosophers who are ready to circumvent Zeus,' and 'the philosophers who are paupers.

Nevertheless we bear her no ill-will, and will gladly allow her to return upon condition that she makes a defence of herself in verse ; and her supporters who are not poets may speak in prose. We confess her charms ; but if she cannot show that she is useful as well as delightful, like rational lovers, we must renounce our love, though endeared to us by early associations.

Having come to years of discretion, we know that poetry is not 608 truth, and that a man should be careful how he introduces her to that state or constitution which he himself is ; for there is a mighty issue at stake — no less than the good or evil of a human soul. And it is not worth while to forsake justice and virtue

Analysis 608-611. cli for the attractions of poetry, any more than for the sake of Republic x. honour or wealth. ' I agree with you. Analysis. And yet the rewards of virtue are greater far than I have described. 'And can we conceive things greater still.'" Not, perhaps, in this brief span of life: but should an immortal being care about anything short of eternity ? * I do not understand what you mean ?

' Do you not know that the soul is immortal ? * Surely you arc not prepared to prove that ? ' Indeed I am. ' Then let me hear this argument, of which you make so light. 60Q Yo'^ would admit that everything has an element of good and of evil. In all things there is an inherent corruption; and if this cannot destroy them, nothing else will. The soul too has her own corrupting principles, which are injustice, intemperance, cowardice, and the like.

But none of these destroy the soul in the same sense that disease destroys the body. The soul may be full of all iniquities, but is not, by reason of them, brought any nearer to death. Nothing which was not destroyed from within ever perished by external affection of evil. The body, which 610 is one thing, cannot be destroyed by food, which is another, unless the badness of the food is communicated to the body.

Neither can the soul, which is one thing, be corrupted by the body, which is another, unless she herself is infected. And as no bodily evil can infect the soul, neither can any bodily evil, whether disease or violence, or any other destroy the soul, unless it can be shown to render her unholy and unjust. But no one will ever prove that the souls of men become more unjust when they die.

If a person has the audacity to say the contrary, the answer is — Then why do criminals require the hand of the executioner, and not die of themselves? 'Truly,' he said, ' injustice would not be very terrible if it brought a cessation of evil ; but I rather believe that the injustice which murders others may tend to quicken and stimulate the life of the unjust. You are quite right.

If sin which is her own natural and inherent evil cannot destroy the soul, hardly will anything else 611 destroy her. But the soul which cannot be destroyed either by internal or external evil must be immortal and everlasting. And if this be true, souls will always exist in the same number.

They cannot diminish, because they cannot be destroyed ; nor yet increase, for the increase of the immortal must come from someclii Aiialysis 611-614. i\epublic X. thing mortal, and so all would end in immortality. Neither is Analysis. the soul variable and diverse ; for that which is immortal must be of the fairest and simplest composition.

If we would conceive her truly, and so behold justice and injustice in their own nature, she must be viewed by the light of reason pure as at birth, or as she is reflected in philosophy when holding converse with the divine and immortal and eternal.

In her present condition we see her only like the sea-god Glaucus, bruised and maimed in the sea which is the world, and covered with shells 612 and stones which are incrusted upon her from the entertainments of earth.

Thus far, as the argument required, we have said nothing of the rewards and honours which the poets attribute to justice ; we have contented ourselves with showing that justice in herself is best for the soul in herself, even if a man should put on a Gyges' ring and have the helmet of Hades too.

And now you shall repay me what you borrowed ; and I will enumerate the rewards of justice in life and after death, I granted, for the sake of argument, as you will remember, that evil might perhaps escape the knowledge of Gods and men, although this was really impossible. And since I have shown that justice has reality, you must grant me also that she has the palm of appearance.

In the first place, the just man is known to the Gods, and he is therefore the friend of the Gods, and he will 613 receive at their hands every good, always excepting such evil as is the necessary consequence of former sins. All things end in good to him, either in life or after death, even what appears to be evil; for the Gods have a care of him who desires to be in their likeness. And what shall we say of men ? Is not honesty the best policy ?

The clever rogue makes a great start at first, but breaks down before he reaches the goal, and slinks away in dishonour; whereas the true runner perseveres to the end, and receives the prize.

And you must allow me to repeat all the blessings which you attributed to the fortunate unjust — they bear rule in the city, they marry and give in marriage to whom they will; and the evils which you attributed to the unfortunate just, do really fall in the end on the unjust, although, as you implied, their sufferings are better veiled in silence. But all the blessings of this present life are as nothing when 614

Afialysis 614-616. cliii compared with those which await good men after death. ' I Republic x. should Hke to hear about them. Come, then, and I will tell you analysis. the story of Er, the son of Armenius, a valiant man. He was supposed to have died in battle, but ten days afterwards his body was found untouched by corruption and sent home for burial.

On the twelfth day he was placed on the funeral pyre and there he came to life again, and told what he had seen in the world below. He said that his soul went with a great company to a place, in which there were two chasms near together in the earth beneath, and two corresponding chasms in the heaven above.

And there were judges sitting in the intermediate space, bidding the just ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand, having the seal of their judgment set upon them before, while the unjust, having the seal behind, were bidden to descend by the way on the left hand. Him they told to look and listen, as he was to be their messenger to men from the world below.

And he beheld and saw the souls departing after judgment at either chasm ; some, who came from earth, were worn and travel-stained; others, who came from heaven, were clean and bright. They seemed glad to meet and rest awhile in the meadow; here they discoursed with 615 one another of what they had seen in the other world.

Those who came from earth wept at the remembrance of their sorrows, but the spirits from above spoke of glorious sights and heavenly bliss. He said that for every evil deed they were punished tenfold — now the journey was of a thousand years' duration, because the life of man was reckoned as a hundred years — and the rewards of virtue were in the same proportion.

He added some- I thing hardly worth repeating about infants dying almost as soon as they were born. Of parricides and other murderers he had tortures still more terrible to narrate. He was present when one of the spirits asked — Where is Ardiaeus the Great? (This Ardiaeus was a cruel tyrant, who had murdered his father, and his elder brother, a thousand years before.) Another spirit answered, * He comes not hither, and will never come.

And I myself,' he added, * actually saw this terrible sight. At the entrance of the chasm, as we were about to reascend, Ardiaeus appeared, and some other sinners — most of whom had been tyrants, but not all — and just as they fancied that they were returning to life, the chasm 616 gave a roar, and then wild, fiery-looking men who knew the

cliv Analysis CiG, 617. Republic X. meaning of the sound, seized him and several others, and bound Analysis. them hand and foot and threw them down, and dragged them along at the side of the road, lacerating them and carding them like wool, and explaining to the passers-by, that they were going to be cast into hell.

The greatest terror of the pilgrims ascending was lest they should hear the voice, and when there was silence one by one they passed up with joy. To these sufferings there were corresponding delights. On the eighth day the souls of the pilgrims resumed their journey, and in four days came to a spot whence they looked down upon a line of light, in colour like a rainbow, only brighter and clearer.

One day more brought them to the place, and they saw that this was the column of light which binds together the whole universe. The ends of the column were fastened to heaven, and from them hung the distaff of Necessity, on which all the heavenly bodies turned — the hook and spindle were of adamant, and the whorl of a mixed substance.

The whorl was in form like a number of boxes fitting into one another with their edges turned upwards, making together a single whorl which was pierced by the spindle. The outermost had the rim broadest, and the inner whorls were smaller and smaller, and had their rims narrower.

The largest (the fixed stars) was spangled — the seventh (the sun) was brightest — the eighth (the moon) shone by the light of the seventh — the second and fifth (Saturn and Mercury) 617 were most like one another and yellower than the eighth — the third (Jupiter) had the whitest light — the fourth (Mars) was red — the sixth (Venus) was in whiteness second.

The whole had one motion, but while this was revolving in one direction the seven inner circles were moving in the opposite, with various degrees of swiftness and slowness.

The spindle turned on the knees of Necessity, and a Siren stood hymning upon each circle, while Lachesis, Clotho, and Atropos, the daughters of Necessity, sat on thrones at equal intervals, singing of past, present, and future, responsive to the music of the Sirens ; Clotho from time to time guiding the outer circle with a touch of her right hand ; Atropos with her left hand touching and guiding the inner circles ; Lachesis in turn putting forth her hand from time to time to guide both of them. On their arrival the pilgrims went to Lachesis, and there was an interpreter who arranged them, and taking from her

Analysis 617-619. civ knees lots, and samples of lives, got up into a pulpit and said : Republic x. * Mortal souls, hear the words of Lachesis, the daughter of Ne- analysis. cessity. A new period of mortal life has begun, and you may I choose what divinity you please; the responsibihty of choosing 6181 is with you — God is blameless. After speaking thus, he cast the lots among them and each one took up the lot which fell near him.

He then placed on the ground before them the samples of lives, many more than the souls present ; and there were all sorts of lives, of men and of animals. There were tyrannies ending in misery and exile, and lives of men and women famous for their different qualities ; and also mixed lives, made up of wealth and poverty, sickness and health.

Here, Glaucon, is the great risk of human life, and therefore* the whole of education should be directed to the acquisition of such a knowledge as will teach a man to refuse the evil and choose the good.

He should know all the combinations which occur in life — of beauty with poverty or with wealth, — of knowledge with external goods, — and at last choose with reference to the nature of the soul, regarding that only as the better life which makes men better, and leaving the rest.

And 619 a man must take with him an iron sense of truth and right into the world below, that there too he may remain undazzled by wealth C , or the allurements of evil, and be determined to avoid the extremes '^ 'and choose the mean.

For this, as the messenger reported the interpreter to have said, is the true happiness of man ; and any one, as he proclaimed, may, if he choose with understanding, have a good lot, even though he come last. * Let not the first be careless in his choice, nor the last despair.

He spoke ; and when he had spoken, he who had drawn the first lot chose a tyranny : he did not see that he was fated to devour his own children — and when he discovered his mistake, he wept and beat his breast, blaming chance and the Gods and anybody rather than himself. He was one of those who had come from heaven, and in his previous life had been a citizen of a well-ordered State, but he had only habit and no philosophy.

Like many another, he made a bad choice, because he had no experience of life ; whereas those who came from earth and had seen trouble were not in such a hurry to choose. But if a man had followed philosophy while upon earth, and had been moderately fortunate in his lot, he might not only be happy here, but his pilgrimage both from and

clvi Analysis 619-621. Republic X. to this world would be smooth and heavenly. Nothing was more Analysis. curious than the spectacle of the choice, at once sad and laughable and wonderful ; most of the souls only seeking to avoid their own condition in a previous life.

He saw the soul of Orpheus changing 620 into a swan because he would not be born of a woman ; there was Thamyras becoming a nightingale; musical birds, like the swan, choosing to be men ; the twentieth soul, which was that of Ajax, preferring the life of a lion to that of a man, in remembrance of the injustice which was done to him in the judgment of the arms; and Agamemnon, from a like enmity to human nature, passing into an eagle.

About the middle was the soul of Atalanta choosing the honours of an athlete, and next to her Epeus taking the nature of a workwoman ; among the last was Thersites, who was changing himself into a monkey. Thither, the last of all, came Odysseus, and sought the lot of a private man, which lay neglected and despised, and when he found it he went away rejoicing, and said that if he had been first instead of last, his choice would have been the same.

Men, too, were seen passing into animals, and wild and tame animals changing into one another. When all the souls had chosen they went to Lachesis, who sent with each of them their genius or attendant to fulfil their lot.

He first of all brought them under the hand of Clotho, and drew them within the revolution of the spindle impelled by her hand ; from her they were carried to Atropos, who made the threads irreversible; whence, without turning round, they passed beneath 621 the throne of Necessity; and when they had all passed, they moved on in scorching heat to the plain of Forgetfulness and rested at evening by the river Unmindful, whose water could not be retained in any vessel ; of this they had all to drink a certain quantity — some of them drank more than was required, and he who drank forgot all things.

Er himself was prevented from drinking. When they had gone to rest, about the middle of the night there were thunderstorms and earthquakes, and suddenly they were all driven divers ways, shooting like stars to their birth. Concerning his return to the body, he only knew that awaking suddenly in the morning he found himself lying on the pyre.

Thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved, and will be our salvation, if we believe that the soul is immortal, and hold fast to the

IV/iy ivas Plato the enemy of the poets ? clvii heavenly way of Justice and Knowledge. So shall we pass Republic x. Lindefiled over the river of Forgetfulness, and be dear to ourselves analysis. and to the Gods, and have a crown of reward and happiness both in this world and also in the millennial pilgrimage of the other.

The Tenth Book of the Republic of Plato falls into two divisions : Introducfirst, resuming an old thread which has been interrupted, ^'°^* Socrates assails the poets, who, now that the nature of the soul has been analyzed, are seen to be very far gone from the truth ; and secondly, having shown the reality of the happiness of the just, he demands that appearance shall be restored to him, and then proceeds to prove the immortality of the soul.

The argument, as in the Phaedo and Gorgias, is supplemented by the vision of a future life.

Why Plato, who was himself a poet, and whose dialogues are poems and dramas, should have been hostile to the poets as a class, and especially to the dramatic poets ; why he should not have seen that truth may be embodied in verse as well as in prose, and that there are some indefinable lights and shadows of human life which can only be expressed in poetry — some elements of imagination which always entwine with reason ; why he should have supposed epic verse to be inseparably associated with the impurities of the old Hellenic mythology; why he should try Homer and Hesiod by the unfair and prosaic test of utility, — are questions which have always iDeen debated amongst students of Plato.

Though unable to give a complete answer to them, we may show — first, that his views arose naturally out of the circumstances of his age ; and secondly, we may elicit the truth as w^ell as the error which is contained in them. He is the enemy of the poets because poetry was declining in his own lifetime, and a theatrocracy, as he says in the Laws (iii. 701 A), had taken the place of an intellectual aristocracy.

Euripides exhibited the last phase of the tragic drama, and in him Plato saw the friend and apologist of tyrants, and the Sophist of tragedy. The old comedy was almost extinct ; the new had not yet arisen. Dramatic and lyric poetry, like every other branch of Greek literature, was falling under the power of rhetoric. There was no 'second or third' to y^schylus and

clviii Why was Plato the enemy of the poets ? Republic X. Sophoclcs in the generation which followed them. Aristophanes, Introduc- in one of his later comedies (Frogs, 89 foil.), speaks of ' thousands of tragedy-making prattlers, whose attempts at poetry he compares to the chirping of swallows ; ' their garrulity went far beyond Euripides,' — ' they appeared once upon the stage, and there was an end of them.

To a man of genius who had a real appreciation of the godlike ^schylus and the noble and gentle Sophocles, though disagreeing with some parts of their ' theology ' (Rep. ii. 380), these 'minor poets' must have been contemptible and intolerable. There is no feeling stronger in the dialogues of Plato than a sense of the decline and decay both in literature and in politics which marked his own age.

Nor can he have been expected to look with favour on the licence of Aristophanes, now at the end of his career, who had begun by satirizing Socrates in the Clouds, and in a similar spirit forty years afterwards had satirized the founders of ideal commonwealths in his Eccleziazusae, or Female Parliament (cp. x. 606 C, and Laws ii. 658 ff. ; 817). There were other-reasons for the antagonism of Plato to poetry.

The profession of an actor was regarded by him as a degradation of human nature, for 'one man in his life' cannot 'play many parts ; ' the characters which the actor performs seem to destroy his own character, and to leave nothing which can be truly called himself. Neither can any man live his life and act it. The actor is the slave of his art, not the master of it.

Taking this view Plato is more decided in his expulsion of the dramatic than of the epic poets, though he must have known that the Greek tragedians afforded noble lessons and examples of virtue and patriotism, to which nothing in Homer can be compared. But great dramatic or even great rhetorical power is hardly consistent with firmness or strength of mind, and dramatic talent is often incidentally associated with a weak or dissolute character.

In the Tenth Book Plato introduces a new series of objections. First, he says that the poet or painter is an imitator, and in the third degree removed from the truth. His creations are not tested by rule and measure ; they are only appearances. In modern times we should say that art is not merely imitation, but rather the expression of the ideal in forms of sense. Even adopting the humble image of Plato, from which his argument derives a colour, we should maintain that the artist

IVAjy was Plato the cnony of the poets ? clix may ennoble the bed which he paints by the folds of the drapery, Republic X. or by the feehng of home which he introduces ; and there have Introducbeen modern painters who have imparted such an ideal in- ^'°'^' terest to a blacksmith's or a carpenter's shop.

The eye or mind which feels as well as sees can give dignity and pathos to a ruined mill, or a straw-built shed [Rembrandt], to the hull of a vessel 'going to its last home' [Turner]. Still more would ^ this apply to the greatest works of art, which seem to be the visible embodiment of the divine.

Had Plato been asked whether the Zeus or Athene of Pheidias was the imitation of an imitation only, would he not have been compelled to admit that something more was to be found in them than in the form of any mortal ; and that the rule of proportion to which they conformed was 'higher far than any geometry or arithmetic could express?' (Statesman, 257 A.) Again, Plato objects to the imitative arts that they express the emotional rather than the rational part of human nature.

He does not admit Aristotle's theory, that tragedy or other serious imitations are a purgation of the passions by pity and fear ; to him they appear only to afford the opportunity of indulging them. Yet we must acknowledge that we may sometimes cure disordered emotions by giving expression to them ; and that they often gain strength when pent up within our own breast. It is not every indulgence of the feelings which is to be condemned.

For there may be a gratification of the higher as well as of the lower — thoughts which are too deep or too sad to be expressed by ourselves, may find an utterance in the words of poets. Every one would acknowledge that there have been times when they were consoled and elevated by beautiful music or by the sublimity of architecture or by the peacefulness of nature.

Plato has himself admitted, in the earlier part of the Republic, that the arts might have the effect of harmonizing as well as of enervating the mind ; but in the Tenth Book he regards them through a Stoic or Puritan medium. He asks only * What good have they done ? ' and is not satisfied with the reply, that * They have been of use, or have given pleasure to mankind.

He tells us that he rejoices in the banishment of the poets, since he has found by the analysis of the soul that they are concerned with the inferior faculties. He means to say that

clx Why was Plato the enemy of the poets ? Republic X. thc higher faculties have to do with universals, the lower with Introduc- ' particulars of sense.

Thc poets are on a level with their own age, but not on a level with Socrates and Plato ; and he was well aware that Homer and Hesiod could not be made a rule of life by any process of legitimate interpretation ; his ironical use of them is in fact a denial of their authority ; he saw, too, that the poets were not critics — as he says in the Apology, * Any one was a better interpreter of their writings than they were themselves ' (22 C).

He himself ceased to be a poet when he became a disciple of Socrates; though, as he tells us of Solon, *he might have been one of the greatest of them, if he had not been deterred by other pursuits' (Tim. 21 C). Thus from many points of view there is an antagonism between Plato and the poets, which was foreshadowed to him in the old quarrel between philosophy and poetry.

The poets, as he says in the Protagoras (316 E), were the Sophists of their day; and his dislike of the one class is reflected on the other. He regards them both as the enemies of reasoning and abstraction, though in the case of Euripides more with reference to his immoral sentiments about tyrants and the like.

For Plato is the prophet 1 who ' came into the world to convince men ' — first of the fallibility ( of sense and opinion, and secondly of the reality of abstract ideas. Whatever strangeness there may be in modern times in opposing philosophy to poetry, which to us seem to have so many elements in common, the strangeness will disappear if we conceive of poetry as allied to sense, and of philosophy as equivalent to thought and abstraction.

Unfortunately the very word ' idea,' which to Plato is expressive of the most real of all things, is associated in our minds with an element of subjectiveness and unreality. We may note also how he differs from Aristotle who declares ; poetry to be truer than history, for the opposite reason, because it is concerned with universals, not like history, with particulars (Poet. c. 9, 3).

The things which are seen are opposed in Scripture to the things which are unseen — they are equally opposed in Plato to universals and ideas. To him all particulars appear to be floating about in a world of sense ; they have a taint of error or even of evil. There is no difficulty in seeing that this is an illusion ; for there is no more error or variation in an individual man, horse.

JV/tjf was Plato the enemy of the poets ? clxi bed, etc. , than in the classes to which they respectively belong ; nor Repubik x. is the truth which is displayed in individual instances less certain Introducthan that which is conveyed through the medium of ideas.

But '^'°''* Plato, who is deeply impressed with the real importance of universal as instruments of thought, attributes to them an essential truth which is imaginary and unreal ; for universals may be often false and particulars true.

Had he attained to any clear conception of the individual, which is the synthesis of the universal and the particular ; or had he been able to distinguish between opinion and sensation, which the ambiguity of the words 66^a^ <(>aiveadai, elude and the like, tended to confuse, he would not have denied truth to the particulars of sense.

But the poets are also the representatives of falsehood and feigning in all departments of life and knowledge, like the sophists and rhetoricians of the Gorgias and Phaedrus ; they are the false priests, false prophets, lying spirits, enchanters of the world. There is another count put into the indictment against them by Plato, that they are the friends of the tyrant, and bask in the sunshine of his patronage.

Despotism in all ages has had an apparatus of false ideas and false teachers at its service — in the history of Modern Europe as well as of Greece and Rome. For no government of men depends solely upon force ; without some corruption of literature and morals — some appeal to the imagination of the masses — some pretence to the favour of heaven — some element of good giving power to evil (cp. i.

352), tyranny, even for a short time, cannot be maintained. The Greek tyrants were not insensible to the importance of awakening in their cause a Pseudo-Hellenic feeling ; they were proud of successes at the Olympic games ; they were not devoid of the love of literature and art.

Plato is thinking in the first instance of Greek poets who had graced the courts of Dionysius or Archelaus: and the old spirit of freedom is roused within him at their prostitution of the Tragic Muse in the praises of tyranny. But his prophetic eye extends beyond them to the false teachers of other ages who are the creatures of the government under which they live.

He compares the corruption of his contemporaries with the idea of a perfect society, and gathers up into one mass of evil the evils and errors of mankind; to him they are personified in the VOL. III. II

clxii Why was Plato the enemy of the poets? Republic X. rhctoi'icians, sophists, poets, rulers who deceive and govern the Introduc- world. A further objection which Plato makes to poetry and the imitative arts is that they excite the emotions. Here the modern reader will be disposed to introduce a distinction which appears to have escaped him.

For the emotions are neither bad nor good in themselves, and are not most likely to be controlled by the attempt to eradicate them, but by the moderate indulgence of them. And the vocation of art is to present thought in the form of feeling, to enlist the feelings on the side of reason, to inspire even for a moment courage or resignation; perhaps to suggest a sense of infinity and eternity in a way which mere language is incapable of attaining.

True, the same power which in the purer age of art embodies gods and heroes only, may be made to express the voluptuous image of a Corinthian courtezan. But this only shows that art, like other outward things, may be turned to good and also to evil, and is not more closely connected with the higher than with the lower part of the soul.

All imitative art is subject to certain limitations, and therefore necessarily partakes of the nature of a compromise. Something of ideal truth is sacrificed for the sake of the representation, and something in the exactness of the representation is sacrificed to the ideal. Still, works of art have a permanent element; they idealize and detain the passing thought, and are the intermediates between sense and ideas.

In the present stage of the human mind, poetry and other forms of fiction may certainly be regarded as a good. But we can also imagine the existence of an age in which a severer conception of truth has either banished or transformed them. At any rate we must admit that they hold a different place at different periods of the world's history.

In the infancy of mankind, poetry, with the exception of proverbs, is the whole of literature, and the only instrument of intellectual culture ; in modern times she is the shadow or echo of her former self, and appears to have a precarious existence. Milton in his day doubted whether an epic poem was any longer possible. At the same time we must remember, that what Plato would have called the charms of poetry have been partly transferred

W/ij^ was Plato the enemy of the poets ? clxiii to prose ; he himself (Statesman 304) admits rhetoric to be the Republic x. handmaiden of PoHtics, and proposes to find in the strain of Introduclavv (Laws vii. 811) a substitute for the old poets. Among our- ^'°''' selves the creative power seems often to be growing weaker, and scientific fact to be more engrossing and overpowering to the mind than formerly.

The illusion of the feelings. commonly called love, has hitherto been the inspiring influence of modern poetry and romance, and has exercised a humanizing if not a strengthening influence on the world. But may not the stimulus ! which love has given to fancy be some day exhausted?

The modern English novel which is the most popular of all forms of reading is not more than a century or two old : will the tale of love a hundred years hence, after so many thousand variations of the same theme, be still received with unabated interest ? Art cannot claim to be on a level with philosophy or religion, and may often corrupt them.

It is possible to conceive a mental state in which all artistic representations are regarded as a false and imperfect expression, either of the religious ideal or of the philosophical ideal. The fairest forms may be revolting in certain moods of mind, as is proved by the fact that the Mahometans, and many sects of Christians, have renounced the use of pictures and images.

The beginning of a great religion, whether Christian or Gentile, has not been '• wood or stone,' but a spirit moving in the hearts of men. The disciples have met in a large upper room or in * holes and caves of the earth ' ; in the second or third generation, they have had mosques, temples, churches, monasteries.

And the revival or reform of religions, like the first revelation of them, has come from within and has generally disregarded external ceremonies and accompaniments. But poetry and art may also be the expression of the highest truth and the purest sentiment.

Plato himself seems to waver between two opposite views — when, as in the third Book, he insists that youth should be brought up amid wholesome imagery; and again in Book x, when he banishes the poets from his Republic. Admitting that the arts, which some of us almost deify, have fallen short of their higher aim, we must admit on the other hand that to banish imagination wholly would be suicidal

clxiv Why was Plato the enemy of the poets? Republic X. as wcU as impossible. For nature too is a form of art ; and a Introdi;(_- breath of the fresh air or a single glance at the varying land- TioN. scape would in an instant revive and reillumine the extinguished spark of poetry in the human breast.

In the lower ll stages of civilization imagination more than reason distinguishes 'man from the animals; and to banish art would be to banish thought, to banish language, to banish the expression of all truth. No religion is wholly devoid of external forms ; even the Mahometan who renounces the use of pictures and images has a temple in which he worships the Most High, as solemn and beautiful as any Greek or Christian building.

Feeling too and thought are not really opposed ; for he who thinks must feel before he can execute. And the highest thoughts, when they become familiarized to us, are always tending to pass into the form of feeling. Plato does not seriously intend to expel poets from life and society.

But he feels strongly the unreality of their writings ; he is protesting against the degeneracy of poetry in his own day as we might protest against the want of serious purpose in modern fiction, against the unseemliness or extravagance of some of our poets or novelists, against the time-serving of preachers or public writers, against the regardlessness of truth which to the eye of the philosopher seems to characterize the greater part of the world.

For we too have reason to complain that our poets and novelists ' paint inferior truth ' and * are concerned with the inferior part of the soul ' ; that the readers of them become what they read and are injuriously affected by them. And we look in vain for that healthy atmosphere of which Plato speaks, — 'the beauty which meets the sense like a breeze and imperceptibly draws the soul, even in childhood, into harmony with the beauty of reason.

For there might be a poetry which would be the hymn of divine perfection, the harmony of goodness and truth among men : a strain which should renew the youth of the world, and bring back the ages in which the poet was man's only teacher and best friend, — which would find materials in the living present as well as in the romance of the past, and might subdue to the fairest forms of speech and verse the intractable materials of modern civilization, — which might ehcit the simple principles, or, as Plato

W/if was Plato the enemy of the poets ? clxv would have called them, the essential forms, of truth and justice Repuhik x. out of the variety of opinion and the complexity of modern introducsociety, — which would preserve all the good of each generation ^'"''' and leave the bad unsung, — which should be based not on vain longings or faint imaginings, but on a clear insight into the nature of man.

Then the tale of love might begin again in poetry or prose, two in one, united in the pursuit of knowledge, or the service of God and man ; and feelings of love might still be the incentive to great though4:s and heroic deeds as in the days of Dante or Petrarch ; and many types of manly and womanly beauty might appear among us, rising above the ordinary level of humanity, and many lives which were like poems (Laws vii.

817 B), be not only written, but lived by us. A few such strains have been heard among men in the tragedies of y^schylus and Sophocles, whom Plato quotes, not, as Homer is quoted by him, in irony, but with deep and serious approval, — in the poetry of Milton and Wordsworth, and in passages of other English poets, — first and above all in the Hebrew prophets and psalmists.

Shakespeare has taught us how great men should speak and act ; he has drawn characters of a wonderful purity and depth ; he has ennobled the human mind, but, like Homer (Rep. x. 599 foil.), he 'has left no way of life.

The next greatest poet of modern times, Goethe, is concerned with * a lower degree of truth ' ; he paints the world as a stage on which * all the men and women are merely players ' ; he cultivates life as an art, but he furnishes no ideals of truth and action. The poet may rebel against any attempt to set limits to his fancy ; and he may argue truly that moralizing in verse is not poetry.

Possibly, like Mephistopheles in Faust, he may retaliate on his advei'saries. But the philosopher will still be justified in asking, ' How may the heavenly gift of poesy be devoted to the good of mankind ? ' Returning to Plato, we may observe that a similar mixture of truth and error appears in other parts of the argument.

He is aware of the absurdity of mankind framing their whole lives according to Homer; just as in the Phaedrus he intimates the absurdity of interpreting mythology upon rational principles; both these were the modern tendencies of his own age, which he deservedly ridicules. On the other hand, his argument that

clxvi The arginnent for immortality. Republic X. Homcr, if he had been able to teach mankind anything worth Introduc- knowing, would not have been allowed by them to go about TioN. begging as a rhapsodist, is both false and contrary to the spirit of Plato (cp. Rep. vi. 489 A foil.).

It may be compared with those other paradoxes of the Gorgias, that ' No statesman was ever unjustly put to death by the city of which he was the head'; and that 'No Sophist was ever defrauded by his pupils' (Gorg. 519 foil.) The argument for immortality seems to rest on the absolute dualism of soul and body. Admitting the existence of the soul, we know of no force which is able to put an end to her.

Vice is her own proper evil; and if she cannot be destroyed by that, she cannot be destroyed by any other.

Yet Plato has acknowledged that the soul may be so overgrown by the incrustations of earth as to lose her original form ; and in the \ Timaeus he recognizes more strongly than in the Republic the influence which the body has over the mind, denying even : the voluntariness of human actions, on the ground that they f proceed from physical states (Tim. 86, 87).

In the Republic, as elsewhere, he wavers between the original soul which has to be restored, and the character which is developed by training and education The vision of another world is ascribed to Er, the son of Armenius, who is said by Clement of Alexandria to have been Zoroaster. The tale has certainly an oriental character, and may be compared with the pilgrimages of the soul in the Zend Avesta (cp. Haug, Avesta, p. 197).

But no trace of acquaintance with Zoroaster is found elsewhere in Plato's writings, and there is no reason for giving him the name of Er the Pamphylian. The philosophy of Heracleitus cannot be shown to be borrowed from Zoroaster, and still less the myths of Plato. The local arrangement of the vision is less distinct than that of the Phaedrus and Phaedo.

Astronomy is mingled with symbolism and mythology ; the great sphere of heaven is represented under the symbol of a cylinder or box, containing the seven orbits of the planets and the fixed stars ; this is suspended from an axis or spindle which turns on the knees of Necessity; the revolutions of the seven orbits contained in the cylinder are guided by the fates, and their harmonious motion produces

the music of the spheres. Through the innermost or eighth Republic x. of these, which is the moon, is passed the spindle; but it is Introducdoubtful whether this is the continuation of the column of light, ^'°^- from which the pilgrims contemplate the heavens ; the words of Plato imply that they are connected, but not the same. The column itself is clearly not of adamant.

The spindle (which is of adamant) is fastened to the ends of the chains which extend to the middle of the column of light — this column is said to hold together the heaven ; but whether it hangs from the spindle, or is at right angles to it, is not explained.

The cylinder containing the orbits of the stars is almost as much a symbol as the figure of Necessity turning the spindle; — for the outermost rim is the sphere of the fixed stars, and nothing is said about the intervals of space which divide the paths of the stars in the heavens. The description is both a picture and an orrery, and therefore is necessarily inconsistent with itself.

The column of light is not the Milky Way — which is neither straight, nor like a rainbow — but the imaginary axis of the earth. This is compared to the rainbow in respect not of form but of colour, and not to the undergirders of a trireme, but to the straight rope running from prow to stern in which the undergirders meet.

The orrery or picture of the heavens given in the Republic differs in its mode of representation from the circles hi the same and of the other in the Timaeus. In both the fixed stars are distinguished from the planets, and they move in orbits without them, although in an opposite direction : in the Republic as in the Timaeus (40 B) they are all moving round the axis of the world.

But we are not certain that in the former they are moving round the earth. No distinct mention is made in the Republic of the circles of the same and other; although • both in the Timaeus and in the Republic the motion of the fixed stars is supposed to coincide with the motion of the whole. The relative thickness of the rims is perhaps designed to express the relative distances of the planets.

Plato probably intended to represent the earth, from which Er and his companions are viewing the heavens, as stationary in place ; but whether or not herself revolving, unless this is implied in the revolution of the axis, is uncertain (cp. Timaeus). The spectator

clxviii The choice of the lots. Republic X. may be supposed to look at the heavenly bodies, either from Introduc- above or below. The earth is a sort of earth and heaven in one, like the heaven of the Phaedrus, on the back of which the spectator goes out to take a peep at the stars and is borne round in the revolution. There is no distinction between the equator and the ecliptic.

But Plato is no doubt led to imagine that the planets have an opposite motion to that of the fixed stars, in order to account for their appearances in the heavens. In the description of the meadow, and the retribution of the good and evil after death, there are traces of Homer.

The description of the axis as a spindle, and of the heavenly bodies as forming a whole, partly arises out of the attempt to connect the motions of the heavenly bodies with the mythological image of the web, or weaving of the Fates. The giving of the lots, the weaving of them, and the making of them irreversible, which are ascribed to the three Fates — Lachesis, Clotho, Atropos, are obviously derived from their names.

The element of chance in human life is indicated by the order of the lots. But chance, however adverse, may be overcome by the wisdom of man, if he knows how to choose aright; there is a worse enemy to man than chance ; this enemy is himself. He who was moderately fortunate in the number of the lot — even the very last comer — ■ might have a good life if he chose with wisdom.

And as Plato does not like to make an assertion which is unproven, he more than confirms this statement a few sentences afterwards by the example of Odysseus, who chose last. But the virtue which is founded on habit is not sufficient to enable a man to choose; he must add to virtue knowledge, if he is to act rightly when placed in new circumstances.

The routine of good actions and good habits is an inferior sort of goodness; and, as Coleridge says, ' Common sense is intolerable which is not based on metaphysics,' so Plato would have said, ' Habit is worthless which is not based upon philosophy. The freedom of the will to refuse the evil and to choose the good is distinctly asserted. ' Virtue is free, and as a man honours or dishonours her he will have more or less of her.

The life of man is ' rounded ' by necessity ; there are circumstances prior to birth which affect him (cp. Pol. 273 B). But within the walls of necessity there is an open space in which he is his own master,

The credibility of the visiofis. clxix and can study for himself the effects which the variously com- Republic x. pounded gifts of nature or fortune have upon the soul, and act introdlcaccordingly. All men cannot have the first choice in everything. ^'°'*^" But the lot of all men is good enough, if they choose wisely and will live diligently.

The verisimilitude which is given to the pilgrimage of a thousand years, by the intimation that Ardiaeus had lived a thousand years before ; the coincidence of Er coming to life on the twelfth day after he was supposed to have been dead with the seven days which the pilgrims passed in the meadow, and the four days during which they journeyed to the column of light ; the precision with which the soul is mentioned who chose the twentieth lot ; the passing remarks that there was no definite character among the souls, and that the souls which had chosen ill blamed any one rather than themselves ; or that some of the souls drank more than was necessary of the waters of Forgetfulness, while Er himself was hindered from drinking; the desire of Odysseus to rest at last, unlike the conception of him in Dante and Tennyson ; the feigned ignorance of how Er returned to the body, when the other souls went sliooting like stars to their birth, — add greatly to the probabihty of the narrative.

They are such touches of nature as the art of Defoe might have introduced when he wished to win credibility for marvels and apparitions. There still remain to be considered some points which have been intentionally reserved to the end : (I) the Janus-like character of the Republic, which presents two faces — one an Hellenic state, the other a kingdom of philosophers.

Connected with the latter of the two aspects are (II) the paradoxes of the Republic, as they have been termed by Morgenstern: (a) the community of property; (/'?) of families; (?) the rule of philosophers; (f^) the analogy of the individual and the State, which, like some other analogies in the Republic, is carried too far.

We may then proceed to consider (III) the subject of education as conceived by Plato, bringing together in a general view the education of youth and the education of after-life; (IV) we may note further some essential differences between ancient and modern politics which are suggested by the Republic ;

Spartan features of the Republic. (V) we may compare the Politicus and the Laws; (VI) we may observe the influence exercised by Plato on his imitators; and (VII) take occasion to consider the nature and value of political, and (VIII) of religious ideals. I. Plato expressly says that he is intending to found an Hellenic State (Book v. 470 E).

Many of his regulations are characteristically Spartan ; such as the prohibition of gold and silver, the common meals of the men, the military training of the youth, the gymnastic exercises of the women. The life of Sparta was the life of a camp (Laws ii. 666 E), enforced even more rigidly in time of peace than in war; the citizens of Sparta, like Plato's, were forbidden to trade — they were to be soldiers and not shopkeepers.

Nowhere else in Greece was the individual so completely subjected to the State; the time when he was to marry, the education of his children, the clothes which he was to wear, the food which he was to eat, were all prescribed by law. Some of the best enactments in the Republic, such as the reverence to be paid to parents and elders, and some of the worst, such as the exposure of deformed children, are borrowed from the practice of Sparta.

The encouragement of friendships between men and youths, or of men with one another, as affording incentives to bravery, is also Spartan ; in Sparta too a nearer approach was made than in any other Greek State to equality of the sexes, and to community of property; and while there was probably less of licentiousness in the sense of immorality, the tie of marriage was regarded more lightly than in the rest of Greece.

The * suprema lex ' was the preservation of the family, and the interest of the State. The coarse strength of a military government was not favourable to purity and refinement ; and the excessive strictness of some regulations seems to have produced a reaction.

Of all Hellenes the Spartans were most accessible to bribery ; several of the greatest of them might be described in the words of Plato as having a ' fierce secret longing after gold and silver. Though not in the strict sense communists, the principle of communism was maintained among them in their division of lands, in their common meals, in their slaves, and in the free use of one another's goods.

Marriage was a public institution : and the women were educated by the State, and sang and danced in public with the men.

spartan features of the Republic. clxxi Many traditions were preserved at Sparta of the severity with Introducwhich the magistrates had maintained the primitive rule of music ^'°^' and poetry; as in the Repubhc of Plato, the new-fangled poet was to be expelled. Hymns to the Gods, which are the only kind of music admitted into the ideal State, were the only kind which was permitted at Sparta.

The Spartans, though an unpoetical race, were nevertheless lovers of poetry ; they had been stirred by the Elegiac strains of Tyrtaeus, they had crowded around Hippias to hear his recitals of Homer ; but in this they resembled the citizens of the timocratic rather than of the ideal State (548 E).

The council of elder men also corresponds to the Spartan gerusia ; and the freedom with which they . are permitted to judge about matters of detail agrees with what we are told of that institution.

Once more, the military rule of not spoiling the dead or offering arms at the temples ; the moderation in the pursuit of enemies ; the importance attached to the physical well-being of the citizens; the use of warfare for the sake of defence rather than of aggression — are features probably suggested by the spirit and practice of Sparta, To the Spartan type the ideal State reverts in the first decline ; and the character of the individual timocrat is borrowed from the Spartan citizen.

The love of Lacedaemon not only affected Plato and Xcnophon, but was shared by many undistinguished Athenians ; there they seemed to find a principle which was wanting in their own democracy. The ry/cocr/zia of the Spartans attracted them, that is to say, not the goodness of their laws, but the spirit of order and loyalty which prevailed.

Fascinated by the idea, citizens of Athens would imitate the Lacedaemonians in their dress and manners ; they were known to the contemporaries of Plato as ' the persons who had their ears bruised,' like the Roundheads of the Commonwealth.

The love of another church or country when seen at a distance only, the longing for an imaginary simplicity in civilized times, the fond desire of a past which never has been, or of a future which never will be, — these are aspirations of the human mind which are often felt among ourselves. Such feelings meet with a response in the Republic of Plato.

But there are other features of the Platonic Republic, as, for example, the literary and philosophical education, and the grace

clxxii Hellenic feeling in Plato. Intkouuc- and beauty of life, which are the reverse of Spartan. Plato wishes to give his citizens a taste of Athenian freedom as well as of Lacedaemonian discipline. His individual genius is purely Athenian, although in theory he is a lover of Sparta; and he is something more than either — he has also a true Hellenic feeling.

He is desirous of humanizing the wars of Hellenes against one another; he acknowledges that the Delphian God is the grand hereditary interpreter of all Hellas. The spirit of harmony and the Dorian mode are to prevail, and the whole State is to have an external beauty which is the reflex of the harmony within. But he has not yet found out the truth which he afterwards enunciated in the Laws (i.

628 D) — that he was a I better legislator who made men to be of one mind, than he who / trained them for war. The citizens, as in other Hellenic States, democratic as well as aristocratic, are really an upper class ; for, although no mention is made of slaves, the lower classes are allowed to fade away into the distance, and are represented in the individual by the passions.

Plato has no idea either of a social State in which all classes are harmonized, or of a federation of Hellas or the world in which different nations or States have a place. His city is equipped for war rather than for peace, and this would seem to be justified by the ordinary condition of Hellenic States.

The myth of the earth-born men is an embodiment of the orthodox tradition of Hellas, and the allusion to the four ages of the world is also sanctioned by the authority of Hesiod and the poets. Thus we see that the Republic is partly founded on the ideal of the old Greek polls, partly on the actual circumstances of Hellas in that age.

Plato, like the old painters, retains a traditional form, and like them he has also a vision of a city in the clouds. There is yet another thread which is interwoven in the texture of the work ; for the Republic is not only a Dorian State, but a Pythagorean league.

The ' way of life ' which was connected with the name of Pythagoras, like the Catholic monastic orders, showed the power which the mind of an individual might exercise over his contemporaries, and may have naturally suggested to Plato the possibility of reviving such * mediaeval institutions. The Pythagoreans, like Plato, enforced a rule of life and a moral and intellectual training. The influence ascribed to music, which to

us seems exaggerated, is also a Pythagorean feature ; it is not to Introducbe regarded as representing the real influence of music in the ^'°'^" Greek world. More nearly than any other government of Hellas, the Pythagorean league of three hundred was an aristocracy of virtue.

For once in the history of mankind the philosophy of order or Koajuog, expressing and consequently enlisting on its side the combined endeavours of the better part of the people, obtained the management of public affairs and held possession of it for a considerable time (until about B. c. 500). Probably only in States prepared by Dorian institutions would such a league have been possible.

The rulers, like Plato's <p'v7uiKeq, were required to submit to a severe training in order to prepare the way for the education of the other members of the community. Long after the dissolution of the Order, eminent Pythagoreans, such as Archytas of Tarentum, retained their political influence over the cities of Magna Graecia.

There was much here that was suggestive to the kindred spirit of Plato, who had doubtless meditated deeply on the ' way of life of Pythagoras ' (Rep. X. 600 B) and his followers.

Slight traces of Pythagoreanism are to be found in the mystical number of the State, in the • number which expresses the interval between the king and the tyrant, in the doctrine of transmigration, in the music of the spheres, as well as in the great though secondary importance ascribed to mathematics in education. But as in his philosophy, so also in the form of his State, he goes far beyond the old Pythagoreans.

He attempts a task really impossible, which is to unite the past of Greek history with the future of philosophy, analogous to that other impossibility, which has often been the dream of Christendom, the attempt to unite the past history of Europe with the kingdom of Christ. Nothing actually existing in the world at all resembles Plato's ideal State; nor does he himself imagine that such a State is possible.

This he repeats again and again ; e. g. in the Republic (ix. subfn.), or in the Laws (Book v. 739), where, casting a glance back on the | Republic, he admits that the perfect state of communism and philosophy was impossible in his own age, though still to be retained as a pattern. The same doubt is implied in the earnestness with which he argues in the Republic (v. 472 D) that ideals are none the worse because they cannot be realized in fact, and

Was Plato a good citizen ? in the chorus of laughter, which like a breaking wave will, as he anticipates, greet the mention of his proposals; though like other writers of fiction, he uses all his art to give reality to his inventions.

When asked how the ideal polity can come into being, he answers ironically, ' When one son of a king becomes a philosopher'; he designates the fiction of the earth-born men as 'a noble lie'; and when the structure is finally complete, he fairly tells you that his Republic is a vision only, which in some sense may have reality, but not in the vulgar one of a reign of philosophers upon earth.

It has been said that Plato flies as well as walks, but this falls short of the truth ; for he flies and walks at the same time, and is in the air and on firm ground in successive instants. Niebuhr has asked a trifling question, which may be briefly noticed in this place — Was Plato a good citizen? If by this is meant.

Was he loyal to Athenian institutions ? — he can hardly be said to be the friend of democracy : but neither is he the friend of any other existing form of government; all of them he regarded as 'states of faction' (Laws viii. 832 C) ; none attained to his ideal of a voluntary rule over voluntary subjects, which seems indeed more nearly to describe democracy than any other; and the worst of them is tyranny.

The truth is, that the question has hardly any meaning when applied to a great philosopher whose writings are not meant for a particular age and country, but for all time and all mankind. The decline of Athenian politics was probably the motive which led Plato to frame an ideal State, and the Republic may be regarded as reflecting the departing glory of Hellas.

As well might we complain of St. Augustine, whose great work ' The City of God' originated in a similar motive, for not being loyal to the Roman Empire. Even a nearer parallel might be afforded by the first Christians, who cannot fairly be charged with being bad citizens because, though ' subject to the higher powers,' they were looking forward to a city which is in heaven. II.

The idea of the perfect State is full of paradox when judged of according to the ordinary notions of mankind. The paradoxes of one age have been said to become the commonplaces of the next ; but the paradoxes of Plato are at least as paradoxical to us as they were to his contemporaries. The

modern world has either sneered at them as absurd, or denounced them as unnatural and immoral ; men have been pleased to find in Aristotle's criticisms of them the anticipation of their own good sense. The wealthy and cultivated classes have disliked and also dreaded them ; they have pointed with satisfaction to the failure of efforts to realize them in practice.

Yet since they are the thoughts of one of the greatest of human intelligences, and of one who has done most to elevate morality and religion, they seem to deserve a better treatment at our hands. We may have to address the public, as Plato does poetry, and assure them that we mean no harm to existing institutions.

There are serious errors which have a side of truth and which therefore may fairly demand a careful consideration : there are truths mixed with error of which we may indeed say, * The half is better than the whole.

Yet * the half may be an important contribution to the study of human nature. {(i) The first paradox is the community of goods, which is mentioned slightly at the end of the third Book, and seemingly, as Aristotle observes, is confined to the guardians; at least no mention is made of the other classes.

But the onussion is not of any real significance, and probably arises out of the plan of the work, which prevents the writer from entering into details. Aristotle censures the community of property much in the spirit of modern political economy, as tending to repress industry, and as doing away with the spirit of benevolence.

Modern writers almost refuse to consider the subject, which is supposed to have been long ago settled by the common opinion i of mankind. But it must be remembered that the sacredness of I property is a notion far more fixed in modern than in ancient ) times. The world has grown older, and is therefore more conservative.

Primitive society offered many examples of land held in common, either by a tribe or by a township, and such may probably have been the original form of landed tenure.

Ancient legislators had invented various modes of dividing and preserving the divisions of land among the citizens; according to Aristotle there were nations who held the land in common and divided the produce, and there were others who divided the land and stored the produce in common. The evils of debt and the inequahty of property were far greater in ancient than in modern

times, and the accidents to which property was subject from war, or revolution, or taxation, or other legislative interference, were also greater. All these circumstances gave property a less fixed and sacred character. The early Christians are believed to have held their property in common, and the principle is sanctioned by the words of Christ himself, and has been maintained as a counsel of perfection in almost all ages of the Church.

Nor have there been wanting instances of modern enthusiasts who have made a rehgion of communism ; in every age of religious excitement notions like Wycliffe's ' inheritance of grace ' have tended to prevail. A like spirit, but fiercer and more violent, has appeared in politics. ' The preparation of the Gospel of peace ' soon becomes the red flag of Republicanism.

We can hardly judge what effect Plato's views would have upon his own contemporaries; they would perhaps have seemed to them only an exaggeration of the Spartan commonwealth. Even modern writers would acknowledge that the right of private property is based on expediency, and may be interfered with in a variety of ways for the public good.

Any other mode of vesting property which was found to be more advantageous, would in time acquire the same basis of right ; ^ the most useful,' in Plato's words, 'would be the most sacred. The lawyers and ecclesiastics of former ages would have spoken of property as a sacred institution. But they only meant by such language to oppose the greatest amount of resistance to any invasion of the rights of individuals and of the Church.

When we consider the question, without any fear of immediate application to practice, in the spirit of Plato's Republic, are we quite sure that the received notions of property are the best ? Is the distribution of wealth which is customary in civilized countries the most favourable that can be conceived for the education and development of the mass of mankind?

Can 'the spectator of all time and all existence ' be quite convinced that one or two thousand years hence, great changes will not have taken place in the rights of property, or even that the very notion of property, beyond what is necessary for personal maintenance, may not have disappeared ? This was a distinction familiar to Aristotle, though likely to be laughed at among ourselves. Such a change would not be greater than some other changes through

which the world has passed in the transition from ancient to Introducmodern society, for example, the emancipation of the serfs in ""'^" Russia, or the abolition of slavery in America and the West Indies; and not so great as the difference which separates the Eastern village community from the Western world.

To accomplish such a revolution in the course of a few centuries, would imply a rate of progress not more rapid than has actually taken place during the last fifty or sixty years. The kingdom of Japan underwent more change in five or six years than Europe in five or six hundred.

Many opinions and beliefs which have been cherished among ourselves quite as strongly as the sacredness of property have passed away ; and the most untenable propositions respecting the right of bequests or entail have been maintained with as much fervour as the most moderate. Some one will be heard to ask whether a state of society can be final in which the interests of thousands are perilled on the life or character of a single person.

And many will indulge the hope that our present condition may, after all, be only transitional, and may conduct to a higher, in which property, besides ministering to the enjoyment of the few, may also furnish the means of the highest culture to all, and will be a greater benefit to the public generally, and also more under the control of public authority. There may come a time when the saying, ' Have I not a right to do what I will with my own ?

' will appear to be a barbarous relic of individualism ; — when the possession of a part may be a greater blessing to each and all than the possession of the whole is now to any one. Such reflections appear visionary to the eye of the practical statesman, but they are within the range of possibility to the philosopher.

He can imagine that in some distant age or clime, and through the influence of some individual, the notion of common property may or might have sunk as deep into the heart of a race, and have become as fixed to them, as private property is to ourselves. He knows that this latter institution is not more than four or five thousand years old : may not the end revert to the beginning?

In our own age even Utopias affect the spirit of legislation, and an abstract idea may exercise a great influence on practical politics. The objections that would be generally urged against Plato's community of property, are the old ones of Aristotle, that motives VOL. III. 12

for exertion would be taken away, and that disputes would arise when each was dependent upon all. Every man would produce as little and consume as much as he liked. The experience of civilized nations has hitherto been adverse to Socialism, The effort is too great for human nature; men try to live in common, but the personal feeling is always breaking in.

On the other hand it may be doubted whether our present notions of property are not conventional, for they differ in different countries and in different states of society. We boast of an individualism which is not freedom, but rather an artificial result of the industrial state of modern Europe. The individual is nominally free, but he is also powerless in a world bound hand and foot in the chains of economic necessity.

Even if we cannot expect the mass of mankind to become disinterested, at any rate we observe in them a power of organization which fifty years ago would never have been suspected. The same forces which have revolutionized the political system of Europe, may effect a similar change in the social and industrial relations of mankind.

And if we suppose the influence of some good as well as neutral motives working in the community, there will be no absurdity in expecting that the mass of mankind having power, and becoming enlightened about the higher possibilities of human life, when they learn how much more is attainable for all than is at present the possession of a favoured few, may pursue the common interest with an intelligence and persistency which mankind have hitherto never seen.

Now that the world has once been set in motion, and is no longer held fast under the tyranny of custom and ignorance ; now that criticism has pierced the veil of tradition and the past no longer overpowers the present, — the progress of civilization may be expected to be far greater and swifter than heretofore.

Even at our present rate of speed the point at which we may arrive in two or three generations is beyond the power of imagination to foresee. There are forces in the world which work, not in an arithmetical, but in a geometrical ratio of increase. Education, to use the expression of Plato, moves like a wheel with an evermultiplying rapidity.

Nor can we say how great may be its influence, when it becomes universal, — when it has been inherited by many generations, — when it is freed from the trammels

The community of wives and children. clxxix of superstition and rightly adapted to the wants and capacities Introducof different classes of men and women. Neither do we know ^^^^' how much more the co-operation of minds or of hands may be capable of accomplishing, whether in labour or in study.

The resources of the natural sciences are not half-developed as yet ; the soil of the earth, instead of growing more barren, may become many times more fertile than hitherto; the uses of machinery far greater, and also more minute than at present. New secrets of physiology may be revealed, deeply affecting human nature in its innermost recesses. The standard of health may be raised and the lives of men prolonged by sanitary and medical knowledge.

There may be peace, there may be leisure, there may be innocent refreshments of many kinds. The ever-increasing power of locomotion may join the extremes of earth. There may be mysterious workings of the human mind, such as occur only at great crises of history. The East and the West may meet together, and all nations may contribute their thoughts and their experience to the common stock of humanity.

Many other elements enter into a speculation of this kind. But it is better to make an end of them. For such reflections appear to the majority far-fetched, and to men of science, commonplace. (/?) Neither to the mind of Plato nor of Aristotle did the doctrine of community of property present at all the same difficulty, or appear to be the same violation of the common Hellenic sentiment, as the community of wives and children.

This paradox he prefaces by another proposal, that the occupations of men and women shall be the same, and that to this end they shall have a common training and education. Male and female animals have the same pursuits — why not also the two sexes of man ? But have we not here fallen into a contradiction ? for we were saying that different natures should have different pursuits. How then can men and women have the same ?

And is not the proposal inconsistent with our notion of the division of labour? — These objections are no sooner raised than answered ; for, according to Plato, there is no organic difference between men and women, but only the accidental one that men beget and women bear children.

Following the analogy of the other animals, he contends that all natural gifts are scattered about indifferently among both sexes, though there may be a superiority of degree

Intkoduc- ments of marriage in the Republic arc directed to one object — the improvement of the race. In successive generations a great development both of bodily and mental qualities might be possible. The analogy of animals tends to show that mankind can within certain limits receive a change of nature.

And as in animals we should commonly choose the best for breeding, and destroy the others, so there must be a selection made of the human beings whose lives are worthy to be preserved.

We start back horrified from this Platonic ideal, in the belief, first, that the higher feelings of humanity are far too strong to be crushed out ; secondly, that if the plan could be carried into execution we should be poorly recompensed by improvements in the breed for the loss of the best things in life.

The greatest ) regard for the weakest and meanest of human beings — the infant, ^ the criminal, the insane, the idiot, truly seems to us one of the noblest results of Christianity. We have learned, though as yet imperfectly, that the individual man has an endless value in the sight of God, and that we honour Him when we honour the darkened and disfigured image of Him (cp. Laws xi. 931 A).

This is the lesson which Christ taught in a parable when He said, ' Their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven. Such lessons are only partially realized in any age; they were foreign to the age of Plato, as they have very different degrees of strength in different countries or ages of the Christian world.

To the Greek the family was a religious and customary institution binding the members together by a tie inferior in strength to that of friendship, and having a less solemn and sacred sound than that of country.

The relationship which existed on the lower level of custom, Plato imagined that he was raising to the higher level of nature and reason; while from the modern and Christian point of view we regard him as sanctioning murder and destroying the first principles of morality. The great error in these and similar speculations is that the difference between man and the animals is forgotten in them.

The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog- or bird-fancier (v. 459 A), or at best of a slave-owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength ; in a few cases at courage or temper ; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the great desideratum.

The corninunity of wives and children. clxxxiii But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority Introdi-cin fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Neither does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enhghtenment of the mind.

Hence there must be * a marriage of true minds ' as well as of bodies, of imagination and reason as well as of lusts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a noble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children.

The most important transaction of social life, he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to one another, except at the hymeneal festival ; their children are not theirs, but the state's ; nor is any tie of affection to unite them. Yet here the analogy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error, if he had ' not lost sight of his own illustration ' (ii. 375 D).

For the ^ nobler sort of birds and beasts ' (v. 459 A) nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another. An eminent physiologist thinks it worth while * to try and place life on a physical basis. But should not life rest on the moral rather than upon the physical? The higher comes first, then the lower; first the human and rational, afterwards the animal.

Yet they are not absolutely divided ; and in times of sickness or moments of self-indulgence they seem to be only different aspects of a common human nature which includes them both. Neither is the moral the limit of the physical, but the expansion and enlargement of it, — the highest form which the physical is capable of receiving.

As Plato would say, the body does not take care of the body, and still less of the mind, but the mind takes care of both. In all human action not that which is common to man and the animals is the characteristic element, but that which distinguishes him from them. Even if we admit the physical basis, and resolve all virtue into health of body — ^lafagon que 7wtre sang circule,^ still on merely physical grounds we must come back to ideas.

Mind and reason and duty and conscience, under these or other names, are always reappearing. There cannot be health of body without health of mind ; nor health of mind without the sense of duty and the love of truth (cp. Charm. 156 D, E). I That the greatest of ancient philosophers should in his regulations

Introduc- about marriage have fallen into the error of separating body and mind, docs indeed appear surprising. Yet the wonder is not so much that Plato should have entertained ideas of morality which to our own age are revolting, but that he should have contradicted himself to an extent which is hardly credible, falling in an instant from the heaven of idealism into the crudest animalism.

Rejoicing in the newly found gift of reflection, he appears to have thought out a subject about which he had better have followed the enlightened feeling of his own age. The general sentiment of Hellas was opposed to his monstrous fancy. The old poets, and in later time the tragedians, showed no want of respect for the family, on which much of their religion was based.

But the example of Sparta, and perhaps in some degree the tendency to defy public opinion, seems to have misled him. He will make one family out of all the families of the state. He will select the finest specimens of men and women and breed from these only.

Yet because the illusion is always returning (for the animal part of human nature will from time to time assert itself in the disguise of philosophy as well as of poetry), and also because any departure from established morality, even where this is not intended, is apt to be unsettling, it may be worth while to draw^ out a little more at length the objections to the Platonic marriage.

In the first place, history shows that wherever polygamy has been largely allowed the race has deteriorated. One man to one woman is the law of God and nature. Nearly all the civilized peoples of the world at some period before the age of written records, have become monogamists ; and the step when once taken has never been retraced.

The exceptions occurring among Brahmins or Mahometans or the ancient Persians, are of that sort which maybe said to prove the rule. The connexions formed between superior and inferior races hardly ever produce a noble offspring, because they are licentious ; and because the children in such cases usually despise the mother and are neglected by the father who is ashamed of them.

Barbarous nations when they are introduced by Europeans to vice die out ; polygamist peoples either import and adopt children from other countries, or dwindle in numbers, or both. Dynasties and aristocracies which have disregarded the laws of nature have decreased in numbers and degenerated in

The couimnnity of wives and childreii. clxxxv stature ; ' manages de convenance ' leave their enfeebling stamp Introducon the offspring of them (cp. King Lear, Act i. So. 2). The '^'"'^" marriage of near relations, or the marrying in and in of the same family tends constantly to weakness or idiocy in the children, sometimes assuming the form as they grow older of passionate licentiousness. The common prostitute rarely has any offspring.

By such unmistakable evidence is the authority of morality asserted in the relations of the sexes : and so many more elements enter into this * mystery ' than are dreamed of by Plato and some other philosophers.

Recent enquirers have indeed arrived at the conclusion that among primitive tribes there existed a community of wives as of property, and that the captive taken by the spear was the only wife or slave whom any man was permitted to call his own.

The partial existence of such customs among some of the lower races of man, and the survival of peculiar ceremonies in the marriages of some civilized nations, are thought to furnish a proof of similar institutions having been once universal. There can be no question that the study of anthropology has considerably changed our views respecting the first appearance of man upon the earth.

We know more about the aborigines of the world than formerly, but our increasing knowledge shows above all things how little we know. With all the helps which written monuments afford, we do but faintly realize the condition of man two thousand or three thousand years ago.

Of what his condition was when removed to a distance 200,000 or 300,000 years, when the majority of mankind were lower and nearer the animals than any tribe now existing upon the earth, we cannot even entertain conjecture.

Plato (Laws iii. 676 foil.) and Aristotle (Metaph. xi. 8, %% 19, 20) may have been more right than we imagine in supposing that some forms of civilization were discovered and lost several times over. If we cannot argue that all barbarism is a degraded civilization, neither can we set any limits to the depth of degradation to which the human race may sink through war, disease, or isolation.

And if we are to draw inferences about the origin of marriage from the practice of barbarous nations, we should also consider the remoter analogy of the animals. Many birds and animals, especially the carnivorous, have only one mate, and the love and care of offspring which seems to be natural is inclxxxvi The community of wives and children. Intkouuc- consistent with the primitive tlicory of marriage.

If we go back ^'°'*' to an imaginary state in which men were almost animals and the companions of them, we have as much right to argue from what is animal to what is human as from the barbarous to the civilized man. The record of animal life on the globe is fragmentary,— the connecting links are wanting and cannot be supplied; the record of social life is still more fragmentary and precarious.

Even if we admit that our first ancestors had no such institution as marriage, still the stages by which men passed from outer barbarism to the comparative civilization of China, Assyria, and Greece, or even of the ancient Germans, are wholly unknown to us. Such speculations are apt to be unsettling, because they seem to show that an institution which was thought to be a revelation from heaven, is only the growth of history and experience.

We ask what is the origin of marriage, and we are told that like the right of property, after many wars and contests, it has gradually arisen out of the selfishness of barbarians. We stand face to face with human nature in its primitive nakedness. We are compelled to accept, not the highest, but the lowest account of the origin of human society. But on the other hand we may truly say that every step in human progress has been in the <^, same direction, and that in the course of ages the idea of marriage and of the family has been more and more defined and consecrated. The civilized East is immeasurably in advance of any savage tribes ; the Greeks and Romans have improved upon the East; the Christian nations have been stricter in their views of the marriage relation than any of the ancients. In this as in so many other things, instead of looking back with regret to the past, we should look forward with hope to the future. We must consecrate that which we believe to be the most holy, and that * which is the most holy will be the most useful.' There is more reason for maintaining the sacredness of the marriage tie, when wc see the benefit of it, than when we only felt a vague religious horror about the violation of it. But in all times of transition, when established beliefs are being undermined, there is a danger that in the passage from the old to the new we may insensibly let go the moral principle, finding an excuse for listening to the voice of passion in the uncertainty of knowledge, or the The CO mm unity of wives a?id children.

clxxxvii

fluctuations of opinion.

And there are many persons in our own Introducday who, enhghtened by the study of anthropology, and fascinated by what is new and strange, some using the language of fear, others of hope, are inclined to believe that a time will come when through the self-assertion of women, or the rebellious spirit of children, by the analysis of human relations, or by the force of outward circumstances, the ties of family life may be broken or greatly relaxed.

They point to societies in America and elsewhere which tend to show that the destruction of the family need not necessarily involve the overthrow of all morality. Whatever we may think of such speculations, we can hardly deny that they have been more rife in this generation than in any other ; and whither they are tending, who can predict?

To the doubts and queries raised by these ' social reformers ' respecting the relation of the sexes and the moral nature of man, there is a sufficient answer, if any is needed. The difference between them and us is really one of fact. They are speaking of man as they wish or fancy him to be, but we are speaking of him as he is.

They isolate the animal part of his nature ; we regard him as a creature having many sides, or aspects, moving between good and evil, striving to rise above himself and to become ' a little lower than the angels.

We also, to use a Platonic formula, are not ignorant of the dissatisfactions and incompatibilities of family life, of the meannesses of trade, of the flatteries of one class of society by another, of the impediments which the family throws in the way of lofty aims and aspirations. But we are conscious that there are evils and dangers in the background greater still, which are not appreciated, because they are either concealed or suppressed.

What a condition of man would that be, in which human passions were controlled by no authority, divine or human, in which there was no shame or decency, no higher affection overcoming or sanctifying the natural instincts, but simply a rule of health ! Is it for this that we are asked to throw away the civilization which is the growth of ages?

For strength and health are not the only qualities to be desired ; there are the more important considerations of mind and character and soul. We know how human nature may be degraded ; we do not know how by artificial means any improvement in the breed can be effected. The problem is a complex one, for if we

clxxxviii The community of wives and children. Introuuc- go back only four steps (and these at least enter into the composition of a child), there are commonly thirty progenitors to be taken into account. Many curious facts, rarely admitting of proof, are told us respecting the inheritance of disease or character from a remote ancestor.

We can trace the physical resemblances of parents and children in the same family — ' Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat ' ; but scarcely less often the differences which distinguish children both from their parents and from one another. We are told of similar mental peculiarities running in families, and again of a tendency, as in the animals, to revert to a common or original stock.

But we have a difficulty in distinguishing what is a true inheritance of genius or other qualities, and what is mere imitation or the result of similar circumstances. Great / men and great women have rarely had great fathers and mothers. Nothing that we know of in the circumstances of their birth or lineage will explain their appearance.

Of the English poets of the last and two preceding centuries scarcely a descendant remains, — none have ever been distinguished. So deeply has nature hidden her secret, and so ridiculous is the fancy which has been entertained by some that we might in time by suitable marriage arrangements or, as Plato would have said, ' by an ingenious system of lots,' produce a Shakespeare or a Milton.

Even supposing that we could breed men having the tenacity of bulldogs, or, like the Spartans, 'lacking the wit to run away in battle,' would the world be any the better? Many of the I noblest specimens of the human race have been among the weakest physically. Tyrtaeus or Aesop, or our own Newton, would have been exposed at Sparta ; and some of the fairest jand strongest men and women have been among the wickedest and worst.

Not by the Platonic device of uniting the strong and fair with the strong and fair, regardless of sentiment and morality, nor yet by his other device of combining dissimilar natures. (Statesman 310 A), have mankind gradually passed from the brutality and licentiousness of primitive marriage to marriage Christian and civilized.

Few persons would deny that we bring into the world an inheritance of mental and physical qualities derived first from our parents, or through them from some remoter ancestor.

secondly from our race, thirdly from the general condition of Intkodicmankind into which we are born. Nothing is commoner than "^'"^ the remark, that * So and so is like his father or his uncle ' ; and an aged person may not unfrequently note a resemblance in a youth to a long-forgotten ancestor, observing that ' Nature sometimes skips a generation.

It may be true also, that if we knew more about our ancestors, these similarities would be even more striking to us. Admitting the facts which are thus described in a popular way, we may however remark that there is no method of difference by which they can be defined or estimated, and that they constitute only a small part of each individual.

The doctrine of heredity may seem to take out of our hands the conduct of our own lives, but it is the idea, not the fact, which is really terrible to us. For what we have received from our ancestors is only a fraction of what we are, or may become. The knowledge that drunkenness or insanity has been prevalent in a family may be the best safeguard against their recurrence in a future generation.

The parent will be most awake to the vices or diseases in his child of which he is most sensible within himself. The whole of life may be directed to their prevention or cure. The traces of consumption may become fainter, or be wholly effaced : the inherent tendency to vice or crime may be eradicated. And so heredity, from being a curse, may become a blessing.

We acknowledge that in the matter of our birth, as in our nature generally, there are previous circumstances which affect us. But upon this platform of circumstances or within this wall of necessity, we have still the power of creating a life for ourselves by the informing energy of the human will. There is another aspect of the marriage question to which Plato is a stranger. All the children born in his state are foundlings.

It never occurred to him that the greater part of them, according to universal experience, would have perished. For children can only be brought up in families. There is a subtle sympathy between the mother and the child which cannot be supplied by other mothers, or by ' strong nurses one or more ' (Laws vii. 789 E).

If Plato's * pen ' was as fatal as the Creches of Paris, or the foundling hospital of Dublin, more than nine-tenths of his children would have perished. There would have been no need to expose or put out of the way the weaklier children, for they would have

cxc The conimiinity of wives and children. Introduc- died of themselves. So emphatically does nature protest against ^'^^' the destruction of the family. What Plato had heard or seen of Sparta was appHed by him in a mistaken way to his ideal commonwealth.

He probably observed that both the Spartan men and women were superior in form and strength to the other Greeks ; and this superiority he was disposed to attribute to the laws and customs relating to marriage. He did not consider that the desire of a noble offspring was a passion among the Spartans, or that their physical superiority was to be attributed chiefly, not to their marriage customs, but to their temperance and training.

He did not reflect that Sparta was great, not in consequence of the relaxation of morality, but in spite of it, by virtue of a political principle stronger far than existed in any other Grecian state. Least of all did he observe that Sparta did not really produce the finest specimens of the Greek race.

The genius, the political inspiration of Athens, the love of liberty — all that has made Greece famous with posterity, were wanting among the Spartans. They had no Themistocles, or Pericles, or Aeschylus, or Sophocles, or Socrates, or Plato. The individual was not allowed to appear above the state; the laws were fixed, and he had no business to alter or reform them.

Yet whence has the progress of cities and nations arisen, if not from remarkable individuals, coming into the world we know not how, and from causes over ' which we have no control ? Something too much may have been said in modern times of the value of individuality. But we can hardly condemn too strongly a system which, instead of fostering the scattered seeds or sparks of genius and character, tends to smother and extinguish them.

Still, while condemning Plato, we must acknowledge that neither Christianity, nor any other form of religion and society, has hitherto been able to cope with this most difficult of social problems, and that the side from which Plato regarded it is that from which we turn away. Population is the most untameable force in the political and social world.

Do we not find, especially in large cities, that the greatest hindrance to the amelioration of the poor is their improvidence in marriage? — a small fault truly, if not involving endless consequences. There are whole countries too, such as India, or, nearer home, Ireland, in which a

The C07nmn7iity of wives and children. right solution of the marriage question seems to He at the foundation of the happiness of the community. There are too many people on a given space, or they marry too early and bring into the world a sickly and half-developed offspring; or owing to the very conditions of their existence, they become emaciated and hand on a similar life to their descendants.

But who can oppose the voice of prudence to the ' mightiest passions of mankind ' (Laws viii. 835 C), especially when they have been licensed by custom and religion? In addition to the influences of education, we seem to require some new principles of right and wrong in these matters, some force of opinion, which may indeed be already heard whispering in private, but has never affected the moral sentiments of mankind in general.

We unavoidably lose sight of the principle of utility, just in that action of our lives in which we have the most need of it. We shrink from taking the advice of others at the very timd when we are least able to judge impartially for ourselves. Little or no light has been thrown on this most difficult of all social questions by modern enquirers.

The state physician hardly likes to probe the wound : it is beyond his art ; a matter which he cannot safely let alone, but which he dare not touch : 'We do but skin and film the ulcerous place.

When again in private life we see a whole family one by one dropping into the grave under the Ate of some inherited malady, and the parents perhaps surviving them, do our minds ever go back silently to that day twenty-five or thirty years before on which under the fairest auspices, amid the rejoicings of friends and acquaintances, a bride and bridegroom joined hands with one another?

In making such a reflection we are not opposing physical considerations to moral, but moral to physical; we are seeking to make the voice of reason heard, which drives us back from the extravagance of sentimentalism on common sense. The late Dr. Combe is said by his biographer to have resisted the temptation to marriage, because he knew that he was subject to hereditary consumption.

One who deserved to be called a man of genius, a friend of my youth, was in the habit of wearing a black ribbon on his wrist, in order to remind him that, being liable to outbreaks of insanity, he must not give way to the natural impulses of affection : he died unmarried in a

lunalic asylum. These two little facts suggest the reflection that a very few persons have done from a sense of duty what the rest of mankind ought to have done under like circumstances, if they had allowed themselves to think of all the misery which they were about to bring into the world.

If we could prevent such marriages without any violation of feeling or propriety, we clearly ought; and the prohibition in the course of time would be protected by a ' horror naturalis ' similar to that which, in all civilized ages and countries, has prevented the marriage of near relations by blood.

Mankind would have been the happier, if some things which are now allowed had from the beginning been denied to them ; if the sanction of religion could have prohibited practices inimical to health ; if sanitary principles could in early ages have been invested with a superstitious awe. But, living as we do far on in the world's history, we are no longer able to stamp at once with the impress of religion a new prohibition.

A free agent cannot have his fancies regulated by law; and the execution of the law would be rendered impossible, owing to the uncertainty of the cases in which marriage was to be forbidden. Who can weigh virtue, or even fortune against health, or moral and mental qualities against bodily ? Who can measure probabilities against certainties ?

There has been some good as well as evil in the discipline of suffering; and there are diseases, such as consumption, which have exercised a refining and softening influence on the character. Youth is too inexperienced to balance such nice considerations ; parents do not often think of them, or think of them too late.

They are at a distance and may probably be averted; change of place, a new state of life, the interests of a home may be the cure of them. So persons vainly reason when their minds are already made up and their fortunes irrevocably linked together.

Nor is there any ground for supposing that marriages are to any great extent influenced by reflections of this sort, which seem unable to make any head against the irresistible impulse of individual attachment.

Lastly, no one can have observed the first rising flood of the passions in youth, the difficulty of regulating them, and the effects on the whole mind and nature which follow from them, the stimulus which is given to them by the imagination, without feeling that there is something unsatisfactory in our method of

treating them. That the most important influence on human hfe Republic. should be wholly left to chance or shrouded in mystery, and Introducinstead of being disciplined or understood, should be required to '^'"^' conform only to an external standard of propriety — cannot be regarded by the philosopher as a safe or satisfactory condition of human things.

And still those who have the charge of youth may find a way by watchfulness, by affection, by the manliness and innocence of their own lives, by occasional hints, by general admonitions which every one can apply for himself, to mitigate this terrible evil which eats out the heart of individuals and corrupts the moral sentiments of nations. In no duty towards others is there more need of reticence and self-restraint.

So great is the danger lest he who would be the counsellor of another should reveal the secret prematurely, lest he should get another too much into his power, or fix the passing impression of evil by demanding the confession of it. Nor is Plato wrong in asserting that family attachments may interfere with higher aims.

If there have been some who ' to party gave up what was meant for mankind,' there have certainly been others who to family gave up what was meant for mankind or for their country.

The cares of children, the necessity of procuring money for their support, the flatteries of the rich by the poor, the exclusiveness of caste, the pride of birth or wealth, the tendency of family life to divert men from the pursuit of the ideal or the heroic, are as lowering in our own age as in that of Plato.

And if we prefer to look at the gentle influences of home, the development of the affections, the amenities of society, the devotion of one member of a family for the good of the others, which form one side of the picture, we must not quarrel with him, or perhaps ought rather to be grateful to him, for having presented to us the reverse.

Without attempting to defend Plato on grounds of morality, we may allow that there is an aspect of the world which has not unnaturally led him into error. We hardly appreciate the power which the idea of the State, like all other abstract ideas, exercised over the mind of Plato. To us the State seems to be built up out of the family, or sometimes to be the framework in which family and social life is contained. But to Plato in his present mood of mind the family VOL. III. — 13

The government of philosophers. is only a disturbing influence which, instead of filHng up, tends to disarrange the higher unity of the State. No organization is needed except a political, which, regarded from another point of view, is a military one. The State is all-sufficing for the wants of man, and, like the idea of the Church in later ages, absorbs all other desires and affections.

In time of war the thousand citizens are to stand like a rampart impregnable against the world or the Persian host ; in time of peace the preparation for war and their duties to the State, which are also their duties to one another, take up their whole life and time. The only other interest which is allowed to them besides that of war, is the interest of philosophy.

When they are too old to be soldiers they are to retire from active life and to have a second novitiate of study and contemplation. There is an element of monasticism even in Plato's communism. If he could have done without children, he might have converted his Republic into a religious order. Neither in the Laws (v. 739 B), when the daylight of common sense breaks in upon him, does he retract his error.

In the state of which he would be the founder, there is no marrying or giving in marriage : but because of the infirmity of mankind, he condescends to allow the law of nature to prevail. (7) But Plato has an equal, or, in his own estimation, even greater paradox in reserve, which is summed up in the famous text, * Until kings are philosophers or philosophers are kings, cities will never cease from ill.

And by philosophers he explains himself to mean those who are capable of apprehending ideas, especially the idea of good. To the attainment of this higher knowledge the second education is directed. Through a process of training which has already made them good citizens they are now to be made good legislators.

We find with some surprise (not unlike the feeling which Aristotle in a well-known passage describes the hearers of Plato's lectures as experiencing, when they went to a discourse on the idea of good, expecting to be instructed in moral truths, and received instead of them arithmetical and mathematical formulae) that Plato does not propose for his future legislators any study of finance or law or military tactics, but only of abstract mathematics, as a preparation for the still more abstract conception of good. We ask, with Aristotle, What is the use of a man knowing the idea of

good, if he does not know what is good for this individual, Republic this state, this condition of society? We cannot understand how Plato's legislators or guardians are to be fitted for their work of statesmen by the study of the five mathematical sciences. We vainly search in Plato's own writings for any explanation of this seeming absurdity.

The discovery of a great metaphysical conception seems to ravish the mind with a prophetic consciousness which takes away the power of estimating its value. No metaphysical enquirer has ever fairly criticised his own speculations; in his own judgment they have been above criticism ; nor has he understood that what to him seemed to be absolute truth may reappear in the next generation as a form of logic or an instrument of thought.

And posterity have also sometimes equally misapprehended the real value of his speculations. They appear to them to have contributed nothing to the stock of human knowledge. The idea of good is apt to be regarded by the modern thinker as an unmeaning abstraction ; but he forgets that this abstraction is waiting ready for use, and will hereafter be filled up by the divisions of knowledge.

When mankind do not as yet know that the world is subject to law, the introduction of the mere conception of law or design or final cause, and the far-off anticipation of the harmony of knowledge, are great steps onward. Even the crude generalization of the unity of all things leads men to view the world with different eyes, and may easily affect their conception of human life and of politics, and also their own conduct and character (Tim. 90 A).

We can imagine how a great mind like that of Pericles might derive elevation from his intercourse with Anaxagoras (Phaedr. 270 A). To be struggling towards a higher but unattainable conception is a more favourable intellectual condition than to rest satisfied in a narrow portion of ascertained fact. And the earlier, which have sometimes been the greater ideas of science, are often lost sight of at a later period.

How rarely can we say of any modern enquirer in the magnificent language of Plato, that ' He is the spectator of all time and of all existence ! ' Nor is there anything unnatural in the hasty application of these vast metaphysical conceptions to practical and political life. In the first enthusiasm of ideas men are apt to see them

The government of philosophers. everywhere, and to apply them in tlie most remote sphere. They do not understand that the experience of ages is required to enable them to fill up 'the intermediate axioms.

Plato himself seems to have imagined that the truths of psychology, like those of astronomy and harmonics, would be arrived at by a process of deduction, and that the method which he has pursued in the Fourth Book, of inferring them from experience and the use of language, was imperfect and only provisional. But when, after having arrived at the idea of good, which is the end of the science of dialectic, he is asked.

What is the nature, and what are the divisions of the science ? he refuses to answer, as if intending by the refusal to intimate that the state of knowledge which then existed was not such as would allow the philosopher to enter into his final rest. The previous sciences must first be studied, and will, we may add, continue to be studied till the end of time, although in a sense different from any which Plato could have conceived.

But we may observe, that while he is aware of the vacancy of his own ideal, he is full of enthusiasm in the contemplation of it. Looking into the orb of light, he sees nothing, but he is warmed and elevated. The Hebrew prophet believed that faith in God would enable him to govern the world ; the Greek philosopher imagined that contemplation of the good vv^ould make a legislator.

There is as much to be filled up in the one case as in the other, and the one mode of conception is to the Israelite what the other is to the Greek. Both find a repose in a divine perfection, which, whether in a more personal or impersonal form, exists without them and independently of them, as well as within them.

There is no mention of the idea of good in the Timaeus, nor of the divine Creator of the world in the Republic ; and we are naturally led to ask in what relation they stand to one another. Is God above or below the idea of good ? Or" is the Idea of Good another mode of conceiving God ? The latter appears to be the truer answer.

To the Greek philosopher the perfection and unity of God was a far higher conception than his personality, which he hardly found a word to express, and which to him would have seemed to be borrowed from mythology. To the Christian, on the other hand, or to the modern thinker in

general, it is difficult, if not impossible, to attach reality to Republic. what he terms mere abstraction ; while to Plato this very ab- Introducstraction is the truest and most real of all things. Hence, from '^"^'^• a difference in forms of thought, Plato appears to be resting on a creation of his own mind only.

But if we may be allowed to paraphrase the idea of good by the words * intelligent principle of law and order in the universe, embracing equally man and nature,' we begin to find a meeting-point between him and ourselves. The question whether the ruler or statesman should be a philosopher is one that has not lost interest in modern times.

In most countries of Europe and Asia there has been some one in the course of ages who has truly united the power of command with the power of thought and reflection, as there have been also many false combinations of these qualities.

Some kind of speculative power is necessary both in practical and political life ; like the rhetorician in the Phaedrus, men require to have a conception of the varieties of human character, and to be raised on great occasions above the commonplaces of ordinary life.

Yet the idea of the philosopher-statesman has never been popular with the mass of mankind ; partly because he cannot take the world into his confidence or make them understand the motives from which he acts; and also because they are jealous of a power which they do not understand. The revolution which human nature desires to effect step by step in many ages is likely to be precipitated by him in a single year or life.

They are afraid that in the pursuit of his greater aims he may disregard the common feelings of humanity. He is too apt to be looking into the distant future or back into the remote past, and unable to see actions or events which, to use an expression of Plato's, ^are tumbling out at his feet. Besides, as Plato would say, there are other corruptions of these philosophical statesmen.

Either ' the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,' and at the moment when action above all things is required he is undecided, or general principles are enunciated by him in order to cover some change of policy; or his ignorance of the world has made him more easily fall a prey to the arts of others; or in some cases he has been converted into a courtier, who enjoys

the luxury of holding Hbcral opinions, but was never known to perform a liberal action. No wonder that mankind have been in the habit of calling statesmen of this class pedants, sophisters, doctrinaires, visionaries. For, as we may be allowed to say, a little parodying the words of Plato, ' they have seen bad imitations of the philosopher-statesman.

But a man in whom the power of thought and action are perfectly balanced, equal to the present, reaching forward to the future, 'such a one,' ruling in a constitutional state, ' they have never seen. But as the philosopher is apt to fail in the routine of political life, so the ordinary statesman is also apt to fail in extraordinary crises.

When the face of the world is beginning to alter, and thunder is heard in the distance, he is still guided by his old maxims, and is the slave of his inveterate party prejudices ; he cannot perceive the signs of the times ; instead of looking forward he looks back; he learns nothing and forgets nothing; with * wise saws and modern instances ' he would stem the rising tide of revolution.

He lives more and more within the circle of his own party, as the world without him becomes stronger. This seems to be the reason why the old order of things makes so poor a figure when confronted with the new, why churches can never reform, why most political changes are made blindly and convulsively.

The great crises in the history of nations have often been met by an ecclesiastical positiveness, and a more obstinate reassertion of principles which have lost their hold upon a nation.

The fixed ideas of a reactionary statesman may be compared to madness ; they grow upon him, and he becomes possessed by them ; no judgment of others is ever admitted by him to be weighed in the balance against his own. {6) Plato, labouring under what, to modern readers, appears to have been a confusion of ideas, assimilates the state to the individual, and fails to distinguish Ethics from Politics.

He thinks that to be most of a state which is most like one man, and in which the citizens have the greatest uniformity of character. He does not see that the analogy is partly fallacious, and that the will or character of a state or nation is really the balance or rather the surplus of individual wills, which are limited by the condition of having to act in common.

The movement of a body of men can never have the pHancy Republic. or facility of a single man; the freedom of the individual, which introduc is always limited, becomes still more straitened when transferred ^'°^" to a nation. The powers of action and feeling are necessarily weaker and more balanced when they are diffused through a community ; whence arises the often discussed question, ' Can a nation, like an individual, have a conscience?

We hesitate to say that the characters of nations are nothing more than the sum of the characters of the individuals who compose them; because there may be tendencies in individuals which react upon one another.

A whole nation may be wiser than any one man in it; or maybe animated by some common opinion or feeling which could not equally have affected the mind of a single person, or may have been inspired by a leader of genius to perform acts more than human. Plato does not appear to have analysed the complications which arise out of the collective action of mankind.

Neither is he capable of seeing that analogies, though specious as arguments, may often have no foundation in fact, or of distinguishing between what is intelligible or vividly present to the mind, and what is true. In this respect he is far below Aristotle, who is comparatively seldom imposed upon by false analogies. He cannot disentangle the arts from the virtues — at least he is always arguing from one to the other.

His notion of music is transferred from harmony of sounds to harmony of life : in this he is assisted by the ambiguities of language as well as by the prevalence of Pythagorean notions. And having once assimilated the state to the individual, he imagines that he will find the succession of states paralleled in the lives of individuals. Still, through this fallacious medium, a real enlargement of ideas is attained.

When the virtues as yet presented no distinct conception to the mind, a great advance was made by the comparison of them with the arts ; for virtue is partly art, and has an outward form as well as an inward principle. The harmony of music affords a lively image of the harmonies of the world and of human life, and may be regarded as a splendid illustration which was naturally mistaken for a real analogy.

In the same way the identification of ethics with politics has a tendency to give definiteness to ethics, and also to elevate and ennoble men's

cc Republic. Introduction.

The Education of the Republic. notions of the aims of government and of the duties of citizens; for ethics from one point of view may be conceived as an ideahzed law and pohtics ; and poUtics, as ethics reduced to the conditions of human society. There have been evils which have arisen out of the attempt to identify them, and this has led to the separation or antagonism of them, which has been introduced by modern political writers. But we may likewise feel that something has been lost in their separation, and that the ancient philosophers who estimated the moral and intellectual wellbeing of mankind first, and the wealth of nations and individuals second, may have a salutary influence on the speculations of modern times. Many political maxims originate in a reaction against an opposite error; and when the errors against which they were directed have passed away, they in turn become errors.

III. Plato's views of education are in several respects remarkable ; like the rest of the Republic they are partly Greek and partly ideal, beginning with the ordinary curriculum of the Greek youth, and extending to after-life. Plato is the first writer who distinctly says that education is to comprehend the whole of life, and to be a preparation for another in which education begins again (vi. 498 D).

This is the continuous thread which runs through the Republic, and which more than any other of his ideas admits of an application to modern life. He has long given up the notion that virtue cannot be taught ; and he is disposed to modify the thesis of the Protagoras, that the virtues are one and not many. He is not unwilling to admit the sensible world into his scheme of truth.

Nor does he assert in the Republic the involuntariness of vice, which is maintained by him in the Timaeus, Sophist, and Laws (cp. Protag. 345 foil., 352, 355 ; Apol. 25 E; Gorg. 468, 509 E). Nor do the so-called Platonic ideas recovered from a former state of existence affect his theory of mental improvement.

Still we observe in him the remains of the old Socratic doctrine, that true knowledge must be elicited from within, and is to be sought for in ideas, not in particulars of sense. Education, as he says, will implant a principle of intelligence which is better than ten

The Education of the Republic. cci thousand eyes. The paradox that the virtues are one, and the Republic. kindred notion that all virtue is knowledge, are not entirely re- Introducnounced ; the first is seen in the supremacy given to justice over '^'°^- the rest ; the second in the tendency to absorb the moral virtues in the intellectual, and to centre all goodness in the contemplation of the idea of good.

The world of sense is still depreciated and identified with opinion, though omitted to be a shadow of the true. In the Republic he is evidently impressed with the conviction that vice arises chiefly from ignorance and may be cured by education ; the multitude are hardly to be deemed responsible for what they do (v. 499 E).

A faint allusion to the doctrine of reminiscence occurs in the Tenth Book (621 A) ; but Plato's views of education have no more real connection with a previous state of existence than our own ; he only proposes to elicit from the mind that which is there already. Education is represented by him, not as the filling of a vessel, but as the turning the eye of the soul towards the light.

He treats first of music or literature, which he divides into true and false, and then goes on to gymnastics : of infancy in the Republic he takes no notice, though in the Laws he gives sage counsels about the nursing of children and the management of the mothers, and would have an education which is even prior to birth.

But in the Republic he begins with the age at which the child is capable of receiving ideas, and boldly asserts, in language which sounds paradoxical to modern ears, that he must be taught the false before he can learn the true. The modern and ancient philosophical world are not agreed about truth and falsehood ; the one identifies truth almost exclusively with fact, the other with ideas.

This is the difference between ourselves and Plato, which is, however, partly a difference of words (cp. supra, p. xxxviii). For we too should admit that a child must receive many lessons which he imperfectly understands; he must be taught some things in a figure only, some too which he can hardly be expected to believe when he grows older ; but we should limit the use of fiction by the necessity of the case.

Plato would draw the line differently ; according to him the aim of early education is not truth as a matter of fact, but truth as a matter of principle ; the child is to be taught first simple religious truths, and then simple moral truths, and insensibly to learn the lesson of good manners and good taste. He

The Education of the Republic. would make an entire reformation of the old mythology ; like Xenophancs and Heracleitus he is sensible of the deep chasm which separates his own age from Homer and Hesiod, whom he quotes and invests with an imaginary authority, but only for his own purposes.

The lusts and treacheries of the gods are to be banished; the terrors of the world below are to be dispelled; the misbehaviour of the Homeric heroes is not to be a model for youth. But there is another strain heard in Homer which may teach our youth endurance ; and something may be learnt in medicine from the simple practice of the Homeric age.

The principles on which religion is to be based are two only : first, that God is true; secondly, that he is good. Modern and Christian writers have often fallen short of these ; they can hardly be said to have gone beyond them. The young are to be brought up in happy surroundings, out of the way of sights or sounds which may hurt the character or vitiate the taste.

They are to live in an atmosphere of health ; the breeze is always to be wafting to them the impressions of truth and goodness. Could such an education be realized, or if our modern religious education could be bound up with truth and virtue and good manners and good taste, that would be the best hope of human improvement. Plato, like ourselves, is looking forward to changes in the moral and religious world, and is preparing for them.

He recognizes the danger of unsettling young men's minds by sudden changes of laws and principles, by destroying the sacredness of one set of ideas when there is nothing else to take their place. He is afraid too of the influence of the drama, on the ground that it encourages false sentiment, and therefore he would not have his children taken to the theatre ; he thinks that the effect on the spectators is bad, and on the actors still worse.

His idea of education is that of harmonious growth, in which are insensil)ly learnt the lessons of temperance and endurance, and the body and mind develope in equal proportions. The first principle which runs through all art and nature is simplicity ; this also is to be the rule of human life. The second stage of education is gymnastic, which answers to the period of muscular growth and development.

The simplicity which is enforced in music is extended to gymnastic ; Plato is aware that the training of the body may be inconsistent with the

The Education of the Republic. cciii training of the mind, and that bodily exercise may be easily over- Republic. done. Excessive training of the body is apt to give men a headache Introducor to render them sleepy at a lecture on philosophy, and this they attribute not to the true cause, but to the nature of the subject.

Two points are noticeable in Plato's treatment of gymnastic : — First, that the time of training is entirely separated from the time of literary education. He seems to have thought that two things of an opposite and different nature could not be learnt at the same time.

Here we can hardly agree with him ; and, if we may judge by experience, the effect of spending two or three years between the ages of seventeen and twenty in mere bodily exercise would be far from improving to the intellect.

Secondly, he affirms that music and gymnastic arc not, as common opinion is apt to imagine, intended, the one for the cultivation of the mind and the other of the body, but that they are both equally designed for the improvement of the mind. The body, in his view, is the servant of the mind ; the subjection of the lower to the higher is for the advantage of both.

And doubtless the mind may exercise a very great and paramount influence over the body, if exerted not at particular moments and by fits and starts, but continuously, in making preparation for the whole of life. Other Greek writers saw the mischievous tendency of Spartan discipline (Arist. Pol. viii. 4, $ i foil. ; Thuc. ii. 2,7^ 39)« But only Plato recognized the fundamental error on which the practice was based.

The subject of gymnastic leads Plato to the sister subject of medicine, which he further illustrates by the parallel of law. The modern disbelief in medicine has led in this, as in some other departments of knowledge, to a demand for greater simplicity; physicians are becoming aware that they often make diseases * greater and more complicated ' by their treatment of them (Rep. iv. 426 A).

In two thousand years their art has made but slender progress ; what they have gained in the analysis of the parts is in a great degree lost by their feebler conception of the human frame as a whole. They have attended more to the cure of diseases than to the conditions of health ; and the improvements in medicine have been more than counterbalanced by the disuse of regular training.

Until lately they have hardly thought of air and water, the importance of which was well understood by the ancients; as Arjstotle remarks, 'Air and water, being the elements

cciv The Education of the Republic. Republic. which we most use, have the greatest effect upon health ' (PoHt. Introduc- vii. 1 1, § 4). For ages physicians have been under the dominion of prejudices which have only recently given way; and now there are as many opinions in medicine as in theology, and an equal degree of scepticism and some want of toleration about both.

Plato has several good notions about medicine ; according to him ' the eye cannot be cured without the rest of the body, nor the body without the mind' (Charm. 156 E). No man of sense, he says in the Timaeus, would take physic ; and we heartily sympathize with him in the Laws when he declares that 'the limbs of the rustic worn with toil will derive more benefit from warm baths than from the prescriptions of a not over wise doctor' (vi. 761 C).

But we can hardly praise him when, in obedience to the authority of Homer, he depreciates diet, or approve of the inhuman spirit in which he would get rid of invalid and useless lives by leaving them to die.

He does not seem to have considered that the ' bridle of Theages ' might be accompanied by qualities which were of far more value to the State than the health or strength of the citizens ; or that the duty of taking care of the helpless might be an important element of education in a State.

The physician himself (this is a delicate and subtle observation) should not be a man in robust health ; he should have, in modern phraseology, a nervous temperament ; he should have experience of disease in his own person, in order that his powers of observation may be quickened in the case of others. The perplexity of medicine is paralleled by the perplexity of law; in which, again, Plato would have men follow the golden rule of simplicity.

Greater matters are to be determined by the legislator or by the oracle of Delphi, lesser matters are to be left to the temporary regulation of the citizens themselves. Plato is aware that laissez /aire is an important element of government. The diseases of a State are like the heads of a hydra; they multiply when they arc cut off. The true remedy for them is not extirpation but prevention.

And the way to prevent them is to take care of education, and education will take care of all the rest. So in modern times men have often felt that the only political measure worth having — the only one which would produce any certain or lasting effect, was a measure of national education. And in our own more than in any previous age the necessity has been

The Education of the Republic. ccv recognized of restoring the ever-increasing confusion of law to Republic. simplicity and common sense. Introduc- When the training in music and gymnastic is completed, there follows the first stage of active and public life. But soon education is to begin again from a new point of view.

In the interval between the Fourth and Seventh Books wc have discussed the nature of knowledge, and have thence been led to form a higher conception of what was required of us. For true knowledge, according to Plato, is of abstractions, and has to do, not with particulars or individuals, but with universals only; not with the beauties of poetry, but with the ideas of philosophy.

And the great aim of education is the cultivation of the habit of abstraction. This is to be acquired through the study of the mathematical sciences. They alone are capable of giving ideas of relation, and of arousing the dormant energies of thought. Mathematics in the age of Plato comprehended a very small part of that which is now included in them ; but they bore a much larger proportion to the sum of human knowledge.

They were the only organon of thought which the human mind at that time possessed, and the only measure by which the chaos of particulars could be reduced to rule and order. The faculty which they trained was naturally at war with the poetical or imaginative ; and hence to Plato, who is everywhere seeking for abstractions and trying to get rid of the illusions of sense, nearly the whole of education is contained in them.

They seemed to have an inexhaustible application, partly because their true limits were not yet understood. These Plato himself is beginning to investigate ; though not aware that number and figure are mere abstractions of sense, he recognizes that the forms used by geometry are borrowed from the sensible world (vi. 510, 511).

He seeks to find the ultimate ground of mathematical ideas in the idea of good, though he does not satisfactorily explain the connexion between them ; and in his conception of the relation of ideas to numbers, he falls very far short of the definiteness attributed to him by Aristotle (Met. i. 8, ^ 24 ; ix. 17).

But if he fails to recognize the true limits of mathematics, he also reaches a point beyond them ; in his view, ideas of number become secondary to a higher conception of knowledge. The dialectician is as much above the mathematician as the mathematician is above the ordinary man (cp. vii. 526 D,

531 E). The one, the self-proving, the good which is the higher sphere of dialectic, is the perfect truth to which all things ascend, and in which they finally repose. This self-proving unity or idea of good is a mere vision of which no distinct explanation can be given, relative only to a particular stage in Greek philosophy. It is an abstraction under which no individuals are comprehended, a whole which has no parts (cf. Arist., Nic. Eth., i.

4). The vacancy of such a form was perceived by Aristotle, but not by Plato. Nor did he recognize that in the dialectical process are included two or more methods of investigation which are at variance with each other. He did not see that whether he took the longer or the shorter road, no advance could be made in this way.

And yet such visions often have an immense effect; for although the method of science cannot anticipate science, the idea of science, not as it is, but as .it will be in the future, is a great and inspiring principle.

In the pursuit of knowledge we are always pressing forward to something beyond us ; and as a false conception of knowledge, for example the scholastic philosophy, may lead men astray during many ages, so the true ideal, though vacant, may draw all their thoughts in a right direction. It makes a great difference whether the general expectation of knowledge, as this indefinite feeling may be termed, is based upon a sound judgment.

For mankind may often entertain a true conception of what knowledge ought to be when they have but a slender experience of facts. The correlation of the sciences, the consciousness of the unity of nature, the idea of classification, the sense of proportion, the unwillingness to stop short of certainty or to confound probability with truth, are important principles of the higher education.

Although Plato could tell us nothing, and perhaps knew that he could tell us nothing, of the absolute truth, he has exercised an influence on the human mind which even at the .present day is not exhausted; and political and social questions may yet arise in which the thoughts of Plato may be read anew and receive a fresh meaning. The Idea of good is so called only in the Republic, but there are traces of it in other dialogues of Plato.

It is a cause as well as an idea, and from this point of view may be compared with the creator of the Timaeus, who out of his goodness created

all things. It corresponds to a certain extent with the modern Republic. conception of a law of nature, or of a final cause, or of both in Introducone, and in this regard may be connected with the measure '^"^^' and symmetry of the Philebus. It is represented in the Symposium under the aspect of beauty, and is supposed to be attained there by stages of initiation, as here by regular gradations of knowledge.

Viewed subjectively, it is the process or science of dialectic.

This is the science which, according to the Phaedrus, is the true basis of rhetoric, which alone is able to distinguish the natures and classes of men and things ; whicli divides a whole into the natural parts, and reunites the scattered parts into a natural or organized whole ; which defines the abstract essences or universal ideas of all things, and connects them ; which pierces the veil of hypotheses and reaches the final cause or first principle of all; which regards the sciences in relation to the idea of good.

This ideal science is the highest process of thought, and may be described as the soul conversing with herself or holding communion with eternal truth and beauty, and in another form is the everlasting question and answer — the ceaseless interrogative of Socrates. The dialogues of Plato are themselves examples of the nature and method of dialectic.

Viewed objectively, the idea of good is a power or cause which makes the world without us correspond with the world within. Yet this world without us is still a world of ideas. With Plato the investigation of nature is another department of knowledge, and in this he seeks to attain only probable conclusions (cp. Timaeus, 44 D).

If we ask whether this science of dialectic which Plato only half explains to us is more akin to logic or to metaphysics, the answer is that in his mind the two sciences are not as yet distinguished, any more than the subjective and objective aspects of the world and of man, which German philosophy has revealed to us.

Nor has he determined whether his science of dialectic is at rest or in motion, concerned with the contemplation of absolute being, or with a process of development and evolution. Modern metaphysics may be described as the science of abstractions, or as the science of the evolution of thought ; modern logic, when passing beyond the bounds of mere Aristotelian forms, may be defined as the science of method. The germ of

both of them is contained in the Platonic dialectic ; all metaphysicians have something in common with the ideas of Plato ; all logicians have derived something from the method of Plato. The nearest approach in modern philosophy to the universal science of Plato, is to be found in the Hegelian ' succession of moments in the unity of the idea.

Plato and Hegel alike seem to have conceived the world as the correlation of abstractions ; and not impossibly they would have understood one another better than any of their commentators understand them (cp. Swift's Voyage to Laputa, c. 81).

There is, however, a difference between them : for whereas Hegel is thinking of all the minds of men as one mind, which developes the stages of the idea in different countries or at different times in the same country, with Plato these gradations are regarded only as an order of thought or ideas ; the history of the human mind had not yet dawned upon him. Many criticisms may be made on Plato's theory of education.

While in some respects he unavoidably falls short of modern thinkers, in others he is in advance of them. He is opposed to the modes of education which prevailed in his own time ; but he can hardly be said to have discovered new ones. He does 1 ' Having a desire to see those ancients who were most renowned for wit 'and learning, I set apart one day on purpose.

I proposed that Homer and 'Aristotle might appear at the head of all their commentators ; but these were ' so numerous that some hundreds were forced to attend in the court and ' outward rooms of the palace. I knew, and could distinguish these two ' heroes, at first sight, not only from the crowd, but from each other.

Homer ' was the taller and comelier person of the two, walked very erect for one of ' his age, and his eyes were the most quick and piercing I ever beheld. Aris- ' totle stooped much, and made use of a staff. His visage was meagre, his 'hair lank and thin, and his voice hollow. I soon discovered that both of • them were perfect strangers to the rest of the company, and had never seen or ' heard of them before.

And I had a whisper from a ghost, who shall be ' nameless, "That these commentators always kept in the most distant quarters ' from their principals, in the lower world, through a consciousness of shame ' and guilt, because they had so horribly misrepresented the meaning of these ' authors to posterity.

I introduced Didymus and Eustathius to Homer, and ' prevailed on him to treat them better than perhaps they deserved, for he soon ' found they wanted a genius to enter into the spirit of a poet. But Aristotle ' was out of all patience with the account I gave him of Scotus and Ramus, as ' I presented them to him ; and he asked them " whether the rest of the tribe ' were as great dunces as themselves ? " '

The Education of latei' life. ccix not see that education is relative to the characters of individuals ; Republic. he only desires to impress the same form of the state on the Introducminds of all. He has no sufficient idea of the effect of litera- "°''' ture on the formation of the mind, and greatly exaggerates that of mathematics.

His aim is above all things to train the reasoning faculties ; to implant in the mind the spirit and power of abstraction ; to explain and define general notions, and, if possible, to connect them.

No wonder that in the vacancy of actual knowledge his followers, and at times even he himself, should have fallen away from the doctrine of ideas, and have returned to that branch of knowledge in which alone the relation of the one and many can be truly seen — the science of number.

In his views both of teaching and training he might be styled, in modern language, a doctrinaire ; after the Spartan fashion he would have his citizens cast in one mould ; he does not seem to consider that some degree of freedom, ' a little wholesome neglect,' is necessary to strengthen and develope the character and to give play to the individual nature.

His citizens would not have acquired that knowledge which in the vision of Er is supposed to be gained by the pilgrims from their experience of evil. On the other hand, Plato is far in advance of modern philosophers and theologians when he teaches that education is to be continued through life and will begin again in another.

He would never allow education of some kind to cease ; although he was aware that the proverbial saying of Solon, ' I grow old learning many things,' cannot be applied literally. Himself ravished with the contemplation of the idea of good, and delighting in solid geometry (Rep. vii. 528), he has no difficulty in imagining that a lifetime might be passed happily in such pursuits.

We who know how many more men of business there are in the world than real students or thinkers, are not equally sanguine. The education which he proposes for his citizens is really the ideal life of the philosopher or man of genius, interrupted, but only for a time, by practical duties, — a life not for the many, but for the few. Yet the thought of Plato may not be wholly incapable of application to our own times.

Even if regarded as an ideal which can never be realized, it may have a great effect in elevating the characters of mankind, and raising them above the routine VOL. III. — 14

ccx The Education of later life. Republic. of their ordinary occupation or profession. It is the best form liNTRODuc- under which we can conceive the whole of hfe. Nevertheless the TioN. '\diQ-d, of Plato is not easily put into practice. For the education of after life is necessarily the education which each one* gives himself.

Men and women cannot be brought together in schools or colleges at forty or fifty years of age ; and if they could the result would be disappointing. The destination of most men is what Plato would call ' the Den ' for the whole of life, and with that they are content. Neither have they teachers or advisers with whom they can take counsel in riper years.

There is no ' schoolmaster abroad ' who will tell them of their faults, or inspire them with the higher sense of duty, or with the ambition of a true success in life ; no Socrates who will convict them of ignorance ; no Christ, or follower of Christ, who will reprove them of sin. Hence they have a difficulty in receiving the first element of improvement, which is self-knowledge.

The hopes of youth no longer stir them ; they rather wish to rest than to pursue high objects. A few only who have come across great men and women, or eminent teachers of religion and morality, have received a second life from them, and have lighted a candle from the fire of their genius. The want of energy is one of the main reasons why so few persons continue to improve in later years. They have not the will, and do not know the way.

They ' never try an experiment,' or look up a point of interest for themselves ; they make no sacrifices for the sake of knowledge ; their minds, like their bodies, at a certain age become fixed. Genius has been defined as ' the power of taking pains ' ; but hardly any one keeps up his interest in knowledge throughout a whole life.

The troubles of a family, the business of making money, the demands of a profession destroy the elasticity of the mind. The waxen tablet of the memory which was once capable of receiving ' true thoughts and clear impressions ' becomes hard and crowded ; there is not room for the accumulations of a long life (Theaet. 194 ff.). The student, as years advance, rather makes an exchange of knowledge than adds to his stores.

There is no pressing necessity to learn ; the stock of Classics or History or Natural Science which was enough for a man at twenty-five is enough for him at fifty. Neither is it easy to give a definite answer to any one who asks how he is to improve. For self-education consists in a

thousand things, commonplace in themselves, — in adding to what Republic. we are by nature something of what we are not; in learning to introduc see ourselves as others see us; in judging, not by opinion, but '^'°'*- by the evidence of facts ; in seeking out the society of superior minds; in a study of the lives and writings of great men; in observation of the world and character; in receiving kindly the natural influence of different times of life ; in any act or thought which is raised above the practice or opinions of mankind ; in the pursuit of some new or original enquiry; in any effort of mind which calls forth some latent power.

If any one is desirous of carrying out in detail the Platonic education of after-life, some such counsels as the following may be offered to him: — That he shall choose the branch of knowledge to which his own mind most distinctly inclines, and in which he takes the greatest delight, either one which seems to connect with his own daily employment, or, perhaps, furnishes the greatest contrast to it.

He may study from the speculative side the profession or business in which he is practically engaged. He may make Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Plato, Bacon the friends and companions of his life. He may find opportunities of hearing the living voice of a great teacher. He may select for enquiry some point of history or some unexplained phenomenon of nature.

An hour a day passed in such scientific or literary pursuits will furnish as many facts as the memory can retain, and will give him 'a pleasure not to be repented of (Timaeus, 59 D). Only let him beware of being the slave of crotchets, or of running after a Will o' the Wisp in his ignorance, or in his vanity of attributing to himself the gifts of a poet or assuming the air of a philosopher. He should know the limits of his own powers.

Better to build up the mind by slow additions, to creep on quietly from one thing to another, to gain insensibly new powers and new interests in knowledge, than to form vast schemes which are never destined to be realized. But perhaps, as Plato would say, * This is part of another subject' (Tim. 87 B) ; though we may also defend our digression by his example (Theaet. 72, ']']).

the natural growth of institutions which fill modern treatises on political philosophy seem hardly ever to have attracted the attention of Plato and Aristotle. The ancients were familiar with the mutability of human affairs ; they could moralize over the ruins of cities and the fall of empires (cp. Plato, Statesman 301, 302, and Sulpicius' Letter to Cicero, Ad Fam. iv.

5) ; by them fate and chance were deemed to be real powers, almost persons, and to have had a great share in political events. The wiser of them like Thucydides believed that ' what had been would be again,' and that a tolerable idea of the future could be gathered from the past. Also they had dreams of a Golden Age which existed once upon a time and might still exist in some unknown land, or might return again in the remote future.

But the regular growth of a state enlightened by experience, progressing in knowledge, improving in the arts, of which the citizens were educated by the fulfilment of political duties, appears never to have come within the range of their hopes and aspirations. Such a state had never been seen, and therefore could not be conceived by them. Their experience (cp. Aristot. Metaph. xi. 21 ; Plato, Laws, iii.

676-9) led them to conclude that there had been cycles of civilization in which the arts had been discovered and lost many times over, and cities had been overthrown and rebuilt again and again, and deluges and volcanoes and other natural convulsions had altered the face of the earth. Tradition told them of many destructions of mankind and of the preservation of a remnant.

The world began again after a deluge and was reconstructed out of the fragments of itself. Also they were acquainted with empires of unknown antiquity, like the Egyptian or Assyrian; but they had never seen them grow, and could not imagine, any more than we can, the state of man which preceded them.

They were puzzled and awestricken by the Egyptian monuments, of which the forms, as Plato says, not in a figure, but literally, were ten thousand years old (Laws ii. 656 E), and they contrasted the antiquity of Egypt with their own short memories.

The early legends of Hellas have no real connection with the later history : they are at a distance, and the intermediate region is concealed from view ; there is no road or path which leads from one to the other. At the beginning of Greek history, in the vestibule of the temple, is seen standing first of all the figure of

the legislator, himself the interpreter and servant of the God. The fundamental laws which he gives are not supposed to change with time and circumstances. The salvation of the state is held rather to depend on the inviolable maintenance of them. They were sanctioned by the authority of heaven, and it was deemed impiety to alter them.

The desire to maintain them unaltered seems to be the origin of what at first sight is very surprising to us — the intolerant zeal of Plato against innovators in religion or politics (cp. Laws x. 907-9) ; although with a happy inconsistency he is also willing that the laws of other countries should be studied and improvements in legislation privately communicated to the Nocturnal Council (Laws xii. 95 1 E fif.).

The additions which were made to them in later ages in order to meet the increasing complexity of affairs were still ascribed by a fiction to the original legislator ; and the words of such enactments at Athens were disputed over as if they had been the words of Solon himself. Plato hopes to preserve in a later generation the mind of the legislator ; he would have his citizens remain within the lines which he has laid down for them.

He would not harass them with minute regulations, and he would have allowed some changes in the laws : but not changes which would affect the fundamental institutions of the state, such for example as would convert an aristocracy into a timocracy, or a timocracy into a popular form of government. Passing from speculations to facts, we observe that progress has been the exception rather than the law of human history.

And therefore we are not surprised to find that the idea of progress is of modern rather than of ancient date ; and, like the idea of a philosophy of history, is not more than a century or two old.

It seems to have arisen out of the impression left on the human mind by the growth of the Roman Empire and of the Christian Church, and to be due to the political and social improvements which they introduced into the world ; and still more in our own century to the idealism of the first French Revolution and the triumph of American Independence ; and in a yet greater degree to the vast material prosperity and growth of population in England and her colonies and in America.

It is also to be ascribed in a measure to the greater study of the philosophy of history. The optimist temperament of some great writers has

Intkoduc- TION.

CCXIV Republic. Introduction.

The Republic and the Laws. assisted the creation of it, while the opposite character has led a few to regard the future of the world as dark. The ' spectator of all time and of all existence ' sees more of ' the increasing purpose which through the ages ran ' than formerly : but to the inhabitant of a small state of Hellas the vision was necessarily limited like the valley in which he dwelt. There was no remote past on which his eye could rest, nor any future from which the veil was partly lifted up by the analogy of history. The narrowness of view, which to ourselves appears so singular, was to him natural, if not unavoidable.

V. For the relation of the Republic to the Statesman and the Laws, the two other works of Plato which directly treat of politics, see the Introductions to the two latter ; a few general points of comparison may be touched upon in this place. And first of the Laws, (i) The Republic, though probably written at intervals, yet speaking generally and judging by the indications of thought and style, may be reasonably ascribed to the middle period of Plato's life : the Laws are certainly the work of his declining years, and some portions of them at any rate seem to have been written in extreme old age. (2) The Republic is full of hope and aspiration : the Laws bear the stamp of failure and disappointment. The one is a finished work which received the last touches of the author : the other is imperfectly executed, and apparently unfinished. The one has the grace and beauty of youth : the other has lost the poetical form, but has more of the severity and knowledge of life which is characteristic of old age. (3) The most conspicuous defect of. the Laws is the failure of dramatic power, whereas the Republic is full of striking contrasts of ideas and oppositions of character. (4) The Laws may be said to have more the nature of a sermon, the Republic of a poem; the one is more religious, the other more intellectual. (5) Many theories of Plato, such as the doctrine of ideas, the government of the world by philosophers, are not found in the Laws ; the immortality of the soul is first mentioned in xii. 959, 967 ; the person of Socrates has altogether disappeared. The community of women and children is renounced ; the institution of common or public meals for women (Laws vi. 781) is for the first time intro-

The Republic and the Laws.

ccxv

duced (Ar. Pol. ii. 6, ^ 5). (6) There remains in the Laws the old Republic. enmity to the poets (vii. 817), who are ironically saluted in high- Introducflown terms, and, at the same time, are peremptorily ordered out '^'°'*- of the city, if they are not willing to submit their poems to the censorship of the magistrates (cp. Rep. iii. 398). (7) Though the work is in most respects inferior, there are a few passages in the Laws, such as v.

727 ff. (the honour due to the soul), viii. 835 ff. (the evils of licentious or unnatural love), the whole of Book x. (religion), xi. 918 flf. (the dishonesty of retail trade), and 923 ff. (bequests), which come more home to us, and contain more of what may be termed the modern element in Plato than almost anything in the Republic. The relation of the two works to one another is very well given : (i) by Aristotle in the Politics (ii.

6, %% 1-5) from the side of the Laws : — *■ The same, or nearly the same, objections apply to Plato's '■ later work, the Laws, and therefore we had better examine briefly * the constitution which is therein described. In the Republic, 'Socrates has definitely settled in all a few questions only; such * as the community of women and children, the community of * property, and the constitution of the state.

The population is ' divided into two classes — one of husbandmen, and the other of ' warriors ; from this latter is taken a third class of counsellors * and rulers of the state. But Socrates has not determined whether ' the husbandmen and artists are to have a share in the govern- ' ment, and whether they too are to carry arms and share in ' military service or not.

He certainly thinks that the women ' ought to share in the education of the guardians, and to fight ' by their side. The remainder of the work is filled up with ' digressions foreign to the main subject, and Avith discussions 'abo'ut the education of the guardians. In the Laws there is ' hardly anything but laws ; not much is said about the constitution.

'This, which he had intended to make more of the ordinary type, * he gradually brings round to the other or ideal form. For with ' the exception of the community of women and property, he ' supposes everything to be the same in both states ; there is to be ' the same education ; the citizens of both are to live free from ' servile occupations, and there are to be common meals in both. ' The only difference is that in the Laws the common meals are

* extended to women, and the warriors number about 5000, but in * the Republic only 1000.' (ii) by Plato in the Laws (Book v. 739 B-E), from the side of the Republic : — ' The first and highest form of the state and of the government ' and of the law is that in which there prevails most widely the ' ancient saying that '' Friends have all things in common.

Whether ' there is now, or ever will be, this communion of women and 'children and of property, in which the private and individual * is altogether banished from life, and things which are by nature ' private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, ' and all men express praise and blame, and feel joy and sorrow, ' on the same occasions, and the laws unite the city to the utmost, — ' whether all this is possible or not, I say that no man, acting upon 'any other principle, will ever constitute a state more exalted in ' virtue, or truer or better than this.

Such a state, whether in- ' habited by Gods or sons of Gods, will make them blessed who * dwell therein ; and therefore to this we are to look for the pattern ' of the state, and to cling to this, and, as far as possible, to seek ' for one which is like this. The state which we liave now in hand, ' when created, will be nearest to immortality and unity in the ' next degree; and after that, by the grace of God, we will com- ' plete the third one.

And we will begin by speaking of the nature 'and origin of the second. The comparatively short work called the Statesman or Politicus in its style and manner is more akin to the Laws, while in its idealism it rather resembles the Republic. As far as we can judge by various indications of language and thought, it must be later than the one and of course earlier than the other.

In both the Republic and Statesman a close connection is maintained between Politics and Dialectic. In the Statesman, enquiries into the principles of Method are interspersed with discussions about Politics. The comparative advantages of the rule of law and of a person are considered, and the decision given in favour of a person (Arist. Pol. iii. 15, 16).

But much maybe said on the other side, nor is the opposition necessary ; for a person may rule by law, and law may be so applied as to be the living voice of the legislator. As in the Republic, there is a myth, describing, however, not a future, but a former existence of mankind. The question is

Cicero's De Republica. ccxvii asked, ' Whether the state of innocence which is described in the Republic. myth, or a state Hke our own which possesses art and science and Introducdistinguishes good from evil, is the preferable condition of man. '"'^• To this question of the comparative happiness of civilized and primitive life, which was so often discussed in the last century and in our own, no answer is given.

The Statesman, though less perfect in style than the Republic and of far less range, may justly be regarded as one of the greatest of Plato's dialogues.

VI. Others as well as PJato have chosen an ideal Republic to be the vehicle of thoughts which they could not definitely express, or which went beyond their own age. The classical writing which approaches most nearly to the Republic of Plato is the ' De Republica' of Cicero; but neither in this nor in any other of his dialogues does he rival the art of Plato.

The manners are clumsy and inferior ; the hand of the rhetorician is apparent at every turn. Yet noble sentiments are constantly recurring: the true note of Roman patriotism — ' We Romans are a great people ' — resounds through the whole work. Like Socrates, Cicero turns away from the phenomena of the heavens to civil and political life.

He would rather not discuss the ' two Suns ' of which all Rome was talking, when he can converse about ' the two nations in one ' which had divided Rome ever since the days of the Gracchi. Like Socrates again, speaking in the person of Scipio, he is afraid lest he should assume too much the character of a teacher, rather than of an equal who is discussing among friends the two sides of a question.

Me would confine the terms King or State to the rule of reason and justice, and he will not concede that title either to a democracy or to a monarchy. But under the rule of reason and justice he is willing to include the natural superior ruling over the natural inferior, which he compares to the soul ruling over the body. He prefers a mixture of forms of government to any single One.

The two portraits of the just and the unjust, which occur in the second book of the Republic, are transferred to the state — Philus, one of the interlocutors, maintaining against his will the necessity of injustice as a principle of government, while the other, Laelius, supports the opposite thesis. His views of language and number are derived

from Plato ; like him he denounces the drama. He also declares that if his life were to be twice as long he would have no time to read the lyric poets. The picture of democracy is translated by him word for word, though he has hardly shown himself able to * carry the jest ' of Plato.

He converts into a stately sentence the humorous fancy about the animals, who ' are so imbued with the spirit of democracy that they make the passers-by get out of their way ' (i. 42). His description of the tyrant is imitated from Plato, but is far inferior.

The second book is historical, and claims for the Roman constitution (which is to him the ideal) a foundation of fact such as Plato probably intended to have given to the Republic in the Critias.

His most remarkable imitation of Plato is the adaptation of the vision of Er, which is converted by Cicero into the ' Somnium Scipionis ' ; he has ' romanized ' the myth of the Republic, adding an argument for the immortality of the soul taken from the Phaedrus, and some other touches derived from the Phaedo and the Timaeus.

Though a beautiful tale and containing splendid passages, the ' Somnium Scipionis ' is very inferior to the vision of Er; it is only a dream, and hardly allows the reader to suppose that the writer believes in his own creation.

Whether his dialogues were framed on the model of the lost dialogues of Aristotle, as he himself tells us, or of Plato, to which they bear many superficial resemblances, he is still the Roman orator; he is not conversing, but making speeches, and is never able to mould the intractable Latin to the grace and ease of the Greek Platonic dialogue.

But if he is defective in form, much more is he inferior to the Greek in matter; he nowhere in his philosophical writings leaves upon our minds the impression of an original thinker.

Plato's Republic has been said to be a church and not a state ; and such an ideal of a city in the heavens has always hovered over the Christian world, and is embodied in St. Augustine's ' De Civitate Dei,' which is suggested by the decay and fall of the Roman Empire, much in the same manner in which we may imagine the Republic of Plato to have been influenced by the decline of Greek politics in the writer's own age.

The difference is that in the time of Plato the degeneracy, though certain, was gradual and insensible : whereas the taking of Rome by the Goths stirred like an earthquake the age of St. Augustine. Men

were inclined to believe that the overthrow of the city was to be Republic. ascribed to the anger felt by the old Roman deities at the neglect introdu( of their worship. St. Augustine maintains the opposite thesis ; ^'"'^ he argues that the destruction of the Roman empire is due, not to the rise of Christianity, but to the vices of Paganism.

He wanders over Roman history, and over Greek philosophy and mythology, and finds everywhere crime, impiety and falsehood. He compares the worst parts of the Gentile religions with the best elements of the faith of Christ. He- shows nothing of the spirit which led others of the early Christian Fathers to recognize in the writings of the Greek philosophers the power of the divine truth.

He traces the parallel of the kingdom of God, that is, the history of the Jews, contained in their scriptures, and of the kingdoms of the world, which are found in Gentile writers, and pursues them both into an ideal future. It need hardly be remarked that his use both of Greek and of Roman historians and of the sacred writings of the Jews is wholly uncritical.

The heathen mythology, the Sybilline oracles, the myths of Plato, the dreams of Neo-Platonists are equally regarded by him as matter of fact. He must be acknowledged to be a strictly polemical or controversial writer who makes the best of everything on one side and the worst of everything on the • other.

He has no sympathy with the old Roman life as Plato has with Greek life, nor has he any idea of the ecclesiastical kingdom which was to arise out of the ruins of the Roman empire. He is not blind to the defects of the Christian Church, and looks forward to a time when Christian and Pagan shall be alike brought before the judgment-seat, and the true City of God shall appear. . . .

The work of St. Augustine is a curious repertory of antiquarian learning and quotations, deeply penetrated with Christian ethics, but showing little power of reasoning, and a slender knowledge of the Greek literature and language. He was a great genius, and a noble character, yet hardly capable of feeling or understanding anything external to his own theology.

Of all the ancient philosophers he is most attracted by Plato, though he is very slightly acquainted with his writings. He is inclined to believe that the idea of creation in the Timaeus is derived from the narrative in Genesis ; and he is strangely taken with the coincidence (?) of Plato's saying that ' the philosopher

is the lover of God/ and the words of the Book of Exodus in which God reveals himself to Moses (Exod. iii. 14). He dwells at length on miracles performed in his own day, of which the evidence is regarded by him as irresistible. He speaks in a very interesting manner of the beauty and utility of nature and of the human frame, which he conceives to afford a foretaste of*the heavenly state and of the resurrection of the body.

The book is not really what to most persons the title of it would imply, and belongs to an age which has passed away. But it contains many fine passages and thoughts which are for all time. The short treatise de Monarchia of Dante is by far the most remarkable of mediaeval ideals, and bears the impress of the great genius in whom Italy and the Middle Ages are so vividly reflected.

It is the vision of an Universal Empire, which is supposed to be the natural and necessary government of the world, having a divine authority distinct from the Papacy, yet coextensive with it. It is not * the ghost of the dead Roman Empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof,' but the legitimate heir and successor of it, justified by the ancient virtues of the Romans and the beneficence of their rule.

Their right to be the governors of the world is also confirmed by the testimony of miracles, and acknowledged by St. Paul when he appealed to Caesar, and even more emphatically by Christ Himself, Who could not have made atonement for the sins of men if He had not been condemned by a divinely authorized tribunal.

The necessity for the establishment of an Universal Empire is proved partly by a priori arguments such as the unity of God and the unity of the family or nation ; partly by perversions of Scripture and history, by false analogies of nature, by misapplied quotations from the classics, and by odd scraps and commonplaces of logic, showing a familiar but by no means exact knowledge of Aristotle (of Plato there is none).

But a more convincing argument still is the miserable state of the world, which he touchingly describes. He sees no hope of happiness or peace for mankind until all nations of the earth are comprehended in a single empire. The whole treatise shows how deeply the idea of the Roman Empire was fixed in the minds of his contemporaries. Not much argument was needed to maintain the truth of a theory which to his own

contemporaries seemed so natural and congenial. He speaks, Republic. or rather preaches, from the point of view, not of the ecclesiastic, Introducbut of the layman, although, as a good Catholic, he is willing ^'°'^' to acknowledge that in certain respects the Empire must submit to the Church.

The beginning and end of all his noble reflections and of his arguments, good and bad, is the aspiration, 'that in this little plot of earth belonging to mortal man life may pass in freedom and peace. So inextricably is his vision of the future bound up with the beliefs and circumstances of his own age. The 'Utopia' of Sir Thomas More is a surprising monument of his genius, and shows a reach of thought far beyond his contemporaries.

The book was written by him at the age of about 34 or 35, and is full of the generous sentiments of youth. He brings the light of Plato to bear upon the miserable state of his own country. Living not long after the Wars of the Roses, and in the dregs of the Catholic Church in England, he is indignant at the corruption of the clergy, at the luxury of the nobility and gentry, at the sufferings of the poor, at the calamities caused by war.

To the eye of More the whole world was in dissolution and decay ; and side by side with the misery and oppression which he has described in the First Book of the Utopia, he places in the Second Book the ideal state which by the help of Plato he had constructed. The times were full of stir and intellectual interest. The distant murmur of the Reformation was beginning to be heard.

To minds like More's, Greek literature was a revelation : there had arisen an art of interpretation, and the New Testament was beginning to be understood as it had never been before, and has not often been since, in its natural sense.

The life there depicted appeared to him wholly unlike that of Christian commonwealths, in which ' he saw nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the Commonwealth. He thought that Christ, like Plato, ' instituted all things common,' for which reason, he tells us, the citizens of Utopia were the more willing to receive his doctrines^. The community of

1 ' Howbeit, I think this was no small help and furtherance in the matter, that they heard us say that Christ instituted among his, all things common, and that the same community doth yet remain in the rightest Christian communities' (Utopia, English Reprints, p. 144).

CCXXll

Sir Thomas Move's Utopia.

Republic. Introduction.

property is a fixed idea with him, though he is aware of the arguments which may be urged on the other side^. We wonder how in the reign of Henry VIII., though veiled in another language and published in a foreign country, such speculations could have been endured. He is gifted with far greater dramatic invention than any one who succeeded him, with the exception of Swift. In the art of feigning he is a worthy disciple of Plato.

Like him, starting from a small portion of fact, he founds his tale with admirable skill on a few lines in the Latin narrative of the voyages of Amerigo Vespucci. He is very precise about dates and facts, and has the power of making us believe that the narrator of the tale must have been an eyewitness.

We are fairly puzzled by his manner of mixing up real and imaginary persons ; his boy John Clement and Peter Giles, the citizen of Antwerp, with whom he disputes about the precise words which are supposed to have been used by the (imaginary) Portuguese traveller, Raphael Hythloday. * I have the njore cause,' says Hythloday, ^ to fear that my words shall not be believed, for that I know how difficultly and hardly I myself would have believed another man telling the same, if I had not myself seen it with mine own eyes.

Or again : ' If you had been with me in Utopia, and had presently seen their fashions and laws as I did which lived there five years or more, and would never have come thence, but only to make the new land known here,' etc. More greatly regrets that he forgot to ask Hythloday in what part of the world Utopia is situated; he Svould have spent no small sum of money rather than it should have escaped him,' and he begs Peter Giles to see Hythloday or write to him and obtain an answer to the question.

After this we are not surprised to hear that a Professor of Divinity (perhaps ' a late famous vicar of Croydon in Surrey,' as the translator thinks) is desirous of being sent thither as a missionary by the High Bishop, ' yea, and that he may himself be made Bishop of Utopia, nothing doubting that he must obtain this Bishopric with suit ; and he counteth that a godly 1 'These things (I say), when I consider with myself, I hold well with Plato, and do nothing marvel that he would make no laws for them that refused those laws, whereby all men should have and enjoy equal portions of riches and commodities.

For the wise man did easily foresee this to be the one and only way to the wealth of a community, if equality of all things should be brought in and established' (Utopia, English Reprints, pp. 67, 68).

Sir Thomas Move's Utopia. ccxxiii suit which proceedeth not of the desire of honour or lucre, but Republic. only of a godly zeal. The design may have failed through the introducdisappearance of Hythloday, concerning whom we have * very ^'"'*' uncertain news ' after his departure.

There is no doubt, however, that he had told More and Giles the exact situation of the island, but unfortunately at the same moment More's attention, as he is reminded in a letter from Giles, was drawn off by a servant, and one of the company from a cold caught on shipboard coughed so loud as to prevent Giles from hearing. And ' the secret has perished' with him; to this day the place of Utopia remains unknown.

The uords of Phaedrus (275 B), * O Socrates, you can easily invent Egyptians or anything,' are recalled to our mind as we read this lifelike fiction. Yet the greater merit of the work is not the admirable art, but the originality of thought. More is as free as Plato from the prejudices of his age, and far more tolerant. The Utopians do not allow him who believes not in the immortality of the soul to share in the administration of the state (cp.

Laws x. 908 foil.), ' howbeit they put him to no punishment, because they be persuaded that it is in no man's power to believe what he list ' ; and * no man is to be blamed for reasoning in support of his own religion^. In the public services ' no prayers be used, but such as every man may boldly pronounce without giving offence to any sect.

He says significantly (p. 143), ' There be that give worship to a man that was once of excellent virtue or of famous glory, not only as God, but also the chiefest and highest God. But the most and the wisest part, rejecting all these, believe that there is a certain godly power unknown, far above the capacity and reach of man's wit, dispersed throughout all the world, not in bigness, but in virtue and power. Him they call the Father of all.

To Him alone they attribute the beginnings, the increasings, the proceed- 1 ' One of our company in my presence was sharply punished.

He, as soon as he was baptised, began, against our wills, with more earnest affection than wisdom, to reason of Christ's religion, and began to wax so hot in his matter, that he did not only prefer our religion before all other, but also did despise and condemn all other, calling them profane, and the followers of them wicked and devilish, and the children of everlasting damnation.

When he had thus long reasoned the matter, they laid hold on him, accused him, and condemned him into exile, not as a despiser of religion, but as a seditious person and a raiser up of dissension among the people ' (p. 145).

Republic. ings, the changes, and the ends of all things. Neither give they Introuuc- any divine honours to any other than him. So far was More from TioN. sharing the popular beliefs of his time. Yet at the end he reminds us that he does not in all respects agree with the customs and opinions of the Utopians which he describes.

And we should let him have the benefit of this saving clause, and not rudely withdraw the veil behind which he has been pleased to conceal himself. Nor is he less in advance of popular opinion in his poHtical and moral speculations.

He would like to bring military glory into contempt; he would set all sorts of idle people to profitable occupation, including in the same class, priests, women, noblemen, gentlemen, and ' sturdy and valiant beggars,' that the labour of all may be reduced to six hours a day.

His dislike of capital punishment, and plans for the reformation of offenders ; his detestation of priests and lawyers^ ; his remark that ' although every one may hear of ravenous dogs and wolves and cruel man-eaters, it is not easy to find states that are well and wisely governed,' are curiously at variance with the notions of his age and indeed with his own life.

There are many points in which he shows a modern feeling and a prophetic insight like Plato. He is a sanitary reformer ; he maintains that civilized states have a right to the soil of waste countries ; he is inclined to the opinion which places happiness in virtuous pleasures, but herein, as he thinks, not disagreeing from those other philosophers who define virtue to be a life according to nature.

He extends the idea of happiness so as to include the happiness of others ; and he argues ingeniously, *A11 men agree that we ought to make others happy ; but if others, how much more ourselves ! ' And still he thinks that there may be a more excellent way, but to this no man's reason can attain unless, heaven should inspire him with a higher truth.

His ceremonies before marriage ; his huinmie proposal that war should be carried on by assassinating the leaders of the enemy, may be compared to some of the paradoxes of Plato. He has a charming fancy, like the affinities of Greeks and barbarians in the Timaeus, that the Utopians learnt the language of the Greeks with the more readiness because they were originally of the same race with them.

He is penetrated with the spirit of Plato, and quotes or adapts many 1 Compare his satirical observation : ' They (the Utopians) have priests of exceeding holiness, and therefore very few ' (p. 150).

thoughts both from the RepubHc and from the Timaeus. He pre- Republic. fers public duties to private, and is somewhat impatient of the Introducimportunity of relations. His citizens have no silver or gold of ^'°^" their own, but are ready enough to pay them to their mercenaries (cp. Rep. iv. 422, 423). There is nothing of which he is more contemptuous than the love of money.

Gold is used for fetters of criminals, and diamonds and pearls for children's necklaces^. Like Plato he is full of satirical reflections on governments and princes; on the state of the world and of knowledge. The hero of his discourse (Hythloday) is very unwilling to become a minister of state, considering that he would lose his independence and his advice would never be heeded 2.

He ridicules the new logic of his time ; the Utopians could never be made to understand the doctrine of Second Intentions 3.

He is very severe on the sports of the gentry ; the Utopians count ' hunting the lowest, the vilest, and the most abject part of butchery.* He quotes the words of the Republic in which the philosopher is described 'standing out of the way under a wall until the driving storm of sleet and rain be overpast,' which admit of a singular application to More's own fate; although, writing twenty years before (about the year 15 14), 1 When the ambassadors came arrayed in gold and peacocks' feathers ' to the eyes of all the Utopians except very few, which had been in other countries for some reasonable cause, all that gorgeousncss of apparel seemed shameful and reproachful.

In so much that they most reverently saluted the vilest and most abject of them for lords — passing over the ambassadors themselves without any honour, judging them by their wearing of golden chains to be bondmen.

You should have seen children also, that had cast away their pearls and precious stones, when they saw the like sticking upon the ambassadors' caps, dig and push their mothers under the sides, saying thus to them — "Look, mother, how great a lubber doth yet wear pearls and precious stones, as though he were a little child still.

But the mother; yea and that also in good earnest : " Peace, son," saith she, " I think he be some of the ambassadors' fools " ' (p. 102). 2Cp. an exquisite passage at p. 35, of which the conclusion is as follows: ' And verily it is naturally given . . . suppressed and ended.

3 ' For they have not devised one of all those rules of restrictions, amplifications, and suppositions, very wittily invented in the small Logicals, which here our children in every place do learn.

Furthermore, they were never yet able to find out the second intentions ; insomuch that none of them all could ever see man himself in common, as they call him, though he be (as you know) bigger than was ever any giant, yea, and pointed to of us even with our finger ' (p. 105). VOL. III. — 15

he can hardly be supposed to have foreseen this. There is no touch of satire which strikes deeper than his quiet remark that the greater part of the precepts of Christ arc more at variance with the Uves of ordinary Christians than the discourse of Utopia i. The * New Atlantis ' is only a fragment, and far inferior in merit to the ' Utopia.

The work is full of ingenuity, but wanting in creative fancy, and by no means impresses the reader with a sense of credibility. In some places Lord Bacon is characteristically different from Sir Thomas More, as, for example, in the external state which he attributes to the governor of Solomon's House, whose dress he minutely describes, while to Sir Thomas More such trappings appear simply ridiculous. Yet, after this programme of dress.

Bacon adds the beautiful trait, ' that he had a look as though he pitied men. Several things are borrowed by him from the Timaeus ; but he has injured the unity of style by adding thoughts and passages which are taken from the Hebrew Scriptures. The ' City of the Sun,' written by Campanella (1568- 1639), a Dominican friar, several years, after the ' New Atlantis ' of Bacon, has many resemblances to the Republic of Plato.

The citizens have wives and children in common ; their marriages are of the same temporary sort, and are arranged by the magistrates from time to time. They do not, however, adopt his system of lots, but bring together the best natures, male and female, * according to philosophical rules.

The infants until two years of age are brought up by their mothers in public temples ; and since individuals for the most part educate their children badly, at the beginning of their third year they are committed to the care of the State, and are taught at first, not out of books, but from paintings of all kinds, which are emblazoned on the walls of the city. The city has six interior circuits of walls, and an outer wall which is the seventh. On this outer wall are painted the figures of legislators and philosophers, and

1 ' And yet the most part of them is more dissident from the manners of the world now a days, than my communication was. But preachers, sly and wily men, following your counsel (as I suppose) because they saw men evil-willing to frame their manners to Christ's rule, they have wrested and wried his doctrine, and, like a rule of lead, have applied it to men's manners, that by some means at the least way, they might agree together ' (p. 66).

The City of the Sun.

ccxxvii

on each of the interior walls the symbols or forms of some one Republic. of the sciences are delineated. The women are, for the most intkoducpart, trained, like the men, in warlike and other exercises; but '^'°'^" they have two special occupations of their own. After a battle, they and the boys soothe and relieve the wounded warriors ; also they encourage them with embraces and pleasant words (cp. Plato, Rep. v. 468).

Some elements of the Christian or Catholic religion are preserved among them. The life of the Apostles is greatly admired by this people because they had all things in common ; and the short prayer which Jesus Christ taught men is used in their worship.

It is a duty of the chief magistrates to pardon sins, and therefore the whole people make secret confession of them to the magistrates, and they to their chief, who is a sort of Rector Metaphysicus; and by this means he is well informed of all that is going on in the minds of men. After confession, absolution is granted to the citizens collectively, but no one is mentioned by name.

There also exists among them a practice of perpetual prayer, performed by a succession of priests, who change every hour. Their religion is a worship of God in Trinity, that is of Wisdom, Love and Power, but without any distinction of persons. They behold in the sun the reflection of His glory; mere graven images they reject, refusing to fall under the ' tyranny ' of idolatry.

Many details are given about their customs of eating and drinking, about their mode of dressing, their employments, their wars. Campanella looks forward to a new mode of education, which is to be a study of nature, and not of Aristotle. He would not have his citizens waste their time in the consideration of what he calls the 'dead signs of things.

He remarks that he who knows one science only, does not really know that one any more than the rest, and insists strongly on the necessity of a variety of knowledge. More scholars are turned out in the City of the Sun in one year than by contemporary methods in ten or fifteen.

He evidently believes, like Bacon, that henceforward natural science will play a great part in education, a hope which seems hardly to have been realized, either in our own or in any former age; at any rate the fulfilment of it has been long deferred. There is a good deal of ingenuity and even originality in this

work, and a most enlightened spirit pervades it. But it has little or no charm of style, and falls very far short of the ' New Atlantis ' of Bacon, and still more of the ' Utopia ' of Sir Thomas More. It is full of inconsistencies, and though borrowed from Plato, shows but a superficial acquaintance with his writings.

It is a work such as one might expect to have been written by a philosopher and man of genius who was also a friar, and who had spent twenty-seven years of his life in a prison of the Inquisition. The most interesting feature of the book, common to Plato and Sir Thomas More, is the deep feeling which is shown by the writer, of the misery and ignorance prevailing among the lower classes in his own time.

Campanella takes note of Aristotle's answer to Plato's community of property, that in a society where all things are common, no individual would have any motive to work (Arist. Pol. ii. 5, § 6) : he replies, that his citizens being happy and contented in themselves (they are required to work only four hours a day), will have greater regard for their fellows than exists among men at present.

He thinks, like Plato, that if he abolishes private feelings and interests, a great public feeling will take their place. Other writings on ideal states, such as the * Oceana' of Harrington, in which the Lord Archon, meaning Cromwell, is described, not as he was, but as he ought to have been ; or the 'Argenis ' of Barclay, which is an historical allegory of his own time, are too unlike Plato to be worth mentioning.

More interesting than either of these, and far more Platonic in style and thought, is Sir John Eliot's ' Monarchy of Man,' in which the prisoner of the Tower, no longer able ' to be a politician in the land of his birth,' turns away from politics to view 'that other city which is within him,' and finds on the very threshold of the grave that the secret of human happiness is the mastery of self.

The change of government in the time of the Enghsh Commonwealth set men thinking about first principles, and gave rise to many works of this class. . . . The great original genius of Swift owes nothing to Plato ; nor is there any trace in the conversation or in the works of Dr. Johnson of any acquaintance with his writings.

He probably would have refuted Plato without reading him, in the same fashion in which he supposed himself to have refuted Bishop Berkeley's theory of the non-existence of matter. If we

The value of Ideals. ccxxix except the so-called English Platonists, or rather Neo-Platonists, Republic. who never understood their master, and the writings of Coleridge, introducwho was to some extent n kindred spirit, Plato has left no ^'°^' permanent impression on English literature.

VII. Human life and conduct are affected by- ideals in the same way that they are affected by the examples of eminent men. Neither the one nor the other are immediately applicable to practice, but there is a virtue flowing from them which tends to raise individuals above the common routine of society or trade, and to elevate States above the mere interests of commerce or the necessities of self-defence.

Like the ideals of art they are partly framed by the omission of particulars ; they require to be viewed at a certain distance, and arc apt to fade away if we attempt to approach them. They gain an imaginary distinctness when embodied in a State or in a system of philosophy, but tliey still remain the visions of *a world unrealized.

More striking and obvious to the ordinary mind are the examples of great men, who have served their own generation and are remembered in another. Even in our own family circle there may have been some one, a woman, or even a child, in whose face has shone forth a goodness more than human. The ideal then approaches nearer to us, and we fondly cling to it.

The ideal of the past, whether of our own past lives or of former states of society, has a singular fascinatfon for the minds of many. Too late we learn that such ideals cannot be recalled, though the recollection of them may have a humanizing influence on other times.

But the abstractions of philosophy are to most persons cold and vacant ; they give light without warmth ; they are like the full moon in the heavens when there are no stars appearing. Men cannot live by thought alone ; the world of sense is always breaking in upon them.

They are for the most part confined to a corner of earth, and see but a little way beyond their own home or place of abode ; they ' do not lift up their eyes to the hills ' ; they are not awake when the dawn appears. But in Plato we have reached a height from which a man may look into the distance (Rep. iv. 445 C) and behold the future of the world and of philosophy. The ideal of the State and of the life of the philosopher ; the ideal of an education

ccxxx

Republic. Introduction.

The future of the race and of the individual. continuing through hfc and extending equally to both sexes; the ideal of the unity and correlation of knowledge; the faith in good and immortality — are the vacant forms of light on which Plato is seeking to fix the eye of mankind.

VIII. Two other ideals, which never appeared above the horizon in Greek Philosophy, float before the minds of men in our own day : one seen more clearly than formerly, as though each year and each generation brought us nearer to some great change ; the other almost in the same degree retiring from view behind the laws of nature, as if oppressed by them, but still remaining a silent hope of we know not what hidden in the heart of man.

The first ideal is the future of the human race in this world ; the second the future of the individual in another. The first is the more perfect realization of our own present life ; the second, the abnegation of it : the one, limited by experience, the other, transcending it. Both of them have been and are powerful motives of action; there are a few in whom they have taken the place of all earthly interests.

The hope of a future for the human race at first sight seems to be the more disinterested, the hope of individual existence the more egotistical, of the two motives.

But when men have learned to resolve their hope of a future either for themselves or for the world into the will of God — ' not my will but Thine,' the difference between them falls away; and they may be allowed to make either of them the basis of their lives, according to their own individual character or temperament. There is as much faith in the willingness to work for an unseen future in this world as in another.

Neither is it inconceivable that some rare nature may feel his duty to another generation, or to another century, almost as strongly as to his own, or that living always in the presence of God, he may realize another world as vividly as he does this.

The greatest of all ideals may, or rather must be conceived by us under similitudes derived from human qualities; although sometimes, like the Jewish prophets, we may dash away these figures of speech and describe the nature of God only in negatives. These again by degrees acquire a positive meaning. It would be well, if when meditating on the higher truths either of

The ideal of Divine goodness. ccxxxi philosophy or rehgion, \vc sometimes substituted one form of Republic. expression for another, lest through the necessities of language Intkouucwe should become the slaves of mere words.

""'^" There is a third ideal, not the same, but akin to these, which has a place in the home and heart of every believer in the religion of Christ, and in which men seem to find a nearer and more familiar truth, the Divine man, the Son of Man, the Saviour of mankind.

Who is the first-born and head of the whole family in heaven and earth, in Whom the Divine and human, that which is without and that which is within the range of our earthly faculties, are indissolubly united. Neither is this divine form of goodness wholly separable from the ideal of the Christian Church, vvhich is said in the New Testament to be 'His body,' or at variance with those other images of good vvhich Plato sets before us.

We see Him in a figure only, and of figures of speech we select but a few, and those the simplest, to be the expression of Him. We behold Him in a picture, but He is not there. We gather up the fragments of His discourses, but neither do they represent Him as He truly was. His dwelling is neither in heaven nor earth, but in the heart of man.

This is that image which Plato saw dimly in the distance, which, when existing among men, he called, in the language of Homer, 'the likeness of God' (Rep. vi.

501 B), the likeness of a nature which in all ages men have felt to be greater and better than themselves, and which in endless forms, whether derived from Scripture or nature, from the witness of history or from the human heart, regarded as a person or not as a person, with or without parts or passions, existing in space or not in space, is and will always continue to be to mankind the Idea of Good.

THE REPUBLIC. BOOK I.- PERSOxVS OF THE DIALOGUE. Socrates, who is the narrator. Cephalus. Glaucon. Thrasymachus. Adeimantus. Cleitophon. polemarchus. And others who are mute auditors. The scene is laid in the house of Cephalus at the Piraeus ; and the whole dialogue is narrated by Socrates the day after it actually took place to Timaeus, Hermocrates, Critias, and a nameless person, who are introduced in the Timaeus. strph. ¥ WENT down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon Republic i. •^^7 1 the son of Ariston, that I might offer up my prayers to socrates, the goddess ^ ; and also because I wanted to see in what Glaucon. manner they would celebrate the festival, which was a Meeting of new thing. I was delighted with the procession of the ciaucon with inhabitants ; but that of the Thracians was equally, if not Poie"iarchus . ^ -^ ' at the Bendimore, beautiful. When we had finished our prayers and dean festival. viewed the spectacle, we turned in the direction of the city ; and at that instant Polemarchus the son of Cephalus chanced to catch sight of us from a distance as we were starting on our way home, and told his servant to run and bid us wait for him. The servant took hold of me by the cloak behind, and said : Polemarchus desires you to wait. I turned round, and asked him where his master was. There he is, said the youth, coming after you, if you will only wait. ' Bendis, the Thracian Artemis. VOL. 111. — 16

The Home of Polernarchus.

Republic I. Socrates, POLEMAR- CHUS, Glaucon, Adeimantus, Cephalus.

The equestrian torchrace.

The gathering of friends at the house of Cephahis.

Certainly we will, said Glaucon ; and in a few minutes Polernarchus appeared, and with him Adeimantus, Glaucon's brother, Niceratus the son of Nicias, and several others who had been at the procession. Polemarchus said to me : I perceive, Socrates, that you and your companion are already on your way to the city. You are not far wrong, I said. But do you see, he rejoined, how many we are? Of course.

And are you stronger than all these? for if not, you will have to remain where you are. May there not be the alternative, I said, that we may persuade you to let us go? But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you? he said. Certainly not, repHed Glaucon. Then we are not going to listen ; of that you may be assured.

Adeimantus added : Has no one told you of the torch-race 32J on horseback in honour of the goddess which will take place in the evening? With horses ! I replied : That is a novelty. Will horsemen carry torches and pass them one to another during the race? Yes, said Polemarchus, and not only so, but a festival will be celebrated at night, which you certainly ought to see.

Let us rise soon after supper and see this festival ; there will be a gathering of young men, and we will have a good talk. Stay then, and do not be perverse. Glaucon said : I suppose, since you insist, that we must. Very good, I replied.

Accordingly we went with Polemarchus to his house ; and there we found his brothers Lysias and Euthydemus, and with them Thrasymachus the Chalcedonian, Charmantides the Paeanian, and Cleitophon the son of Aristonymus. There too was Cephalus the father of Polemarchus, whom I had not seen for a long time, and I thought him very much aged.

He was seated on a cushioned chair, and had a garland on his head, for he had been sacrificing in the court ; and there were some other chairs in the room arranged in a semicircle,

The aged Cephalus. 3 upon which we sat down by him. He saluted me eagerly, Republic i. and then he said: — Ckphalus, You don't come to see me, Socrates, as often as you ought : Sockatks. If 1 were still able to go and see you I would not ask you to come to me. But at my age I can hardly get to the city, and therefore you should come oftener to the Piraeus.

For let me tell you, that the more the pleasures of the body fade away, the greater to me is the pleasure and charm of conversation. Do not then deny my request, but make our house vour resort and keep company with these young men ; we are old friends, and you will be quite at home with us.

I replied : There is nothing which for my part I like better, Cephalus, than conversing with aged men ; for I regard them as travellers who have gone a journey which I too may have to go, and of whom I ought to enquire, whether the way is smooth and easy, or rugged and difficult.

And this is a question which I should like to ask of you who have arrived at that time which the poets call the ' threshold of old age ' — Is life harder towards the end, or what report do you give of it?

329 I will tell you, Socrates, he said, what my own feeling is. oidageisnot Men of my age flock together ; we are birds of a feather, as |° blame for the old proverb says; and at our meetings the tale of my of old men. acquaintance commonly is — I cannot eat, I cannot drink ; the pleasures of youth and love are fled away : there was a good time once, but now that is gone, and life is no longer life.

Some complain of the slights which are put upon them by relations, and they will tell you sadly of how many evils their old age is the cause. But to me, Socrates, these complainers seem to blame that which is not really in fault. For if old age were the cause, I too being old, anci every other old man, would have felt as they do. But this is not my own e.xperience, nor that of others whom I have known.

How well I remember the aged poet Sophocles, when in answer to the question, How does love suit with age, Sophocles, — are you still the man you were? Peace, he replied; most The excellent gladly have I escaped the thing of which you speak ; I feel l^y'"^ "'^ as if I had escaped from a mad and furious master. His words have often occurred to my mind since, and they seem as good to me now as at the time when he uttered them.

Themistocles and the Seriphian.

Republic I. Cephalus, Socrates.

It is admitted that the old, if they are to be comfortable, must have a fair share of external goods; neither virtue alone nor riches alone can make an old man happy.

Cephalus has inherited rather than made a fortune; he is therefore indifferent to money.

For certainly old age has a great sense of calm and freedom ; when the passions relax their hold, then, as Sophocles says, we are freed from the grasp not of one mad master only, but of many.

The truth is, Socrates, that these regrets, and also the complaints about relations, are to be attributed to the same cause, which is not old age, but men's characters and tempers ; for he who is of a calm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age, but to him who is of an opposite disposition youth and age are equally a burden.

I listened in admiration, and wanting to draw him out, that he might go on — Yes, Cephalus, I said ; but I rather suspect that people in general are not convinced by you when you speak thus ; they think that old age sits lightly upon you, not because of your happy disposition, but because you are rich, and wealth is well known to be a great comforter.

You are right, he replied ; they are not convinced : * and there is something in what they say ; not, however, so much as they imagine. I might answer them as Themistocles answered the Seriphian who was abusing him and saying that he was famous, not for his own merits but because he was an Athenian : ' If you had been a native of my country or I of yours, neither of us would have been famous.

And to those who are not rich and are impatient of old age, the same reply may be made ; for to the good poor man old age cannot be a light burden, nor can a bad rich man ever have peace with himself. May I ask, Cephalus, whether your fortune was for the most part inherited or acquired by you? Acquired ! Socrates ; do you want to know how much I acquired?

In the art of making money I have been midway between my father and grandfather: for my grandfather, whose name I bear, doubled and trebled the value of his patrimony, that which he inherited being much what I possess now ; but my father Lysanias reduced the property below what it is at present : and I shall be satisfied if I leave to these my sons not less but a little more than I received.

That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see that you are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic rather of those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who have acquired them ; the makers

The real Advantages of Wealth. 5 of fortunes have a second love of money as a creation of their Republic i. own, resembling the affection of authors for their own poems, Cephalus, or of parents for their children, besides that natural love of Sockates. it for the sake of use and profit which is common to them and all men. And hence they are ver)^ bad company, for they can talk about nothing but the praises of wealth. That is true, he said.

Yes, that is very true, but may I ask another question? — Theadvan- What do you consider to be the greatest blessing which you ^^^^^ have reaped from your wealth? One, he said, of which I could not expect easily to con- The fear of vince others.

For let me tell you, Socrates, that when a consciousness man thinks himself to be near death, fears and cares enter of sin become into his mind which he never had before; the tales of a J^oid^age; world below and the punishment which is exacted there of and to be rich deeds done here were once a laughing matter to him, but from many now he is tormented with the thought that they may be true : temptations, either from the weakness of age, or because he is now drawing nearer to that other place, he has a clearer view of these things ; suspicions and alarms crowd thickly upon him, and he begins to reflect and consider what wrongs he has done to others.

And when he finds that the sum of his transgressions is great he will many a time like a child start up in his sleep for fear, and he is filled with dark forebodings.

But 331 to him who is conscious of no sin, sweet hope, as Pindar Theadmircharmingly says, is the kind nurse of his age : ^vml^^^^^ ""^ 'Hope,' he says, 'cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice and holiness, and is the nurse of his age and the companion of his journey ; — hope which is mightiest to sway the restless soul of man. How admirable are his words!

And the great blessing of riches, 1 do not say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasion to deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally ; and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehension about offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men.

Now to this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes ; and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of the many advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this is in my opinion the greatest.

The first Definition of Justice

Republic I. Cephalus, Socrates, POLEMAR- CHUS. Justice to speak truth and pay your debts.

This is the definition of Simonides. But you ought not on all occasions to do either. What then was his meaning?

Well said, Cephalus, I replied ; but as concerning justice, what is it? — to speak the truth and to pay your debts — no more than this? And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for them when he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him?

No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so, any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truth to one who is in his condition. You are quite right, he replied. But then, I said, speaking the truth and paying your debts is not a correct definition of justice. Quite correct, Socrates, if Simonides is to be believed, said Polemarchus interposing.

I fear, said Cephalus, that I must go now, for I have to look after the sacrifices, and I hand over the argument to Polemarchus and the company. Is not Polemarchus your heir? I said. To be sure, he answered, and went away laughing to the sacrifices. Tell me then, O thou heir of the argument, what did Simonides say, and according to you truly say, about justice?

He said that the re-payment of a debt is just, and in saying so he appears to me to be righto I should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man, but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clear to me.

For he certainly does not mean, as we were just now saying, that I ought to return a deposit of arms or of anything else to one who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet a deposit cannot 332 be denied to be a debt. True. Then when the person who asks me is not in his right mind I am by no means to make the return? Certainly not. When Simonides said that the repayment of a debt was justice, he did not mean to include that case? Certainly not ; for he thinks that a friend ought always to do good to a friend and never evil.

is examined and found wantijig. 7 You mean that the return of a deposit of gold which is to Republic i. the injur)' of the receiver, if the two parties are friends, is not Socratrs, the repayment of a debt, — that is what you would imagine p^^^^^'*- him to say? Yes. And are enemies also to receive what we owe to them?

To be sure, he said, they are to receive what we owe them, and an enemy, as I take it, owes to an enemy that which is due or proper to him — that is to say, evil.

Simonides, then, after the manner of poets, would seem to He may have have spoken darkly of the nature of justice; for he really [^^^"[J";^^^ meant to say that justice is the giving to each man what is gives to friends proper to him, and this he termed a debt. ^^^^ '' ^°°^ * ^ ' and to enemies That must have been his meaning, he said. what is evil. By heaven!

I repHed ; and if we asked him what due or proper thing is given by medicine, and to whom, what answer do you think that he would make to us? He would surely reply that medicine gives drugs and meat and drink to human bodies. And what due or proper thing is given by cookery, and to what ? Seasoning to food. And what is that which justice gives, and to whom?

If, Socrates, we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the preceding instances, then justice is the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies. That is his meaning then? I think so. And who is best able to do good to his friends and evil to illustrations. his enemies in time of sickness? The physician. Or when they are on a voyage, amid the perils of the sea? The pilot.

And in what sort of actions or with a view to what result is the just man most able to do harm to his enemy and good to his friend? In going to war against the one and in making alliances with the other. But when a man is well, my dear Polemarchus, there is no need of a physician? ..

A further cross-examination.

Republic I. Socrates, Poi.EMAR- CHUS.

Justice is useful in contracts.

especially in the safe-keeping of deposits.

No. And he who is not on a voyage has no need of a pilot? No. Then in time of peace justice will be of no use? I am very far from thinking so. You think that justice may be of use in peace as well as ^yZZ in war? Yes. Like husbandry for the acquisition of com? Yes. Or hke shoemaking for the acquisition of shoes, — that is what you mean? Yes. And what similar use or power of acquisition has justice in time of peace? In contracts, Socrates, justice is of use. And by contracts you mean partnerships? Exactly. But is the just man or the skilful player a more useful and better partner at a game of draughts? The skilful player. And in the laying of bricks and stones is the just man a more useful or better partner than the builder? Quite the reverse. Then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harpplayer is certainly a better partner than the just man? In a money partnership. Yes, Polemarchus, but surely not in the use of money ; for you do not want a just man to be your counsellor in the purchase or sale of a horse ; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not? Certainly. And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better? True. Then what is that joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred? When you want a deposit to be kept safely. You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?

Justice turns out to be a Thief. 9 Precisely. Republic J. That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless? Socrates, That is the inference. Polemak- CHLS. And when you want to keep a prunincr-hook safe, then jus- „ . , ^ ...

But not in the tice is useful to the individual and to the state ; but when you use of money; want to use it, then the art of the vine-dresser? and if so, justice IS only Clearly. useful when And when you want to keep a shield or a lyre, and not to '"^"ey o"^ ^"y- •' ^ ^ •' thing else is use them, you would say that justice is useful ; but when you useless, want to use them, then the art of the soldier or of the musician? Certainly.

And so of all other things; — justice is useful when they are useless, and useless when they are useful? That is the inference. Then justice is not good for much. But let us consider this further point : Is not he who can best strike a blow in a boxing match or in any kind of fighting best able to ward off a blow? Certainly. And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping ^ from a disease is best able to create one? True.

And he is the best guard of a camp who is best able to a new point 334 steal a march upon the enemy? norhrwho^is Certainly. best able to do Then he who is a good keeper of anything is also a good fo^^t eviiV^'^ thief? That, I suppose, is to be inferred. Then if the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealing it. That is implied in the argument. Then after all the just man has turned out to be a thief.

And this is a lesson which I suspect you must have learnt out of Homer ; for he, speaking of Autolycus, the maternal grandfather of Odysseus, who is a favourite of his, affirms that lie was excellent above all men in theft and perjury. And so, you and Homer and Simonides are agreed that ' Reading <l>v?La^aa6ac kui ladelv, ovroq, k.t.A.

lO

Moi'e difficulties.

Repulilic I. Socrates, POLEMAR- CHUS.

Justice an art of theft to be practised for the good of friends and the harm of enemies. But who are friends and enemies ?

Mistakes will sometimes happen.

Correction of the definition.

justice is an art of theft ; to be practised however ' for the good of friends and for the harm of enemies,' — that was what you were saying? No, certainly not that, though I do not now know what I did say ; but I still stand by the latter words. Well, there is another question : By friends and enemies do we mean those who are so really, or only in seeming?

Surely, he said, a man may be expected to love those whom he thinks good, and to hate those whom he thinks evil. Yes, but do not persons often err about good and evil : many who are not good seem to be so, and conversely? That is true. Then to them the good will be enemies and the evil will be- their friends? True. And in that case they will be right in doing good to the evil and evil to the good? Clearly.

But the good are just and would not do an injustice? True. Then according to your argument it is just to injure those who do no wrong? Nay, Socrates ; the doctrine is immoral. Then I suppose that we ought to do good to the just and harm to the unjust? I like that better.

But see the consequence : — Many a man who is ignorant of human nature has friends who are bad friends, and in that case he ought to do harm to them ; and he has good enemies whom he ought to benefit ; but, if so, we shall be saying the very opposite of that which we affirmed to be the meaning of Simonides.

Very true, he said ; and I think that we had better correct an error into which we seem to have fallen in the use of the words ' friend ' and ' enemy. What was the error, Polemarchus? I asked. We assumed that he is a friend who seems to be or who is thought good. And how is the error to be corrected? We should rather say that he is a friend who is, as well as

A new colour given to tJie definition. 1 1 535 seems, good; and that he who seems only, and is not good, Republic i. only seems to be and is not a friend ; and of an enemy the Socrates, same may be said. . polemar- ^ CHUS. You would argue that the good are our friends and the ^ " " 1 o appearbad our enemies? ancewemust Wpc ^^^ reality. He is a friend And instead of saying simply as we did at first, that it is who 'is 'as just to do good to our friends and harm to our enemies, we "^^"j^TnT' should further say : It is just to do good to our friends when we should do they are good and harm to our enemies when they are evil? good to our ■' " J good mends Yes, that appears to me to be the truth. and harm to But ought the just to injure any one at all? miL ^ ^"^ Undoubtedly he ought to injure those who are both wicked and his enemies. When horses are injured, are they improved or deteriorated? 1 he latter. To harm men Deteriorated, that is to say, in the good qualities of horses, '^ *° '"J"''^ -J them ; and to not of dogs? injure them is Yes, of horses. ^° 1"^^^ ^^^^"^ And dogs are deteriorated in the good qualities of dogs, justice cannot and not of horses? produce injustice. Ui course. And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which is the proper virtue of man? Certainly. And that human virtue is justice? To be sure. Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust? That is the result. But can the musician by his art make men unmusical? Certainly not. Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen? Impossible. And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking generally, can the good by virtue make them bad? Assuredly not. Any more than heat can produce cold? It cannot. Or drought moisture?

12

Failure of the Definition.

Clearly not. Nor can the good harm any one? Impossible. And the just is the good? Certainly. Then to injure a friend or any one else is not the act of a just man, but of the opposite, who is the unjust? I think that what you say is quite true, Socrates.

Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a just man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies, — to say this is not wise ; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just. I agree with you, said Polemarchus.

Then you and I are prepared to take up arms against any one who attributes such a saying to Simonides or Bias or Pittacus, or any other wise man or seer? I am quite ready to do battle at your side, he said. Shall I tell you whose I believe the saying to be? Whose?

I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban, or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of his own power, was the first to say that justice is * doing good to your friends and harm to your enemies. Most true, he said. Yes, I said ; but if this definition of justice also breaks down, what other can be offered?

Several times in the course of the discussion Thrasymachus had made an attempt to get the argument into his own hands, and had been put down by the rest of the company, who wanted to hear the end. But when Polemarchus and I had done speaking and there was a pause, he could no longer hold his peace ; and, gathering himself up, he came at us hke a wild beast, seeking to devour us. We were quite panic-stricken at the sight of him.

He roared out to the whole company : What folly, Socrates, has taken possession of you all? And why, sillybillies, do you knock under to one another? I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but

answer, and you should not seek honour to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer ; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me ; I must have clearness and accuracy. I was panic-stricken at his words, and could not look at him without trembling.

Indeed I believe that if I had not fixed my eye upon him, I should have been struck dumb : but when I saw his fury rising, I looked at him first, and was therefore able to reply to him. Thrasymachus, I said, with a quiver, don't be hard upon us. Polemarchus and I may have been guilty of a little mistake in the argument, but I can assure you that the error was not intentional.

If we were seeking for a piece of gold, you would not imagine that we were ' knocking under to one another,' and so losing our chance of finding it. And why, when we are seeking for justice, a thing more precious than many pieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend, we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that we cannot.

And if so, you people who know all things should pity us and not be angry with us. How characteristic of Socrates! he rephed, with a bitter laugh ; — that's your ironical style ! Did I not foresee — have I not already told you, that whatever he was asked he would refuse to answer, and try irony or any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?

You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, I replied, and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, * for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,' — then obviously, if that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you. But suppose that he were to retort, ' Thrasymachus, what do you mean?

If one of these numbers which you interdict be the true answer to the question, am I falsely to say some other number which is not the right one ? — is that your meaning? ' — How would you answer him? Just as if the two cases were at all ahke! he said.

Republic /. Socrates, Thrasymachus.

Socrates cannot give any answer if all true answers are excluded.

Thrasymachus is assailed with his own weapons.

The Irony of Socrates is

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasyma- CHUS, Glaucon.

The Sophist demands payment for his instructions. The company are very willing to contribute.

Socrates knows little or nothing: how can he answer? And he is deterred by the interdict of Thrasymachus.

Why should they not be? I repHed ; and even if they are not, but only appear to be so to the person who is asked, ought he not to say what he thinks, whether you and I forbid him or not? I presume then that you are going to make one of the interdicted answers? I dare say that I may, notwithstanding the danger, if upon reflection I approve of any of them. But what if I give you an answer about justice other and better, he said, than any of these?

What do you deserve to have done to you? Done to me ! — as becomes the ignorant, I must learn from the wise — that is what I deserve to have done to me. What, and no payment! a pleasant notion! I will pay when I have the money, I replied. But you have, Socrates, said Glaucon : and you, Thrasymachus, need be under no anxiety about money, for we will all make a contribution for Socrates.

Yes, he replied, and then Socrates will do as he always does — refuse to answer himself, but take and pull to pieces the answer of some one else. Why, my good friend, I said, how can any one answer who knows, and says that he knows, just nothing ; and who, even if he has some faint notions of his own, is told by a man of authority not to utter them?

The natural thing is, that the speaker should be some one like yourself who professes to know and can tell what he knows. Will you then kindly answer, for the edification of the company and of myself? Glaucon and the rest of the company joined in my request, and Thrasymachus, as any one might see, was in reahty eager to speak ; for he thought that he had an excellent answer, and would distinguish himself.

But at first he affected to insist on my answering ; at length he consented to begin. Behold, he said, the wisdom of Socrates ; he refuses to teach himself, and goes about learning of others, to whom he never even says Thank you. That I learn of others, I replied, is quite true ; but that I am ungrateful I wholly deny. Money I have none, and therefore I pay in praise, which is all I have ; and how ready

too mncJi for TJirasymachus. 15 I am to praise any one who appears to me to speak well you Republic i. will very soon find out when you answer ; for I expect that Socrates, you will answer well. Thrasyma- . . ... CHUS. Listen, then, he said ; I proclaim that justice is nothing _. ^ . ' , ' ' t^ J & The definition else than the interest of the stronger. And now why do you ofThrasymanot praise me?

But of course you won't. chus: 'justice *■ -^ _ IS the interest Let me first understand you, I replied. Justice, as you say, of the stronger is the interest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the °'^'""'^'^- meaning of this?

You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, is stronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to his bodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our good who are weaker than he is, and right and just for us? That's abominable of you, Socrates ; you take the words in the sense which is most damaging to the argument.

Not at all, my good sir, I said ; I am trying to understand them ; and I wish that you would be a little clearer. Well, he said, have you never heard that forms of government differ ; there are tyrannies, and there are democracies, and there are aristocracies? Yes, I know. And the government is the ruling power in each state? Certainly.

And the different forms of government make laws demo- Socrates comcratical, aristocratical, tyrannical, with a view to their several machusTo'^ interests ; and these laws, which are made by them for their explain his own interests, are the justice which they deliver to their "^^^"'"^• subjects, and him who transgresses them they punish as a breaker of the law, and unjust.

And that is what I mean when I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice, which is the interest of the government ; and as the 339 government must be supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, that everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger. Now I understand you, I said ; and whether you are right or not I will try to discover.

But let me remark, that in defining justice you have yourself used the word ' interest ' which you forbade me to use. It is true, however, that in your definition the words ' of the stronger ' are added. A small addition, you must allow, he said.

i6

Are Words always to be used

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasyma- CHUS, POLEMAR- CHUS.

He is dissatisfied with the explanation ; for rulers mayerr.

And then the justice which makes a mistake will turn out to be the reverse of the interest of the stronger.

Great or small, never mind about that : we must first enquire whether what you are saying is the truth. Now we are both agreed that justice is interest of some sort, but you go on to say * of the stronger ' ; about this addition I am not so sure, and must therefore consider further. Proceed. I will ; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just for subjects to obey their rulers? I do.

But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimes liable to err? To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err. Then in making their laws, they may sometimes make them rightly, and sometimes not? True. When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest ; when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that? Yes.

And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects, — and that is what you call justice? Doubtless. Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger but the reverse? What is that you are saying? he asked. I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe.

But let us consider : Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice? Has not that been admitted? Yes. Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interest of the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injiu"y.

For if, as you say, justice is the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in that case, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion that the weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger? Nothing can be clearer, Socrates, said Polemarchus.

Yes, said Cleitophon, interposing, if you are allowed to be his witness. But there is no need of any witness, said Polemarchus, for Thrasymachus himself acknowledges that rulers may sometimes command what is not for their own interest, and that for subjects to obey them is justice. Yes, Polemarchus, — Thrasymachus said that for subjects to do what was commanded by their rulers is just.

Yes, Cleitophon, but he also said that justice is the interest of the stronger, and, while admitting both these propositions, he further acknowledged that the stronger may command the weaker who are his subjects to do what is not for his own interest ; whence follows that justice is the injury quite as much as the interest of the stronger.

But, said Cleitophon, he meant by the interest of the stronger what the stronger thought to be his interest, — this was what the weaker had to do ; and this was affirmed by him to be justice. Those were not his words, rejoined Polemarchus. Never mind, I replied, if he now says that they are, let us accept his statement. Tell me, Thrasymachus, I said, did you mean by justice what the stronger thought to be his interest, whether really so or not?

Certainly not, he said. Do you suppose that I call him who is mistaken the stronger at the time when he is mistaken ? Yes, I said, my impression was that you did so, when you admitted that the ruler was not infallible but might be sometimes mistaken. You argue like an informer, Socrates.

Do you mean, for example, that he who is mistaken about the sick is a physician in that he is mistaken? or that he who errs in arithmetic or grammar is an arithmetician or grammarian at the time when he is making the mistake, in respect of the mistake?

True, we say that the physician or arithmetician or grammarian has made a mistake, but this is only a way of speaking : for the fact is that neither the grammarian nor any other person of skill ever makes a mistake in so far as he is what his name implies ; they none of them err unless their skill fails them, and then they cease to be skilled artists. VOL. III. — 17

Repjiblk I. Socrates, Cleitoi'hon, Polemarchus, Thrasyma-

Cleitophon tries to make a way of escape for Thrasymachus by inserting the words * thought to be.'

This evasion is repudiated by Thrasymachus;

who adopts another line of defence : ' No artist or ruler is ever mistaken qua. artist or ruler. '

i8

The arguinent with Thrasymachus

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasymachus.

The essential meaning of words distinguished from their attributes.

No artist or sage or ruler errs at the time when he is what his name impHes ; though he is commonly said to err, and I adopted the common mode of speaking.

But to be perfectly accurate, since you are such a lover of accuracy, we should say that the ruler, in so far as he is a ruler, is unerring, and, being unerring, always commands that which is for his own 341 interest ; and the subject is required to execute his commands ; and therefore, as I said at first and now repeat, justice is the interest of the stronger. Indeed, Thrasymachus, and do I really appear to you to argue like an informer?

Certainly, he rephed. And do you suppose that I ask these questions with any design of injuring you in the argument? Nay, he replied, * suppose ' is not the word — I know it ; but you will be found out, and by sheer force of argument you will never prevail.

I shall not make the attempt, my dear man ; but to avoid any misunderstanding occurring between us in future, let me ask, in what sense do you speak of a ruler or stronger whose interest, as you were saying, he being the superior, it is just that the inferior should ^execute — is he a ruler in the popular or in the strict sense of the term? In the strictest of all senses, he said.

And now cheat and play the informer if you can ; I ask no quarter at your hands. But you never will be able, never. And do you imagine, I said, that I am such a madman asto try and cheat Thrasymachus? I might as well shave a lion. Why, he said, you made the attempt a minute ago, and you failed. Enough, I said, of these civilities.

It will be better that I should ask you a question : Is the physician, taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking, a healer of the sick or a maker of money? And remember that I am now speaking of the true physician. A healer of the sick, he replied. And the pilot — that is to say, the true pilot — is he a captain of sailors or a mere sailor ? A captain of sailors.

The circumstance that he sails in the ship is not to be Republic i. taken into account ; neither is he to be called a sailor ; the Socrates, name pilot by which he is distinguished has nothing to do with sailing, but is significant of his skill and of his authority over the sailors. Very true, he said. Now, I said, every art has an interest? Certainly. For which the art has to consider and provide? Yes, that is the aim of art.

And the interest of any art is the perfection of it — this and nothing else? What do you mean? I mean what I may illustrate negatively by the example of the body.

Suppose you were to ask me whether the body is self-sufficing or has wants, I should reply : Certainly the body has wants ; for the body may be ill and require to be cured, and has therefore interests to which the art of medicine ministers ; and this is the origin and intention of medicine, as you will acknowledge. Am I not right? :, Quite right, he replied.

But is the art of medicine or any other art faulty or deficient in any quahty in the same way that the eye may be deficient in sight or the ear fail of hearing, and therefore requires another art to provide for the interests of seeing and hearing — has art in itself, I say, any similar liability to fault or defect, and does every art require another supplementary art to provide for its interests, and that another and another without end?

Or have the arts to look only after their own interests? Or have they no need either of themselves or of another? — having no faults or defects, they have no need to correct them, either by the exercise of their own art or of any other ; they have only to consider the interest of their subject-matter. For every art remains pure and faultless while remaining true — that is to say, while perfect and unimpaired.

Take the words in your precise sense, and tell me whether I am not right. Yes, clearly. Then medicine does not consider the interest of medicine, illustrations but the interest of the body?

Art has no imperfection to be corrected, and therefore no extraneous interest.

2Q

When he suddenly creates a diversion.

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasyma- CHUS.

The disinterestedness of rulers.

The impudence of Thrasymachus.

True, he said. Nor does the art of horsemanship consider the interests of the art of horsemanship, but the interests of the horse ; neither do any other arts care for themselves, for they have no needs; they care only for that which is the subject of their art? True, he said. But surely, Thrasymachus, the arts are the superiors and rulers of their own subjects .f* To this he assented with a good deal of reluctance.

Then, I said, no science or art considers or enjoins the interest of the stronger or superior, but only the interest of the subject and weaker? He made an attempt to contest this proposition also, but finally acquiesced.

Then, I continued, no physician, in so far as he is a physician, considers his own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient ; for the true physician is also a ruler having the human body as a subject, and is not a mere money-maker ; that has been admitted ? Yes. And the pilot likewise, in the strict sense of the term, is a ruler of sailors and not a mere sailor? That has been admitted.

And such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interest of the sailor who is under him, and not for his own or the ruler's interest? He gave a reluctant ' Yes.

Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in so far as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject or suitable to his art ; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everything which he says and does.

When we had got to this point in the argument, and every 343 one saw that the definition of justice had been completely upset, Thrasymachus, instead of replying to me, said : Tell me, Socrates, have you got a nurse? Why do you ask such a question, I said, when you ought rather to be answering? Because she leaves you to snivel, and never wipes your

Instead of anszverhig guestiofts he makes a speech. 21 nose : she has not even taught you to know the shepherd RrpubUc i. from the sheep. Socrates,

Thrasyma- Be.cause you fancy that the shepherd or neatherd fattens

What makes vou say that? I replied. J J ^ CHt'S. ,

Thrasymaor tends the sheep or oxen with a view to their own good chus dilates and not to the good of himself or his master ; and you "p°" *^^ ^ •' advantages of further imagine that the rulers of states, if they are true injustice, rulers, never think of their subjects as sheep, and that they are not studying their own advantage day and night.

Oh, no ; and so entirely astray are you in your ideas about the just and unjust as not even to know that justice and the just are in reality another's good ; that is to say, the interest of the ruler and stronger, and the loss of the subject and servant ; and injustice the opposite ; for the unjust is lord over the truly simple and just : he is the stronger, and his subjects do what is for his interest, and minister to his happiness, which is very far from being their own.

Consider further, most foolish Socrates, that the just is always a loser in comparison with the unjust. First of all, in private contracts : wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that, when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always more and the just less.

Secondly, in their dealings with the State : when there is an income-tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income ; and when there is anything to be received the one gains nothing and the other much.

Observe also especially what happens when they take an office ; there is the just man ^^^^ '^"''' ^^ J ' ■' sued on a neglecting his affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and great scale, getting nothing out of the pubhc, because he is just ; moreover he is hated by his friends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways. But all this is reversed in the case of the unjust man.

I am speaking, as before, of 344 injustice on a large scale in which the advantage of the unjust is most apparent ; and my meaning will be most clearly seen if we turn to that highest form of injustice in which the criminal is the happiest of men, and the sufferers or those who refuse to do injustice are the most miserable — that is to Tyranny, say tyranny, which by fraud and force takes away the property of others, not little by litde but wholesale ; comprehending in one, things sacred as well as profane, private

and public ; for which acts of wrong, if he were detected perpetrating any one of them singly, he would be punished and incur great disgrace — they who do such wrong in particular cases are called robbers of temples, and man -stealers and burglars and swindlers and thieves.

But when a man besides taking away the money of the citizens has made slaves of them, then, instead of these names of reproach, he is termed happy and blessed, not only by the citizens but by all who hear of his having achieved the consummation of injustice. For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it.

And thus, as I have shown, Socrates, injustice, when on a sufficient scale, has more strength and freedom and mastery than justice ; and, as I said at first, justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man's own profit and interest. Thrasymachus, when he had thus spoken, having, like a bath-man, deluged our ears with his words, had a mind to go away.

But the company would not let him ; they insisted that he should remain and defend his position ; and I myself added my own humble request that he would not leave us. Thrasymachus, I said to him, excellent man, how suggestive are your remarks! And are you going to run away before you have fairly taught or learned whether they are true or not?

Is the attempt to determine the way of man's life so small a matter in your eyes — to determine how life may be passed by each one of us to the greatest advantage? And do I differ from you, he said, as to the importance of the enquiry? You appear rather, I replied, to have no care or thought about us, Thrasymachus — whether we Hve better or worse from not knowing what you say you know, is to you a matter of indifference.

Prithee, friend, do not keep your knowledge 345 to yourself ; we are a large party ; and any benefit which you confer upon us will be amply rewarded. For my own part I openly declare that I am not convinced, and that I do not believe injustice to be more gainful than justice, even if uncontrolled and allowed to have free play.

For, granting that there may be an unjust man who is able to commit injustice either by fraud or force, still this does not convince me of the

The art of payment. 23 superior advantage of injustice, and there may be others who Republic i. are in the same predicament with myself.

Perhaps we may Socrates, be wrong ; if so, you in your wisdom should convince us that ^'''^asymawe are mistaken in preferring justice to injustice. ^^ ^ . -^ "^ , , The swagger And how am I to convince you, he said, if you are not ofThrasymaalready convinced by what I have just said ; what more can '^'^"^• 1 do for you? Would you have me put the proof bodily into your souls? Heaven forbid!

I said; I would only ask you to be consistent ; or, if you change, change openly and let there be no deception.

For I must remark, Thrasymachus, if you will recall what was previously said, that although you began by defining the true physician in an exact sense, you did not observe a Hke exactness when speaking of the shepherd ; you thought that the shepherd as a shepherd tends the sheep not with a view to their own good, but like a mere diner or banquetter with a view to the pleasures of the table ; or, again, as a trader for sale in the market, and not as a shepherd.

Yet surely the art of the shepherd is concerned only with the good of his subjects ; he has only to provide the best for them, since the perfection of the art is already ensured whenever all the requirements of it are satisfied. And that was what I was saying just now about the ruler.

I conceived that the art of the ruler, considered as ruler, whether in a state or in private life, could only regard the good of -his flock or subjects ; whereas you seem to think that the rulers in states, that is to say, the true rulers, like being in authority. Think! Nay, I am sure of it.

Then why in the case of lesser ofifices do men never take them willingly without payment, unless under the idea that 346 they govern for the advantage not of themselves but of others? Let me ask you a question: Are not the several The am have arts different, bv reason of their each having a separate different func- ' ^ ^ tions and are function?

And, my dear illustrious friend, do say what you not to be conthink, that we may make a little progress. founded with ^ "-' the art of pay- Yes, that is the difference, he replied. mem which is And each art gives us a particular good and not merely a ^^^11" ^"^ general one — medicine, for example, gives us health ; navigation, safety at sea, and so on? Yes, he said.

And the art of payment has the special function of giving pay : but we do not confuse this with other arts, any more than the art of the pilot is to be confused with the art of medicine, because the health of the pilot may be improved by a sea voyage. You would not be inclined to say, would you, that navigation is the art of medicine, at least if we are to adopt your exact use of language? Certainly not.

Or because a man is in good health when he receives pay you would not say that the art of payment is medicine? I should not. Nor would you say that medicine is the art of receiving pay because a man takes fees when he is engaged in healing? Certainly not. And we have admitted, I said, that the good of each art is specially confined to the art? Yes.

Then, if there be any good which all artists have in common, that is to be attributed to something of which they all have the common use? True, he replied. And when the artist is benefited by receiving pay the advantage is gained by an additional use of the art of pay, which is not the art professed by him? He gave a reluctant assent to this. Then the pay is not derived by the several artists from their respective arts.

But the truth is, that while the art of medicine gives health, and the art of the builder builds a house, another art attends them which is the art of pay. The various arts may be doing their own business and benefiting that over which they preside, but would the artist receive any benefit from his art unless he were paid as well? I suppose not. But does he therefore confer no benefit when he works for nothing? Certainly, he confers a benefit.

Then now, Thrasymachus, there is no longer any doubt that neither arts nor governments provide for their own interests ; but, as we were before saying, they rule and provide for the interests of their subjects who are the weaker

and must therefore be paid. 25 and not the stronger — to their good they attend and not to Republic i. the good of the superior. And this is the reason, my dear Sockates, Thrasymachus, why, as I was just now saying, no one is ^^^^^^o^- willing: to govern ; because no one likes to take in hand the perfecuon of o o ' his art ; and reformation of evils which are not his concern without re- therefore he 347 muneration.

For, in the execution of his work, and in must be paid, giving his orders to another, the true artist does not regard his own interest, but always that of his subjects ; and therefore in order that rulers may be willing to rule, they must be paid in one of three modes of payment, money, or honour, or a penalty for refusing. What do you mean, Socrates? said Glaucon.

The first two Three modes modes of payment are intelligible enough, but what the penalty °uiers 'mone is I do not understand, or how a penalty can be a payment. honour, and a You mean that you do not understand the nature of this ^J^"^ ^^toTuie payment which to the best men is the great inducement to rule? Of course you know that ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace? Very true.

And for this reason, I said, money and honour have no attraction for them ; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governing and so to get the name of hirehngs, nor by secretly helping themselves out of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not being ambitious they do not care about honour. Wherefore necessity must be laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from the fear of punishment.

And this, as I imagine, The penalty is the reason why the forv\^ardness to take office, instead of '^f^^^^'^o^ ■' ' being ruled waiting to be compelled, has been deemed dishonourable, by an inferior. Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself.

And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help — not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to any one in a city comwho is better than themselves, or indeed as good.

For there p°^^^ wholly "of good men is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of there would good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object ^^».sy<=^* •' unwillmgness of contention as to obtain office is at present ; then we should to rule.

26

Thrasymachus is put to the question.

Rep7iblic I. Socrates, Glaucon, Thrasymachus.

Thrasymachus maintains that the life of the unjust is better than the life of the just.

A paradox still more extreme,

have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects ; and every one who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger.

This latter question need not be further discussed at present ; but when Thrasymachus says that the life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just, his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character. Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, do you prefer? I for my part deem the Hfe of the just to be the more advantageous, he answered.

Did you hear all the advantages of the unjust which 34^ Thrasymachus w^as rehearsing? Yes, I heard him, he rephed, but he has not convinced me. Then shall we try to find some way of convincing him, if we can, that he is saying what is not true? Most certainly, he replied.

If, I said, he makes a set speech and we make another recounting all the advantages of being just, and he answers and we rejoin, there must be a numbering and measuring of the goods which are claimed on either side, and in the end we shall want judges to decide ; but if we proceed in our enquiry as we lately did, by making admissions to one another, we shall unite the offices of judge and advocate in our own persons. Very good, he said.

And which method do I understand you to prefer? I said. That which you propose. Well, then, Thrasymachus, I said, suppose you begin at the beginning and answer me. You say that perfect injustice is more gainful than perfect justice? Yes, that is what I say, and I have given you my reasons. And what is your view about them? Would you call one of them virtue and the other vice? Certainly.

I suppose that you would call justice virtue and injustice vice? What a charming notion! So likely too, seeing that I affirm injustice to be profitable and justice not.

The just aiffis at moderation, not at excess. 27 What else then would you say? Republic i. The opposite, he replied. Socrates, And would you call justice vice? No, I would rather say sublime simplicity. , . . . / . . . •' that injustice Then would you call injustice malignity? is virtue, No ; I would rather say discretion. • And do the unjust appear to you to be wise and good?

Yes, he said ; at any rate those of them who are able to be perfectly unjust, and who have the power of subduing states and nations ; but perhaps you imagine me to be talking of cutpurses. Even this profession if undetected has advantages, though they are not to be compared with those of which 1 was just now speaking.

I do not think that I misapprehend your meaning, Thrasymachus, I replied ; but still I cannot hear without amazement that you class injustice with wisdom and virtue, and justice with the opposite. Certainly, I do so class them.

Now, I said, you are on more substantial and almost unanswerable ground ; for if the injustice which you were maintaining to be profitable had been admitted by you as by others to be vice and deformity, an answer might have been given to you on received principles ; but now I perceive that 349 you will call injustice honourable and strong, and to the unjust you will attribute all the qualities which were attributed by us before to the just, seeing that you do not hesitate to rank injustice with wisdom and virtue.

You have guessed most infallibly, he replied. Then I certainly ought not to shrink from going through with the argument so long as I have reason to think that you, Thrasymachus, are speaking your real mind ; for I do believe that you are now in earnest and are not amusing yourself at our expense. I may be in earnest or not, but what is that to you? — to refute the argument is your business.

Very true, I said ; that is what I have to do : But will you refuted by the be so good as answer yet one more question? Does the ^|^'^^io&y of '^^ just man try to gain any advantage over the just? Far otherwise ; if he did he would not be the simple amusing creature which he is.

And would he try to go beyond just action? He would not. And how would he regard the attempt to gain an advantage over the unjust ; would that be considered by him as just or unjust? He would think it just, and would try to gain the advantage ; but he would not be able. Whether he would or would not be able, I said, is not to the point.

My question is only whether the just man, while refusing to have more than another just man, would wish and claim to have more than the unjust? Yes, he would. And what of the unjust — does he claim to have more than the just man and to do more than is just? Of course, he said, for he claims to have more than all men. And the unjust man will strive and struggle to obtain more than the unjust man or action, in order that he may have more than all?

True. We may put the matter thus, I said — the just does not desire more than his like but more than his unlike, whereas the unjust desires more than both his like and his unlike? Nothing, he said, can be better than that statement. And the unjust is good and wise, and the just is neither? Good again, he said. And is not the unjust like the wise and good and the just unlike them?

Of course, he said, he who is of a certain nature, is like those who are of a certain nature ; he who is not, not. Each of them, I said, is such as his like is? Certainly, he replied. Very good, Thrasymachus, I said ; and now to take the case of the arts : you would admit that one man is a musician and another not a musician? Yes. And which is wise and which is foohsh? Clearly the musician is wise, and he who is not a musician is foohsh. And he is good in as far as he is wise, and bad in as far as he is foohsh?

TJic final overtJiroiv of TJirasymachns. 29 Yes. Republic I. And you would say the same sort of thing of the physician ? Socrates, \- Thrasyma- CHUS. And do you think, my excellent friend, that a musician when he adjusts the lyre would desire or claim to exceed or go beyond a musician in the tightening and loosening the strings? I do not think that he would. But he would claim to exceed the non-musjcian? Of course. And what would you say of the physician? In prescribing meats and drinks would he wish to go beyond another physician or beyond the practice of medicine? He would not. But he would wish to go beyond the non-physician? Yes. And about knowledge and ignorance in general ; see The artist rewhether vou think that any man who has knowledge ever '"^'"^ ^'''^'" ■' ^ the hmits of would wish to have the choice of saying or doing more than his an; another man who has knowledge. Would he not rather say or do the same as his Hke in the same case? That, I suppose, can hardly be denied. And what of the ignorant? would he not desire to have more than either the knowing or the ignorant? 1 dare say. And the knowing is wise? Yes. And the wise is good? True. Then the wise and good will not desire to gain more than his Hke, but more than his unlike and opposite? I suppose so. Whereas the bad and ignorant will desire to gain more than both? Yes. But did we not say, Thrasymachus, that the unjust goes beyond both his like and unlike ? Were not these your words ? They were. And you also said that the just will not go beyond his \ndsimiiariy ,., <=> J the just man like but his unlike? does

30

Thrasymachus and Socrates.

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasymachus. not exceed the limits of other just men.

Thrasymachus perspiring and even bhishing.

Yes. Then the just is hke the wise and good, and the unjust Hke the evil and ignorant? That is the inference. And each of them is such as his Hke is? That was admitted. Then the just has turned out to be wise and good and the unjust evil and ignorant.

Thrasymachus made all these admissions, not fluently, as I repeat them, but with extreme reluctance ; it was a hot summer's day, and the perspiration poured from him in torrents ; and then I saw what I had never seen before, Thrasymachus blushing.

As we were now agreed that justice was virtue and wisdom, and injustice vice and ignorance, I proceeded to another point : Well, I said, Thrasymachus, that matter is now settled ; but were we not also saying that injustice had strength ; do you remember?

Yes, I remember, he said, but do not suppose that I approve of what you are saying or have no answer ; if however I were to answer, you would be quite certain to accuse me of haranguing ; therefore either permit me to have my say out, or if you would rather ask, do so, and I will answer ' Very good,' as they say to story-teUing old women, . and will nod ' Yes ' and * No. Certainly not, I said, if contrary to your real opinion.

Yes, he said, I will, to please you, since you will not let me speak. What else would you have? Nothing in the world, I said ; and if you are so disposed I will ask and you shall answer. Proceed. Then I will repeat the question which I asked before, in order that our examination of the relative nature of justice 351 and injustice may be carried on regularly.

A statement was made that injustice is stronger and more powerful than justice, but now justice, having been identified with wisdom and virtue, is easily shown to be stronger than injustice, if injustice is ignorance ; this can no longer be questioned by any one. But I want to view the matter, Thrasymachus, in a different way : You would not deny that a state may be

Injustice a priticiple of weakness and disunion. 3 1 unjust and may be unjustly attempting to enslave other Republic i. states, or may have already enslaved them, and may be Socrates, holding many of them in subjection? ^cHur"'' True, he rephed ; and I will add that the best and most perfectly unjust state will be most likely to do so.

I know, I said, that such was your position ; but what I would further consider is, whether this power which is possessed by the superior state can exist or be exercised without justice or only with justice. If you are right in your view, and justice is wisdom, then At this point only with justice; but if I am right, then without justice.

Th/l'"^'^"^ I am delighted, Thrasymachus, to see you not only chus begins nodding assent and dissent, but making answers which are J°""P''°^J- quite excellent. a, 6. 498 c. That is out of civihty to you, he rephed. You are very kind, I said ; and would you have the goodness also to inform me, whether you think that a state, or an army, or a band of robbers and thieves, or any other gang of evil-doers could act at all if they injured one another?

No indeed, he said, they could not. But if they abstained from injuring one another, then they might act together better? Yes. And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting, and justice imparts harmony and friendship ; is not that true, Thrasymachus ? I agree, he said, because I do not wish to quarrel with you.

Perfect in- How good of you, I said ; but I should like to know also J"^tice. ^ _ . -^ ' . whether m whether injustice, having this tendency to arouse hatred, state or indiwherever existing, among slaves or among freemen, will ^'^"^1^' '^ denot make them hate one another and set them at variance them. and render them incapable of common action? Certainly.

And even if injustice be found in two only, will they not quarrel and fight, and become enemies to one another and to the just? They will. And suppose injustice abiding in a single person, would your wisdom say that she loses or that she retains her natural power?

Let US assume that she retains her power. Yet is not the power which injustice exercises of such a nature that wherever she takes up her abode, whether in a city, in an army, in a family, or in any other body, that body is, to begin with, rendered incapable of united action by 352 reason of sedition and distraction ; and does it not become its own enemy and at variance with all that opposes it, and with the just? Is not this the case?

Yes, certainly. And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person ; in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemy to himself and the just? Is not that true, Thrasymachus? Yes. And O my friend, I said, surely the gods are just? Granted that they are. But if so, the unjust will be the enemy of the gods, and the just will be their friend?

Feast away in triumph, and take your fill of the argument ; I will not oppose you, lest I should displease the company. Well then, proceed with your answers, and let me have the remainder of my repast.

For we have already shown that the just are clearly wiser and better and abler than the unjust, and that the unjust are incapable of common action ; nay more, that to speak as we did of men who are evil acting at any time vigorously together, is not strictly true, for if they had been perfectly evil, they would have laid hands upon one another ; but it is evident that there must have been some remnant of justice in them, which enabled them to combine ; if there had not been they would have injured one another as well as their victims ; they were but half-villains in their enterprises ; for had they been whole villains, and utterly unjust, they would have been utterly incapable of action.

That, as I believe, is the truth of the matter, and not what you said at first. But whether the just have a better and happier life than the unjust is a further question which we also proposed to consider. I think that they have, and for the reasons which I have given ; but still

The nature of e?ids and excellences. 33 I should like to examine further, for no light matter is at Republic i. stake, nothing less than the rule of human life. Socrates, Proceed. Thrasvma- CHUS. I will proceed by asking a question : Would you not say ^ J Illustr.itions that a horse has some end? of ends and I should. excellences preparatory And the end or use of a horse or of anything would be to the enquiry that which could not be accomplished, or not so well accom- '"'° ^^^ f""* *■ and excellence plished, by any other thing? of the soul. I do not understand, he said. Let me explain: Can you see, except with the eye? Certainly not. Or hear, except with the ear? No. These then may be truly said to be the ends of these organs? They may. But you can cut off a vine-branch with a dagger or with a chisel, and in many other ways? Of course. And yet not so well as with a pruning-hook made for the purpose? True. May we not say that this is the end of a pruning-hook? We may. Then now I think you will have no difficulty in. understanding my meaning when I asked the question whether the end of anything would be that which could not be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by any other thing? I understand your meaning, he said, and assent. And that to which an end is appointed has also an excel- aii things lence? Need I ask again whether the eye has an end? which have *-' ^ ends have It naS. , also virtues And has not the eye an excellence ? f ""^ ^"r'' ^ lences by Yes. which they And the ear has an end and an excellence also ? ["^'J^ '*'°"' True. And the same is true of all other things ; they have each of them an end and a special excellence? That is scf. Well, and can the eyes fulfil their end if they are VOL. III. — 18

34

Everything has a special end and excellence.

Republic I. Socrates, Thrasyma- CHUS.

And the soul has a virtue and an end — the virtue justice, the end happiness.

Hence justice and happiness are necessarily connected.

wanting in their own proper excellence and have a defect instead? How can they, he said, if they are blind and cannot see? You mean to say, if they have lost their proper excellence, which is sight ; but I have not arrived at that point yet. I would rather ask the question more generally, and only enquire whether the things which fulfil their ends fulfil them by their own proper excellence, and fail of fulfilling them by their own defect? Certainly, he replied. I might say the same of the ears ; when deprived of their own proper excellence they cannot fulfil their end? True. And the same observation will apply to all other things? I agree. Well ; and has not the soul an end which nothing else can fulfil? for example, to superintend and command and deliberate and the like. Are not these functions proper to the soul, and can they rightly be assigned to any other? To no other. And is not life to be reckoned among the ends of the soul? Assuredly, he said. And has not the soul an excellence also? Yes. And can she or can she not fulfil her own ends when deprived of that excellence? She cannot. Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent, and the good soul a good ruler? Yes, necessarily. And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, and injustice the defect of the soul? That has been admitted. Then the just soul and the just man will hve well, and the unjust man will live ill? That is what your argument proves. And he who hves well is blessed and happy, and he who 354 lives ill the reverse of happy? Certainly. Then the just is happy, and the unjust miserable?

Socrates knoivs nothing after all.

35

Socrates, Thrasyma- CHUS.

So be it. ' Republic I. But happiness and not misery is profitable. Of course. Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitable than justice. Let this, Socrates, he said, be your entertainment at the Bendidea. For which I am indebted to you, I said, now that you have grown gentle towards me and have left off scolding. Never- Socrates is theless, I have not been well entertained ; but that was my ^'.sp'^^s^d ' ■' with himself own fault and not yours. As an epicure snatches a taste of and with the every dish which is successively brought to table, he not ^'"g""''^"*- having allowed himself time to enjoy the one before, so have I gone from one subject to another without having discovered what I sought at first, the nature of justice. I left that enquiry and turned away to consider whether justice is virtue and wisdom or evil and folly ; and when there arose a further question about the comparative advantages of justice and injustice, I could not refrain from passing on to that. And the result of the whole discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor can I say whether the just man is happy or unhappy.

BOOK II.

Republic II. Socrates, Glaucon.

The threefold division of goods.

With these words I was thinking that I had made an end steph. of the discussion; but the end, in truth, proved to be only 357 a beginning. For Glaucon, who is always the most pugnacious of men, was dissatisfied at Thrasymachus' retirement ; he wanted to have the battle out. So he said to me : Socrates, do you wish really to persuade us, or only to seem to have persuaded us, that to be just is always better than to be unjust?

I should wish really to persuade you, I replied, if I could. Then you certainly have not succeeded. Let me ask you now: — How would you arrange goods — are there not some which we welcome for their own sakes, and independently of their consequences, as, for example, harmless pleasures and enjoyments, which delight us at the time, although nothing follows from them? I agree in thinking that there is such a class, I replied.

Is there not also a second class of goods, such as knowledge, sight, health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for their results? Certainly, I said.

And would you not recognize a third class, such as gymnastic, and the care of the sick, and the physician's art ; also the various ways of money-making — these do us good but we regard them as disagreeable ; and no one would choose them for their own sakes, but only for the sake of some reward or result which flows from them? There is, I said, this third class also. But why do you ask?

Because I want to know in which of the three classes you would place justice? In the highest class, I replied, — among those goods which 358

The old question re sum eel. 37 he who would be happy desires both for their own sake and RepuhUc ii. for the sake of their results. Socrates, Then the many are of another mind ; they think that jus- <^'^^^«ntice is to be reckoned in the troublesome class, among goods which are to be pursued for the sake of rewards and of reputation, but in themselves are disagreeable and rather to be avoided.

I know, I said, that this is their manner of thinking, and that this was the thesis which Thrasymachus was maintaining just now, when he censured justice and praised injustice. But I am too stupid to be convinced by him. I wish, he said, that you would hear me as well as him, Three heads and then I shall see whether you and I agree.

For Thra- ^f'^^^'-g"- -' *-" ment: — i. symachus seems to me, like a snake, to have been charmed The nature of by your voice sooner than he ought to have been ; but to my ^1^^"",. V mind the nature of justice and injustice have not yet been necessity, but made clear. Setting aside their rewards and results, I want xhe^reason-^ to know what they are in themselves, and how they inwardly abienessof work in the soul.

If you please, then, I will revive the argument of Thrasymachus. And first I will speak of the nature and origin of justice according to the common view of them. Secondly, I will show that all men who practise justice do so against their will, of necessity, but not as a good.

And thirdly, I will argue that there is reason in this view, for the life of the unjust is after all better far than the life of the just — if what they say is true, Socrates, since I myself am not of their opinion.

But still I acknowledge that I am perplexed when I hear the voices of Thrasymachus and myriads of others dinning in my ears ; and, on the other hand, I have never yet heard the superiority of justice to injustice maintained by any one in a satisfactory way.

I want to hear justice praised in respect of itself ; then I shall be satisfied, and you are the person from whom I think that I am most likely to hear this ; and therefore I will praise the unjust life to the utmost of my power, and my manner of speaking will indicate the manner in which I desire to hear you too praising justice and censuring injustice. Will you say whether you approve of my proposal? Indeed I do ; nor can I imagine any theme about which a man of sense would oftener wish to converse.

I am delighted, he repHed, to hear you say so, and shall begin by speaking, as I proposed, of the nature and origin of justice. They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good ; to suffer injustice, evil ; but that the evil is greater than the good.

And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one 359 and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise- laws and mutual covenants ; and that which is ordained by law is ' termed by them lawful and just.

This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; — it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation ; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice.

For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist ; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.

Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind : having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them ; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law.

The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges, the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian ^ According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia ; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he

IV/to would be just if lie could not be found out ? 39 descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he Republic 11. beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he Gi.aucon. stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring ; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended.

Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king ; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present.

360 He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared ; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result — when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared.

Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court ; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings. The appUcaand the just put on one of them and the unjust the other ; no ^'"" ^^^}^^ man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he Gyges. would stand fast in justice.

No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust ; they would both come at last to the same point.

And this we may truly aflfirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than ju.stice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.

If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a

Republic II. most wrctchcd idiot, although they would praise him to one (Jlaucon. another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice. Enough of this. Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them ; there is no other way; and how is the isolation to be effected?

I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just ; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives. First, let the unjust be like other distinguished masters of craft ; like the skilful pilot or physician, who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps 361 within their limits, and who, if he fails at any point, is able to recover himself.

So let the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and lie hidden if he means to be great in his injustice: (he who is found out is nobody:) for the highest reach of injustice is, to be deemed just when you are not.

Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust man we must assume the most perfect injustice ; there is to be no deduction, but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquired the greatest reputation for justice.

If he have taken a false step he must be able to recover himself ; he must be one who can speak with effect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his nobleness and simplicity, wishing, as Aeschy- I'he just to be lus says, to be and not to seem good.

There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he will be honoured and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he is just for the sake of justice or for the sake of honours and rewards ; therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering ; and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former.

Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst ; then he will have been put to the proof ; and we shall see whether he will be affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let him continue thus to the hour of death ; being just and seeming to be unjust. When both have reached the uttermost extreme,

The just in tonne /its, the wicked in prosperity. 41 the one of justice and the other of injustice, let judgment be Republic ii. given which of them is the happier of the two. Socrates, Heavens ! my dear Glaucon, I said, how energetically you ^'-^^'^'Of^- polish them up for the decision, first one and then the other, as if they were two statues. I do my best, he said.

And now that we know what they are like there is no difficulty in tracing out the sort of life which awaits either of them.

This 1 will proceed to describe ; but as you may think the description a little too coarse, I ask vou to suppose, Socrates, that the words which follow are not mine. — Let me put them into the mouths of the eulogists of injustice : They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound — will have his eyes burnt out ; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled: Then he will understand that he The just man ought to seem only, and not to be, just ; the words of ^ach ex'Teri^ Aeschylus may be more truly spoken of the unjust than of encethathe the just.

For the unjust is pursuing a reality; he does not and 110^0 be" live with a view to appearances — he wants to be really unjust just, and not to seem only: — ' His mind has a soil deep and fertile, Out of which spring his prudent counsels ^' In the first place, he is thought just, and therefore bears rule in the city ; he can marry whom he will, and give in marriage to whom he will ; also he can trade and deal where he likes, The unjust and always to his own advantage, because he has no mis- ^s^^nfat"^^ givings about injustice; and at every contest, whether in tain every son public or private, he gets the better of his antagonists, and ° p^ospemy. gains at their expense, and is rich, and out of his gains he can benefit his friends, and harm his enemies ; moreover, he can offer sacrifices, and dedicate gifts to the gods abundantly and magnificently, and can honour the gods or any man whom he wants to honour in a far better style than the just, and therefore he is likely to be dearer than they are to the gods.

And thus, Socrates, gods and men are said to unite in making the life of the unjust better than the life of the just. I was going to say something in answer to Glaucon, when ' .Seven against Thebes, 574.

42

^The temporal dispensation.'

Republic II. Adeimantus, Socrates.

Adeimantus takes up the argument. Justice is praised and injustice blamed, but only out of regard to their consequences.

I'he rewards and

Adeimantus, his brother, interposed : Socrates, he said, you do not suppose that there is nothing more to ?je urged? Why, what else is there? I answered. The strongest point of all has not been even mentioned, he rephed.

Well, then, according to the proverb, ' Let brother help brother ' — if he fails in any part do you assist him ; although I must confess that Glaucon has already said quite enough to lay me in the dust, and take from me the power of helping justice. Nonsense, he rephed.

But let me add something more : There is another side to Glaucon's argument about the praise and censure of justice and injustice, which is equally required in order to bring out what I believe to be his meaning.

Parents and tutors are always telling their sons and their wards that they are to be just ; but why? not for the sake of 363 justice, but for the sake of character and reputation ; in the hope of obtaining for him who is reputed just some of those offices, marriages, and the like which Glaucon has enumerated among the advantages accruing to the unjust from the reputation of justice.

More, however, is made of appearances by this class of persons than by the others ; for they throw in the good opinion of the gods, and will tell you of a shower of benefits which the heavens, as they say, rain upon the pious ; and this accords with the testimony of the noble Hesiod and Homer, the first of whom says, that the gods make the oaks of the just — ' To bear acorns at their summit, and bees in the middle ; And the sheep are bowed down with the weight of their fleeces ',' and many other blessings of a like kind are provided for them.

And Homer has a very similar strain; for he speaks of one whose fame is — ' As the fame of some blameless king who, like a god, Maintains justice ; to whom the black earth brings forth Wheat and barley, whose trees are bowed with fruit, And his sheep never fail to bear, and the sea gives him fish '^. Still grander are the gifts of heaven which Musaeus and his son ^ vouchsafe to the just ; they take them down into the

Immoral and impious opinions and beliefs. 43 world below, where they have the saints lying on couches Republic u. at a feast, everlastingly drunk, crowned with garlands ; their adeimantus. idea seems to be that an immortality of drunkenness is the punishments highest meed of virtue. Some extend their rewards yet ofa"o'her further; the posterity, as they say, of the faithful and just shall survive to the third and fourth generation.

This is the style in which they praise justice. But about the wicked there is another strain ; they bury them in a slough in Hades, and make them carry water in a sieve ; also while they are yet living they bring them to infamy, and inflict upon them the punishments which Glaucon described as the portion of the just who are reputed to be unjust ; nothing else does their invention supply.

Such is their manner of praising the one and censuring the other. Once more, Socrates, I will ask you to consider another way Men arc of speaking about justice and injustice, which is not confined ^^^^7*^ '■^- • •^ ° \ , •* , . peating that 64 to the poets, but is found in prose writers.

The universal virtue is painvoice of mankind is always declaring that justice and virtue are honourable, but grievous and toilsome ; and that the pleasures of vice and injustice are easy of attainment, and are only censured by law and opinion.

They say also that honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty ; and they are quite ready to call wicked men happy, and to honour them both in public and private when they are rich or in any other way influential, while they despise and overlook those who may be weak and poor, even though acknowledging them to be better than the others.

But most extraordinary of all is their mode of speaking about virtue and the gods : they say that the gods apportion calamity and misery to many good men, and good and happiness to the wicked.

And mendicant prophets go to rich men's doors and persuade them that they have a power committed to them by the gods of making an atonement for a man's own or his ancestor's sins by sacrifices or charms, with rejoicings and feasts ; and they promise to harm an enemy, whether just or unjust, at a small cost ; with magic arts and incantations binding heaven, as they say, to execute their will. And the poets are the authorities to whom they appeal, now smoothing the path of vice with the words of Hesiod: —

ful and vice pleasant.

44

The effect on the fni7id of youth.

Republic II. ' Vice may be had in abundance without trouble ; the way is smooth Apeimantus ^^^ ^^^ dwelling-place is near. But before virtue the gods have set toilS' and a tedious and uphill road : then citing Homer as a witness that the gods may be influenced by men ; for he also says : — * The gods, too, may be turned from their purpose ; and men pray to them and avert their wrath by sacrifices and soothing entreaties, and by libations and the odour of fat, when they have sinned and transgressed ^'

They are taught that sins may be easily expiated.

The effects of all this upon the youthful mind.

And they produce a host of books written by Musaeus and Orpheus, who were children of the Moon and the Muses — that is what they say — according to which they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equally at the service of the living and the dead ; the latter sort they call mysteries, and they redeem us from the pains 36 of hell, but if we neglect them no one knows what awaits us. He proceeded : And now when the young hear all this said about virtue and vice, and the way in which gods and men regard them, how are their minds likely to be aff^ected, my dear Socrates, — those of them, I mean, who are quickwitted and, like bees on the wing, light on every flower, and from all that they hear are prone to draw conclusions as to what manner of persons they should be and in what way they should walk if they would make the best of hfe? Probably the youth will say to himself in the words of Pindar — * Can I by justice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier tower which may be a fortress to me all my days? ' For what men say is that, if I am really just and am not also thought just, profit there is none, but the pain and loss on the other hand are unmistakeable. But if, though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly life is promised to me. Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself. I will describe around me a picture and .shadow of virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my

^ Hesiod, Works and Days, 287. ^ Homer, Iliad, ix. 493.

'Let us make the best of both worlds.* 45 house ; behind I will trail the subtle and crafty fox, as Republic 11. Archilochus, greatest of sages, recommends. But I hear Adeimantus. some one exclaiming that the concealment of wickedness is often difficult ; to which I answer, Nothing great is easy. Nevertheless, the argument indicates this, if we would be happy, to be the path along which we should proceed.

With a view to concealment we will establish secret brotherhoods and political clubs. And there are professors of rhetoric who teach the art of persuading courts and assemblies ; and so, partly by persuasion and partly by force, I shall make unlawful gains and not be punished. Still I hear a voice saying that the gods cannot be deceived, neither can they be compelled.

But what if there are no gods? or, suppose them to have no care of human things — why in either case should we mind about concealment?

And even if there The existence are gods, and they do care about us, yet we know of them ofj^^g^^^is o ' •' ' •' only known only from tradition and the genealogies of the poets ; and to us through these are the very persons -who say that they may be in- J ^p^^'^'W^o J ^ J J J hkewise asfluenced and turned by * sacrifices and soothing entreaties sure us that and by offerings. Let us be consistent then, and believe brl^bed^and ^ both or neither.

If the poets speak truly, why then we had that they are 366 better be unjust, and offer of the fruits of injustice ; for if we ^rgiv-r ^ *° are just, although we may escape the vengeance of heaven, we shall lose the gains of injustice ; but, if we are unjust, we shall keep the gains, and by our sinning and praying, and praying and sinning, the gods will be propitiated, and we shall not be punished. * But there is a world below in which either we or our posterity will suffer for our unjust deeds.

Yes, my friend, will be the reflection, but there are mysteries and atoning deities, and these have great power. That is what mighty cities declare ; and the children of the gods, who were their poets and prophets, bear a like testimony.

On what principle, then, shall we any longer choose justice rather than the worst injustice? when, if we only unite the latter with a deceitful regard to appearances, we shall fare to our mind both with gods and men, in life and after death, as the most numerous and the highest authorities tell us.

Knowing all this, Socrates, how can a man who has any superiority of mind or person or rank or wealth, be willing to honour justice ; or indeed to refrain from laughing when he hears

46

The impassioned peroration of Adeimantus.

Republic II. Adeimantus. All this, even if not absolutely true, affords great excuse for doing wrong.

Men should be taught that justice is in itself the greatest good and injustice the greatest evil.

justice praised?

And even if there should be some one who is able to disprove the truth of my words, and who is satisfied that justice is best, still he is not angry with the unjust, but is very ready to forgive them, because he also knows that men are not just of their own free will ; unless, perad venture, there be some one whom the divinity within him may have inspired with a hatred of injustice, or who has attained knowledge of the truth — but no other man.

He only blames injustice who, owing to cowardice or age or some weakness, has not the power of being unjust. And this is proved by the fact that when he obtains the power, he immediately becomes unjust as far as he can be.

The cause of all this, Socrates, was indicated by us at the beginning of the argument, when my brother and I told you how astonished we were to find that of all the professing panegyrists of justice — beginning with the ancient heroes of whom any memorial has been preserved to us, and ending with the men of our own time — no one has ever blamed injustice or praised justice except with a view to the glories, honours, and benefits which flow from them.

No one has ever adequately described either in verse or prose the true essential nature of either of them abiding in the soul, and invisible to any human or divine eye ; or shown that of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him, justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil.

Had this been the universal strain, had you sought to persuade us of this from our youth upwards, we should not have been on the watch to keep one another from doing wrong, but every one would have been his own watchman, because afraid, if he did wrong, of harbouring in himself the greatest of evils.

I dare say that Thrasymachus and others would seriously hold the language which I have been merely repeating, and words even stronger than these about justice and injustice, grossly, as I conceive, perverting their true nature.

But I speak in this vehement manner, as I must frankly confess to you, because I want to hear from you the opposite side ; and I would ask you to show not only the superiority which justice has over injustice, but what effect they have on the possessor of them which makes the one to be a good and the other an evil to him. And please, as Glaucon requested of you, to

exclude reputations ; for unless you take away from each of Republic ii. them his true reputation and add on the false, we shall say that you do not praise justice, but the appearance of it ; we shall think that you are only exhorting us to keep injustice dark, and that you really agree with Thrasymachus in thinking that justice is another's good and the interest of the stronger, and that injustice is a man's own profit and interest, though injurious to the weaker.

Now as you have admitted that justice is one of that highest class of goods which are desired indeed for their results, but in a far greater degree for their own sakes — like sight or hearing or knowledge or health, or any other real and natural and not merely conventional good — I would ask you in your praise of justice to regard one point only : I mean the essential good and evil which justice and injustice work in the possessors of them.

Let others praise justice and censure injustice, magnifying the rewards and honours of the one and abusing the other ; that is a manner of arguing which, coming from them, I am ready to tolerate, but from you who have spent your whole life in the consideration of this question, unless I hear the contrary from your own lips, I expect something better.

And therefore, I say, not only prove to us that justice is better than injustice, but show what they either of them do to the possessor of them, which makes the one to be a good and the other an evil, whether seen or unseen by gods and men.

I had always admired the genius of Glaucon and Adeimantus, but on hearing these words I was quite delighted, 368 and said : Sons of an illustrious father, that was not a bad beginning of the Elegiac verses which the admirer of Glaucon made in honour of you after you had distinguished yourselves at the battle of Megara : — ' Sons of Ariston,' he sang, * divine ofT.spring of an illustrious hero.'

The epithet is very appropriate, for there is something truly divine in being able to argue as you have done for the superiority of injustice, and remaining unconvinced by your own arguments. And I do believe that you are not convinced — this I infer from your general character, for had I judged only from your speeches I should have mistrusted you. But now, the greater my confidence in you, the greater is my

Glaucon and Adeimantus able to argue so well, but unconvinced by their own arguments.

48

The individual afid the State.

Republic //. vSoCRATES, Adeimantus.

The large letters, and the small.

Justice to be seen in the State more easily than in the individual.

difficulty in knowing what to say. For I am in a strait between two ; on the one hand I feel that I am unequal to the task ; and my inability is brought home to me by the fact that you were not satisfied with the answer which I made to Thrasymachus, proving, as I thought, the superiority which justice has over injustice.

And yet I cannot refuse to help, while breath and speech remain to me ; I am afraid that there would be an impiety in being present when justice is evil spoken of and not lifting up a hand in her defence. And therefore I had best give such help as I can. Glaucon and the rest entreated me by all means not to let the question drop, but to proceed in the investigation.

They wanted to arrive at the truth, first, about the nature of justice and injustice, and secondly, about their relative advantages. I told them, what I really thought, that the enquiry would be of a serious nature, and would require very good eyes.

Seeing then, I said, that we are no great wits, I think that we had better adopt a method which I may illustrate thus ; suppose that a short-sighted person had been asked by some one to read small letters from a distance ; and it occurred to some one else that they might be found in another place which was larger and in which the letters were larger — if they were the same and he could read the larger letters first, and then proceed to the lesser — this would have been thought a rare piece of good fortune.

Very true, said Adeimantus ; but how does the illustration apply to our enquiry? I will tell you, I replied ; justice, which is the subject of our enquiry, is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual, and sometimes as the virtue of a State. True, he replied. And is not a State larger than an individual? It is. Then in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be larger and more easily discernible.

I propose therefore that we enquire into the nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State, and secondly in the individual, 3( proceeding from the greater to the lesser and comparing them.

The origin of the State.

49

That, he said, is an excellent proposal. And if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall see the justice and injustice of the State in process of creation also. I dare say. When the State is completed there may be a hope that the object of our search may be more easily discovered. Yes, far more easily. But ought we to attempt to construct one ? I said ; for to do so, as I am inclined to think, will be a very serious task. Reflect therefore. I have reflected) said Adeimantus, and am anxious that you should proceed. A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind ; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants. Can any other origin of a State be imagined? There can be no other. Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another ; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State. True, he said. And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives, under the idea that the exchange will be for their good. Very true. Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State ; and yet the true creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention. Of course, he replied. Now the first and greatest of necessities is food, which is the condition of life and existence. Certainly. The second is a dweUing, and the third clothing and the like. True. And now let us see how our city will be able to supply this great demand : We may suppose that one man is a husbandman, another a builder, some one else a weaver — VOL, III. — 19

Republic II. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The State arises out of the wants of men.

The four or five greater needs of life, and the four or five kinds of citizens who correspond to them.

50

The barest notioji of a State.

Republic II. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The division of labour.

TKe first citizens are: — I. a husbandman,

shall we add to them a shoemaker, or perhaps some other purveyor to our bodily wants? Quite right. The barest notion of a State must include four or five men. Clearly. And how will they proceed?

Will each bring the result of his labours into a common stock? — the individual husbandman, for example, producing for four, and labouring four times as long and as much as he need in the provision of food with which he supplies others as well as himself ; or will he have nothing to do with others and not be at the trouble of producing for them, but provide for himself alone a fourth of the food in a fourth of the time, and in the remaining three fourths of his time be employed in making a house or a coat or a pair of shoes, having no partnership with others, but supplying himself all his own wants?

Adeimantus thought that he should aim at producing food only and not at producing everything. Probably, I replied, that would be the better way ; and when I hear you say this, I am myself reminded that we are not all alike ; there are diversities of natures among us which are adapted to different occupations. Very true. And will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations, or when he has only one? When he has only one.

Further, there can be no doubt that a work is spoilt when not done at the right time? No doubt. For business is not disposed to wait until the doer of the business is at leisure ; but the doer must follow up what he is doing, and make the business his first object. He must.

And if so, we must infer that all things are produced more plentifully and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things. Undoubtedly. Then more than four citizens will be required ; for the husbandman will not make his own plough or mattock, or

More thaft four or five citizens arc required. 5 i other implements of agriculture, if they are to be good for any- Republic ii. thing. Neither will the builder make his tools — and he too Sockates, needs many ; and in like manner the weaver and shoemaker, ^deimantus.

'-p_„p 2. a builder, 3- a weaver, Then carpenters, and smiths, and many other artisans, will 4. a shoe be sharers in our little State, which is already beginning to grow? added:— 5. rp carpenter, 6. a smith, etc..

Yet even if we add neatherds, shepherds, and other herds- 7 merchants, men, in order that our husbandmen may have oxen to plough with, and builders as well as husbandmen may have draught cattle, and curriers and weavers fleeces and hides, — still our State will not be very large. That is true ; yet neither will it be a very small State which contains all these.

Then, again, there is the situation of the city — to find a place where nothing need be imported is wellnigh impossible. Impossible. Then there must be another class of citizens who will bring the required supply from another city? There must. 371 But if the trader goes empty-handed, having nothing which they require who would supply his need, he will come back empty-handed. That is certain.

And therefore what they produce at home must be not only enough for themselves, but such both in quantity and quality as to accommodate those from whom their wants are supplied. Very true. Then more husbandmen and more artisans will be required ? They will. Not to mention the importers and exporters, who are called merchants ? Yes. Then we shall want merchants? We shall.

And if merchandise is to be carried over the sea, skilful sailors will also be needed, and in considerable numbers? Yes, in considerable numbers. Then, again, within the city, how will they exchange their

productions? To secure such an exchange was, as you will remember, one of our principal objects when we formed them into a society and constituted a State. Clearly they will buy and sell. Then they will need a market-place, and a money-token for purposes of exchange. Certainly.

Suppose now that a husbandman, or an artisan, brings some production to market, and he comes at a time when there is no one to exchange with him, — is he to leave his calling and sit idle in the market-place? Not at all ; he will find people there who, seeing the want, undertake the office of salesmen.

In well-ordered states they are commonly those who are the weakest in bodily strength, and therefore of little use for any other purpose ; their duty is to be in the market, and to give money in exchange for goods to those who desire to sell and to take money from those who desire to buy. This want, then, creates a class of retail-traders in our State.

Is not ' retailer ' the term which is applied to those who sit in the market-place engaged in buying and selling, while those who wander from one city to another are called merchants? Yes, he said.

And there is another class of servants, who are intellectually hardly on the level of companionship ; still they have plenty of bodily strength for labour, which accordingly they sell, and are called, if I do not mistake, hirelings, hire being the name which is given to the price of their labour. True. Then hirelings will help to make up our population ? Yes. And now, Adeimantus, is our State matured and perfected ? I think so.

Where, then, is justice, and where is injustice, and in what part of the State did they spring up? Probably in the dealings of these citizens with one another. I cannot imagine that they are more likely to be found any where else. I dare say that you are right in your suggestion, I said ;

A city of pigs. 53 we had better think the matter out, and not shrink from the Republic 11. enquiry. Socrates, Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of ^Jlaucon. hfe, now that we have thus established them. Will they not ^ p'^*"''^ "5 ■' ^ pnmitive life. produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves?

And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves ; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle.

And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means ; having an eye to poverty or war. But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal.

True, I replied, I had forgotten ; of course they must have a relish — salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare ; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans ; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation.

And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar hfe to their children after them. Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs, how else would you feed the beasts? But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied. Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life.

People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas, and dine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modern style.

Yes, I said, now I understand : the question which you a luxurious would have me consider is, not only how a State, but how a State must be , , ' -^ ' ^ called into luxunous State is created ; and possibly there is no harm in existence, this, for in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have

54

Not a mere State but a luxurious State.

Republic II. Socrates, Glaucon.

and in this many new callings will be required.

The territory of our State must be enlarged ; and hence will arise war between us and our neighbours.

described. But if you wish also to see a State at fever-heat, I have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler way of life.

They will be for adding 37, sofas, and tables, and other furniture ; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in every variety ; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes : the arts of the painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured.

True, he said. Then we must enlarge our borders ; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient.

Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any nattu^al want ; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class have to do with forms and colours ; another will be the votaries of music — poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors ; also makers of divers kinds of articles, including women's dresses. And we shall want more servants.

Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks ; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the formxer edition of our State, but are needed now ? They must not be forgotten : and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them. Certainly. And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before? Much greater.

And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough? Quite true. Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth? That, Socrates, will be inevitable. And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not? Most certainly, he replied.

Then, without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States, private as well as pubhc. Undoubtedly.

And our State must once more enlarge ; and this time the enlargement will be nothing short of a whole army, which 374 will have to go out and fight with the invaders for all that we have, as well as for the things and persons whom we were describing above. Why? he said; are they not capable of defending themselves?

No, I said ; not if we were right in the principle which was acknowledged by all of us when we were framing the State : the principle, as you will remember, was that one man cannot practise many arts with success. Very true, he said. But is not war an art? Certainly. And an art requiring as much attention as shoemaking? Quite true.

And the shoemaker was not allowed by us to be a husbandman, or a weaver, or a builder — in order that we might have our shoes well made ; but to him and to every other worker was assigned one work for which he was by nature fitted, and at that he was to continue working all his life long and at no other ; he was not to let opportunities slip, and then he would become a good workman.

Now nothing can be more important than that the work of a soldier should be well done. But is war an art so easily acquired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman, or shoemaker, or other artisan ; although no one in the world would be a good dice- or draught player who merely took up the game as a recreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself to this and nothing else?

No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takes up a shield or other implement of war become a good

Republic 11. Socrates, Glaucon.

War is an art, and as no art can be pursued with success unless a man's whole attention is devoted to it, a soldier cannot be allowed to exercise any calling but his own.

The warrior's art requires a long apprenticeship and many natural gifts.

56

The soldier should be like a watch-dog,

Rep7iblic II. Socrates, Glaucon.

The selection of guardians.

fighter all in a day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops? Yes, he said, the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price. And the higher the duties of the guardian, I said, the more time, and skill, and art, and application will be needed by him? No doubt, he replied. Will he not also require natural aptitude for his calling? Certainly.

Then it will be our duty to select, if we can, natures which are fitted for the task of guarding the city? It will. And the selection will be no easy matter, I said ; but we must be brave and do our best. We must. Is not the noble youth very like a well-bred dog in respect 37 of guarding and watching? What do you mean?

I mean that both of them ought to be quick to see, and swift to overtake the enemy when they see him ; and strong too if, when they have caught him, they have to fight with him. All these qualities, he repHed, will certainly be required by them. Well, and your guardian must be brave if he is to fight well? Certainly. And is he likely to be brave who has no spirit, whether horse or dog or any other animal?

Have you never observed how invincible and unconquerable is spirit and how the presence of it makes the soul of any creature to be absolutely fearless and indomitable? I have. Then now we have a clear notion of the bodily qualities which are required in the guardian. True. And also of the mental ones ; his soul is to be full of spirit? Yes. But are not these spirited natures apt to be savage with one another, and with everybody else?

gentle to friends, and dangerous to enemies. 57 A difficulty by no means easy to overcome, he replied. Republic 11. Whereas, I said, they ought to be dangerous to their Sockates, enemies, and gentle to their friends ; if not, they will de- ^^^^^°^- stroy themselves without waiting for their enemies to destroy them. True, he said. What is to be done then?

I said; how shall we find a gentle nature which has also a great spirit, for the one is the contradiction of the other? True. He will not be a good guardian who is wanting in either of The guardian these two qualities; and yet the combination of them appears '""^^""'^f ^ -^ *■ '^ the opposite to be impossible ; and hence we must infer that to be a good qualities of guardian is impossible. gentleness *-' ^ and spirit.

I am afraid that what you say is true, he replied. Here feeling perplexed I began to think over what had preceded. — My friend, I said, no wonder that we are in a perplexity ; for we have lost sight of the image which we had before us. What do you mean? he said. I mean to say that there do exist natures gifted with those opposite quahties. And where do you find them?

Many animals, I replied, furnish examples of them ; our Such a comfriend the do^ is a very good one : you know that well-bred ^'"^"°" ""^y o ./ o y be observed m dogs are perfectly gentle to their familiars and acquaintances, the dog. and the reverse to strangers. Yes, I know. Then there is nothing impossible or out of the order of nature in our finding a guardian who has a similar combination of qualities? Certainly not.

Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spirited nature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher? I do not apprehend your meaning. 376 The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in the dog, and is remarkable in the animal. What trait? Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry ; when The dog an acquaintance, he welcomes him, although the one has '^""^"'^ *^

58

The dog a philosopher.

Republic II. Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus. friend and enemy by the criterion of knowing and not knowing :

whereby he is shown to be a philosopher.

How are our citizens to be reared and educated?

never done him any harm, nor the other any good. Did this never strike you as curious? The matter never struck me before ; but I quite recognise the truth of your remark. And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming; — your dog is a true philosopher. Why? Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemy only by the criterion of knowing and not knowing.

And must not an animal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikes by the test of knowledge and ignorance? Most assuredly. And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy? They are the same, he replied. And may we not say confidently of man also, that he who is likely to be gentle to his friends and acquaintances, must by nature be a lover of wisdom and knowledge? That we may safely affirm.

Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the State will require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength? Undoubtedly. Then we have found the desired natures ; and now that we have found them, how are they to be reared and educated?

Is not this an enquiry which may be expected to throw light on the greater enquiry which is our final end — How do justice and injustice grow up in States? for we do not want either to omit what is to the point or to draw out the argument to an inconvenient length. Adeimantus thought that the enquiry would be of great service to us. Then, I said, my dear friend, the task must not be given up, even if somewhat long. Certainly not.

Come then, and let us pass a leisure hour in story-telling, and our story shall be the education of our heroes. By all means. And what shall be their education? Can we find a better

Education of two kinds. 59 than the traditional sort? — and this has two divisions, Republic 11. gymnastic for the body, and music for the soul. Socrates, rp Adeimantus. Shall we bemn education with music, and cro on to ^"^•''^°" ° ^ divided into gymnastic afterwards? gymnastic for By all means. the body and J music for the And when you speak of music, do you include Hterature or soui.

Music . -\ includes literanot.-* . ,. , ture, which I do. may be true And literature may be either true or false ? . or fa se. Yes. And the young should be trained in both kinds, and we begin with the false? I do not understand your meaning, he said.

You know, I said, that we begin by telling children stories which, though not wholly destitute of truth, are in the main fictitious ; and these stories are told them when they are not of an age to learn gymnastics. Very true. That was my meaning when I said that we must teach music before gymnastics. Quite right, he said.

You know also that the beginning is the most important The beginpart of any work, especially in the case of a younsr and tender "'"^ ^"^^ '"^^^ *^ •' ' ^ ■' . y o important part 'thing; for that is the time at which the character is being of education. formed and the desired impression is more readily taken. Quite true.

And shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up? We cannot.

Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the Works of writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of Action to be ' ■' placed under fiction which is good, and reject the bad ; and we will desire a censorship. mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorised ones only.

Let them fashion the mind with such tales, even more I fondly than they mould the body with their hands ; but most of those which are now in use must be discarded.

6o

Homer and Hesiod.

Republic II. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Homer and Hesiod are tellers of bad lies, that is to say, they give false representations of the gods,

which have a bad effect on the minds of youth.

Of what tales are you speaking? he said. You may find a model of the lesser in the greater, I said ; for they are necessarily of the same type, and there is the same spirit in both of them. Very likely, he replied ; but I do not as yet know what you would term the greater. Those, I said, which are narrated by Homer and Hesiod, and the rest of the poets, who have ever been the great storytellers of mankind.

But which stories do you mean, he said ; and what fault do you find with them? A fault which is most serious, I said ; the fault of telling a lie, and, what is more, a bad lie. But when is this fault committed? Whenever an erroneous representation is made of the nature of gods and heroes, — as when a painter paints a portrait not having the shadow of a likeness to the original.

Yes, he said, that sort of thing is certainly very blameable ; but what are the stories which you mean? First of all, I said, there was that greatest of all lies in high places, which the poet told about Uranus, and which was a bad he too, — I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how Cronus retaliated on him^.

The doings of Cronus, and 378 the sufferings which in turn his son inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly not to be hghtly told to young and thoughtless persons ; if possible, they had better be buried in silence.

But if there is an absolute necessity for their mention, a chosen few might hear them in a mystery, and they should sacrifice not a common [Eleusinian] pig, but some huge and unprocurable victim ; and then the number of the hearers will be very few indeed. Why, yes, said he, those stories are extremely objectionable.

Yes, Adeimantus, they are stories not to be repeated in our State ; the young man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes he is far from doing anything outrageous ; and that even if he chastises his father when he does wrong, in whatever manner, he will only be following the example of the first and greatest among the gods.

The immoralities of mythology. 6i I entirely agree with you, he said ; in my opinion those RepxibUc ii. stories are quite unfit to be repeated.

Socrates, Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit Adeimantus. of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, The stones should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of quarrels of the the plots and fiefhtiners of the gods against one another, for g"ds and their ^ o o o o ^ gy,l behaviour they are not true.

No, we shall never mention the battles of to one another the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments ; and we ^""^ ""true. shall be silent about the innumerable other quaiTels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives.

If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any quarrel between citizens ; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children ; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit ^ But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer — these tales must not be admitted into our Andaiiegori- State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical c^i mterpreta- ', J rr o tionsofthem meaning or not.

For a young person cannot judge what is are not underallegorical and what is literal ; anything that he receives into ^^°°*^ ^^ ^^^ his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable ; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.

There you are right, he replied ; but if any one asks where are such models to be found and of what tales are you speaking — how shall we answer him? I said to him. You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets, but founders of a State : now the founders of a State ought to know the general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and the limits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is not their business.

Very true, he said ; but what are these forms of theology which you mean? Something of this kind, I replied: — God is always to be God is to be represented as he truly is, whatever be the sort of poetry, hg^j^y^"^;^'^ ^ epic, lyric or tragic, in which the representation is given. Right. * Placing the comma after ypavai, and not after yiyvofikvoiq.

62 The greater forms of theology : Republic II. And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented Socrates, aS SUCh? Adeimantus. Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes.

It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things, but of the good only? Assuredly. God, if he be Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as futhor'of ood ^^ many assert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and only. not of most things that occur to men.

For few are the goods of human hfe, and many are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone ; of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him. That appears to me to be most true, he said.

The fictions Then we must not listen to Homer or to any other poet who of the poets. -g gujij-y ^f ^^ f Q^y ^f gaying that two casks ' Lie at the threshold of Zeus, full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots^' and that he to whom Zeus gives a mixture of the two ' Sometimes meets with evil fortune, at other times with good ; ' but that he to whom is given the cup of unmingled ill, ' Him wild hunger drives o'er the beauteous earth.

And again — ' Zeus, who is the dispenser of good and evil to us. And if any one asserts that the violation of oaths and treaties, ' Iliad xxiv. 527.

I. God is good and the author of good: 2. God is true. 63 which was really the work of Pandarus ^, was brought about Republic 11. by Athene and Zeus, or that the strife and contention of the Socrates, gods was instigated by Themis and Zeus 2, he shall not have Adeimantus. our approval ; neither will we allow our young men to hear the words of Aeschylus, that ' God plants guilt among men when he desires utterly to destroy a house.

And if a poet writes of the sufferings of Niobe — the subject of the tragedy in which these iambic verses occur — or of the house of Pelops, or of the Trojan war or on any similar theme, either we must not permit him to say that these are the works of God, or if they are of God, he must devise some explanation of them such as we are seeking : he oniy that evil must sav that God did what was just and ricrht, and thev ^'^"^^ *^ °*^ -^ .

' •' o 7 •'the nature of were the better for being punished ; but that those who are punishment punished are miserable, and that God is the author of their *° ^^ ^""^" ^ , ' _ uted to God. misery — the poet is not to be permitted to say ; though he may say that the wicked are miserable because they require to be punished, and are benefited by receiving punishment from God ; but that God being good is the author of evil to any one is to be strenuously i3en]e"d7ahd not to T)e said or sung oFTieard in verse or prose by any one whether old or young in any well-ordered commonwealth.

Such a- fiction is suicidal, ruinous, impious. 1 agree with you, he replied, and am ready to give my assent to the law. Let this then be one of our rules and principles concerning the gods, to which our poets and reciters will be expected to conform, — that God is not the author of all things, but of good only. That will do, he said. And what do you think of a second principle?

Shall I ask you whether God is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in one shape, and now in another — sometimes himself changing and passing into many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of such transformations ; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in his own proper image? ' Iliad ii. 69. ' lb. xx.

64

The Divine nature incapable of change.

Republic II. Socrates, Adeimantus. Things must be changed either by another or by themselves.

But God cannot be changed by other; and will not be changed by himself.

I cannot answer you, he said, without more thought. Well, I said ; but if we suppose a change in anything, that change must be effected either by the thing itself, or by some other thing? Most certainly.

And things which are at their best are also least Hable to be altered or discomposed ; for example, when healthiest and strongest, the human frame is least liable to be affected by meats and drinks, and the plant which is in the fullest vigour also suffers least from winds or the heat of the sun or any similar causes. Of course. And will not the bravest and wisest soul be least confused 381 or deranged by any external influence? True.

And the same principle, as I should suppose, appHes to all composite things — furniture, houses, garments : when good and well made, they are least altered by time and circumstances. Very true. Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both, is least liable to suffer change from without? True. . But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect? Of course they are.

Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take many shapes? He cannot. But may he not change and transform himself? Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all. And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or for the worse and more unsightly? If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannot suppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty.

Very true, Adeimantus ; but then, would any one, whether God or man, desire to make himself worse? Impossible. Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to

The falsehoods of the poets. 65 change ; being, as is supposed, the fairest and best that is Republic if. conceivable, every God remains absolutely and for ever in Socrates. u,v ^.,,« f^*^^ Adeimantus. his own lorm. That necessarily follows, he said, in my judgment.

Then, I said, my dear friend, let none of the poets tell us that * The gods, taking the disguise of strangers from other lands, walk up and down cities in all sorts of forms ^ ; ' and let no one slander Proteus and Thetis, neither let any one, either in tragedy or in any other kind of poetry, introduce Here disguised in the hkeness of a priestess asking an alms ' For the life-giving daughters of Inachus the river of Argos ; ' — let US have no more lies of that sort.

Neither must we have mothers under the influence of the poets scaring their children with a bad version of these myths — telling how certain gods, as they say, ' Go about by night in the likeness of so many strangers and in divers forms ; ' but let them take heed lest they make cowards of their children, and at the same time speak blasphemy against the gods. Heaven forbid, he said.

But although the gods are themselves unchangeable, still by witchcraft and deception they may make us think that they appear in various forms? Perhaps, he replied.

Well, but can you imagine that God will be willing to lie, Nor win he whether in word or deed, or to put forth a phantom of "ff^^ ^"^ •"■ ^ false reprehimself ? sentation of I cannot say, he replied. ^''"'"'^• Do you not know, I said, that the true lie, if such an expression may be allowed, is hated of gods and men? What do you mean? he said.

I mean that no one is willingly deceived in that which is the truest and highest part of himself, or about the truest and highest matters ; there, above all, he is most afraid of a lie having possession of him. * Horn. Od. xvii. 485. VOL. III. 20

66

The lie in the soul.

Repttblic II. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The true lie is equally hated both by gods and men ; the remedial or preventive lie is comparatively innocent, but God can have no need of it.

Still, he said, I do not comprehend you. The reason is, I replied, that you attribute some profound meaning to my words ; but I am only saying that deception, or being deceived or uninformed about the highest realities in the highest part of themselves, which is the soul, and in that part of them to have and to hold the lie, is what mankind least like; — that, I say, is what they utterly detest. There is nothing more hateful to them.

And, as I was just now remarking, this ignorance in the soul of him who is deceived may be called the true lie ; for the lie in words is only a kind of imitation and shadowy image of a previous affection of the soul, not pure unadulterated falsehood. Am I not right? Perfectly right. The true He is hated not only by the gods, but also by men? Yes.

Whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful ; in dealing with enemies — that would be an instance ; or again, when those whom we call our friends in a fit of madness or illusion are going to do some harm, then it is useful and is a sort of medicine or preventive ; also in the tales of mythology, of which we were just now speaking — because we do not know the truth about ancient times, we make falsehood as much like truth as we can, and so turn it to account.

Very true, he said. But can any of these reasons apply to God? Can we suppose that he is ignorant of antiquity, and therefore has recourse to invention? That would be ridiculous, he said. Then the lying poet has no place in our idea of God? I should say not. Or perhaps he may tell a lie because he is afraid of enemies? That is inconceivable. But he may have friends who are senseless or mad? But no mad or senseless person can be a friend of God. Then no motive can be imagined why God should lie? None whatever.

Adeimantus.

with the falsehoods of the

God is truth. 67 Then the superhuman and divine is absolutely incapable of Republic 11. falsehood ? Socrates. Yes. Then is God perfectly simple and true both in word and deed ' ; he changes not ; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision. Your thoughts, he said, are the reflection of my own. You agree with me then, I said, that this is the second type or form in which we should write and speak about divine things. The gods are not magicians who transform themselves, neither do they deceive mankind in any way. I grant that. Then, although we are admirers of Homer, we do not Away then admire the lying dream which Zeus sends to Agamemnon ; neither will we praise the verses of Aeschylus in which poets! Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials ' Was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the strain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this — he it is who has slain my son 2.' These are the kind of sentiments about the gods which will arouse our anger ; and he who utters them shall be refused a chorus ; neither shall we allow teachers to make use of them in the instruction of the young, meaning, as we do, that our guardians, as far as men can be, should be true worshippers of the gods and like them. I entirely agree, he said, in these principles, and promise to make them my laws. * Omitting /card ^avraaiaq. ' From a lost play.

BOOK III.

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus. The discouraging lessons of mythology.

The description of the world below in Homer.

Such then, I said, are our principles of theology — somesteph. tales are to be told, and others are not to be told to our ^ disciples from their youth upwards, if we mean them to honour the gods and their parents, and to value friendship with one another. Yes ; and I think that our principles are right, he said. But if they are to be courageous, must they not learn other lessons besides these, and lessons of such a kind as will take away the fear of death? Can any man be courageous who has the fear of death in him? Certainly not, he said. And can he be fearless of death, or will he choose death in battle rather than defeat and slavery, who believes the world below to be real and terrible? Impossible. Then we must assume a control over the narrators of this class of tales as well as over the others, and beg them not simply to revile, but rather to commend the world below, intimating to them that their descriptions are untrue, and will do harm to our future warriors. That will be our duty, he said. Then, I said, we shall have to obhterate many obnoxious passages, beginning with the verses, ' I would rather be a serf on the land of a poor and portionless man than rule over all the dead who have come to nought ^' We must also expunge the verse, which tells us how Pluto feared, ' Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the gods abhor should be seen both of mortals and immortals'^.'

1 Od. xi. 489.

2 II. XX. 64.

TJie teaching of the poets about Hades. 69 And again: — Republic 111. ' O heavens ! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly Socrates, form but no mind at alP ! ' Adeimantus. Again of Tiresias : — ' [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he alone should be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades ^' Again : — ' The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamenting her fate, leaving manhood and youth'.

Again : — 38 7 ' And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth ■♦. ' And, — ' As bats in hollow of mystic cavern, whenever any of them has dropped out. of the string and falls from the rock, fly shrilling and cling to one another, so did they with shrilling cry hold together as they moved*.

And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be Such tales to angry if we strike out these and similar passages, not because ^^ rejected, they are unpoetical, or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater the poetical charm of them, the less are they meet for the ears of boys and men who are meant to be free, and who should fear slavery more than death. Undoubtedly.

Also we shall have to reject all the terrible and appalling names which describe the world below — Cocytus and Styx, ghosts under the earth, and sapless shades, and any similar words of which the very mention causes a shudder to pass through the inmost soul of him who hears them.

I do not say that these horrible stories may not have a use of some kind ; but there is a danger that the nerves of our guardians may be rendered too excitable and effeminate by them. There is a real danger, he said. Then we must have no more of them. True. Another and a nobler strain must be composed and sung by us. ' II. xxiii. 103. 2 0(1. X. 495. 3 11^ xvi. 856. * lb. xxiii. 100. 5 Q(| xxiv. 6.

70

The reform of Mythology.

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus. The effeminate and pitiful strains of famous men, and yet more of the gods, must also be banished.

Such are the laments of Achilles, and Priam,

Clearly. And shall we proceed to get rid of the weepings and wailings of famous men? They will go with the rest. But shall we be right in getting rid of them? Reflect : our principle is that the good man will not consider death terrible to any other good man who is his comrade. Yes ; that is our principle. And therefore he will not sorrow for his departed friend as though he had suffered anything terrible? He will not. Such an one, as we further maintain, is sufficient for himself and his own happiness, and therefore is least in need of other men. True, he said. And for this reason the loss of a son or brother, or the deprivation of fortune, is to him of all men least terrible. Assuredly. And therefore he will be least likely to lament, and will bear with the greatest equanimity any misfortune of this sort which may befall him. Yes, he will feel such a misfortune far less than another. Then we shall be right in getting rid of the lamentations of famous men, and making them over to women (and not even to women who are good for anything), or to men of a 388 baser sort, that those who are being educated by us to be the defenders of their country may scorn to do the hke. That will be very right. Then we will once more entreat Homer and the other poets not to depict Achilles ^, who is the son of a goddess, first lying on his side, then on his back, and then on his face ; then starting up and sailing in a frenzy along the shores of the barren sea ; now taking the sooty ashes in both his hands 2 and pouring them over his head, or weeping and waihng in the various modes which Homer has delineated. Nor should he describe Priam the kinsman of the gods as praying and beseeching, ' Rolling in the dirt, calling each man loudly by hi-s name'.'

II. xxiv. 10.

'^ lb. xviii. 23.

Still more earnestly will we beg of him at all events not to introduce the gods lamenting and saying, * Alas! my misery! Alas! that I bore the bravest to my sorrow '. But if he must introduce the gods, at any rate let him not dare so completely to misrepresent the greatest of the gods, as to make him say — ' O heavens ! with my eyes verily I behold a dear friend of mine chased round and round the city, and my heart is sorrowful ^.

Or again: — * Woe is me that I am fated to have Sarpedon, dearest of men to me, subdued at the hands of Patroclus the son of Menoetius 3.

For if, my sweet Adeimantus, our youth seriously listen to such unworthy representations of the gods, instead of laughing at them as they ought, hardly will any of them deem that he himself, being but a man, can be dishonoured by similar actions ; neither will he rebuke any inclination which may arise in his mind to say and do the like. And instead of having any shame or self-control, he will be always whining and lamenting on slight occasions.

Yes, he said, that is most true. Yes, I replied ; but that surely is what ought not to be, as the argument has just proved to us ; and by that proof we must abide until it is disproved by a better. It ought not to be. Neither ought our guardians to be given to laughter.

For Neither are a fit of laughter which has been indulged to excess almost the guardians . ^ ° to be encouralways produces a violent reaction. agod to laugh So I believe. ^y '\^ ""^^ ample of the Then persons of worth, even if only mortal men, must not gods. be represented as overcome by laughter, and still less must such a representation of the gods be allowed. Still less of the gods, as you say, he replied.

Then we shall not suffer such an expression to be used about the gods as that of Homer when he describes how ' Inextinguishable laughter arose among the blessed gods, when they saw Hephaestus bustling about the mansion*. On your views, we must not admit them. ^ II. xviii. 54. '■' lb. xxii. 168. ^ xb. xvi. 433. "* lb. i. 599.

On my views, if you like to father them on me ; that we must not admit them is certain. Again, truth should be highly valued ; if, as we were saying, a lie is useless to the gods, and useful only as a medicine to men, then the use of such medicines should be restricted to physicians ; private individuals have no business with them. Clearly not, he said.

Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons ; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good.

But nobody else should meddle with anything of the kind ; and although the rulers have this privilege, for a private man to lie to them in return is to be deemed a more heinous fault than for the patient or the pupil of a gymnasium not to speak the truth about his own bodily illnesses to the physician or to the trainer, or for a sailor not to tell the captain what is happening about the ship and the rest of the crew, and how things are going with himself or his fellow sailors.

Most true, he said. If, then, the ruler catches anybody beside himself lying in the State, * Any of the craftsmen, whether he be priest or physician or carpenter ^,' he will punish him for introducing a practice which is equally subversive and destructive of ship or State. Most certainly, he said, if our idea of the State is ever carried out ^. In the next place our youth must be temperate? Certainly.

Are not the chief elements of temperance, speaking generally, obedience to commanders and self-control in sensual pleasures? True. Then we shall approve such language as that of Diomede in Homer, ' Friend, sit still and obey my word',' ' Od. xvii. 383 sq. ^ Qr, ' if his words are accompanied by actions. 2 II. iv. 412.

Some ignoble verses ; also a better strain heard. y^ and the verses which follow, RepitbUcin. ' The Greeks marched breathinc; prowess ', Socrates, ., r 1 • , 1 o > AdEIMANTUS. .... in silent awe of their leaders", and other sentiments of the same kind. We shall. What of this line, * O heavy with wine, who hast the eyes of a dog and the heart of a stag',' 90 and of the words which follow?

Would you say that these, or any similar impertinences which private individuals are supposed to address to their rulers, whether in verse or prose, are well or ill spoken? They are ill spoken. They may very possibly afford some amusement, but they do not conduce to temperance. And therefore they are likely to do harm to our young men — you would agree wnth me there? Yes.

And then, again, to make the wisest of men say that nothing The praises of in his opinion is more glorious than eatmgand ^ *-" drinking, and ' When the tables are full of bread and meat, and the cup-bearer ?^^ '^'^ °^ ^^^ carries round wine which he draws from the bowl and pours into the behaviour of cups * ; ' Zeus and Here, are not is it fit or conducive to temperance for a young man to hear to be repeated such words?

Or the verse '" '^" y°""^- ' The saddest of fates is to die and meet destiny from hunger*'?

What would you say again to the tale of Zeus, who, while other gods and men were asleep and he the only person awake, lay devising plans, but forgot them all in a moment through his lust, and was so completely overcome at the sight of Here that he would not even go into the hut, but wanted to lie with her on the ground, declaring that he had never been in such a state of rapture before, even when they first met one another ' Without the knowledge of their parents ® ; ' 'Od. iii. 8. nb. iv. 431. Mb. i. 225. *Ib. ix. 8. *Ib. xii. 342. «I1. xiv. 281.

or that other tale of how Hephaestus, because of similar goings on, cast a chain around Ares and Aphrodite i? Indeed, he said, I am strongly of opinion that they ought not to hear that sort of thing. But any deeds of endurance which are done or told by famous men, these they ought to see and hear; as, for example, what is said in the verses, ' He smote his breast, and thus reproached his heart, Endure, my heart ; far worse hast thou endured ^ !

' Certainly, he said. In the next place, we must not let them be receivers of gifts or lovers of money. Certainly not. Neither must we sing to them of * Gifts persuading gods, and persuading reverend kings ^.

' Neither is Phoenix, the tutor of Achilles, to be approved or deemed to have given his pupil good counsel when he told him that he should take the gifts of the Greeks and assist them 4 ; but that without a gift he should not lay aside his anger.

Neither will we believe or acknowledge Achilles himself to have been such a lover of money that he took Agamemnon's gifts, or that when he had received payment he restored the dead body of Hector, but that without payment he was unwilling to do so ^. Undoubtedly, he said, these are not sentiments which can 391 be approved.

Loving Homer as I do^, I hardly like to say that in attributing these feelings to Achilles, or in beheving that they are truly attributed to him, he is guilty of downright impiety. As little can I believe the narrative of his insolence to Apollo, where he says, ' Thou hast wronged me, O far-darter, most abominable of deities.

Verily I would be even with thee, if I had only the power ■' ; ' or his insubordination to the river-god s, on whose divinity he is ready to lay hands ; or his offering to the dead Patroclus

' Od. viii. 266. ^ Quoted by Suidas as attributed to Hesiod. ^ Cf. infra, x. 595. "'11. xxii. 15 sq.

2 lb. XX. 17. 4 II. ix. 515. -"^Ib. xxiv. 175. '^ lb. xxi. 130, 223 sq.

should have no place avwng the gods.

75

of his own hair \ which had been previously dedicated to the other river-god Spercheius, and that he actually performed this vow ; or that he dragged Hector round the tomb of Patroclus 2, and slaughtered the captives at the pyre ^ ; of all this I cannot believe that he was guilty, any more than I can allow our citizens to believe that he, the wise Cheiron's pupil, the son of a goddess and of Peleus who was the gentlest of men and third in descent from Zeus, was so disordered in his wits as to be at one time the slave of two seemingly inconsistent passions, meanness, not untainted by avarice, combined with overweening contempt of gods and men.

You are quite right, he replied.

And let us equally refuse to believe, or allow to be repeated, the tale of Theseus son of Poseidon, or of Peirithous son of Zeus, going forth as they did to perpetrate a horrid rape ; or of any other hero or son of a god daring to do such impious and dreadful things as they falsely ascribe to them in our day : and let us further compel the poets to declare cither that these acts were not done by them, or that they were not the sons of gods ; — both in the same breath they shall not be permitted to affirm.

We will not have them trying to persuade our youth that the gods are the authors of evil, and that heroes are no better than men — sentiments which, as we were saying, are neither pious nor true, for we have already proved that evil cannot come from the gods. Assuredly not.

And further they are likely to have a bad effect on those who hear them ; for everybody will begin to excuse his own vices when he is convinced that similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated by — ' The kindred of the gods, the relatives of Zeus, whose ancestral altar, the altar of Zeus, is aloft in air on the peak of Ida,' and who have ' the blood of deities yet flowing in their veins'*.

And therefore let us put an end to such tales, lest they q2 engender laxity of morals among the young. 'II. xxiii. 151. * lb. xxii. 394. ^\h. xxiii. 175. "* From the Niobe of Aeschylus.

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus. The impious behaviour of Achilles to Apollo and the rivergods; his cruelty.

The tale of Theseus and Peirithous.

The bad effect of these mythological tales upon the young.

76 The styles of poetry. Repubiiciii. By all means, he replied. Socrates, But now that we are determining what classes of subjects adeimantus. 2^j.g Q^ g^j-g j^Q|. |.Q i^g spoken of, let us see whether any have been omitted by us. The manner in which gods and demigods and heroes and the world below should be treated has been already laid down. Very true. Misstatements And what shall we say about men?

That is clearly the of the poets • • ,• <. i_ • . about men. rcmammg portion of our subject. Clearly so. But we are not in a condition to answer this question at present, my friend. Why not?

Because, if I am not mistaken, we shall have to say that about men poets and story-tellers are guilty of making the gravest misstatements when they tell us that wicked men are often happy, and the good miserable ; and that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justice is a man's own loss and another's gain — these things we shall forbid them to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite. To be sure we shall, he replied.

But if you admit that I am right in this, then I shall maintain that you have implied the principle for which we have been all along contending. I grant the truth of your inference. That such things are or are not to be said about men is a question which we cannot determine until we have discovered what justice is, and how naturally advantageous to the possessor, whether he seem to be just or not. Most true, he said.

Enough of the subjects of poetry : let us now speak of the style ; and when this has been considered, both matter and manner will have been completely treated. I do not understand what you mean, said Adeimantus. Then I must make you understand ; and perhaps I may be more intelligible if I put the matter in this way. You are aware, I suppose, that all mythology and poetry is a narration of events, either past, present, or to come? Certainly, he replied.

And narration may be either simple narration, or imitation, or a union of the two? That again, he said, I do not quite understand. I fear that I must be a ridiculous teacher when I have so much difficulty in making myself apprehended. Like a bad speaker, therefore, 1 will not take the whole of the subject, but will break a piece off in illustration of my meaning.

You know the first hnes of the IHad, in which the poet says that 93 Chryses prayed Agamemnon to release his daughter, and that Agamemnon flew into a passion with him ; whereupon Chryses, failing of his object, invoked the anger of the God against the Achaeans.

Now as far as these lines, ' And he prayed all the Greeks, but especially the two sons of Atreus, the chiefs of the people,' the poet is speaking in his own person ; he never leads us to suppose that he is any one else. But in what follows he takes the person of Chryses, and then he does all that he can to make us beheve that the speaker is not Homer, but the aged priest himself.

And in this double form he has cast the entire narrative of the events which occurred at Troy and in Ithaca and throughout the Odyssey. Yes. And a narrative it remains .both in the speeches which the poet recites from time to time and in the intermediate passages? Quite true. But when the poet speaks in the person of another, may we not say that he assimilates his style to that of the person who, as he informs you, is going to speak? Certainly.

And this assimilation of himself to another, either by the use of voice or gesture, is the imitation of the person whose character he assumes? Of course. Then in this case the narrative of the poet may be said to proceed by way of imitation? Very true. Or, if the poet everywhere appears and never conceals himself, then again the imitation is dropped, and his poetry * becomes simple narration. However, in order that I may

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus. Analysis of the dramatic element in Epic poetry.

Epic poetry has an element of imitation in the speeches ; the rest is simple narrative.

Illustrations from the beginning of the Iliad.

78

The imitative art.

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Tragedy and Comedy are wholly imitative; dithyrambic and some other kinds of poetry are devoid of imitation. Epic poetry is a combination of the two.

make my meaning quite clear, and that you may no more say, ' I don't understand,' I will show how the change might be effected. If Homer had said, ' The priest came, having his daughter's ransom in his hands, supplicating the Achaeans, and above all the kings ; ' and then if, instead of speaking in the person of Chryses, he had continued in his own person, the words would have been, not imitation, but simple narration.

The passage would have run as follows (I am no poet, and therefore I drop the metre), ' The priest came and prayed the gods on behalf of the Greeks that they might capture Troy and return safely home, but begged that they would give him back his daughter, and take the ransom which he brought, and respect the God. Thus he spoke, and the other Greeks revered the priest and assented.

But Agamemnon was wroth, and bade him depart and not come again, lest the staff and chaplets of the God should be of no avail to him — the daughter of Chryses should not be released, he said — she should grow old with him in Argos. And then he told him to go away and not to provoke him, if he intended to get home unscathed.

And the old man went away in fear and silence, and, when he had left the camp, he 394 called upon Apollo by his many names, reminding him of everything which he had done pleasing to him, whether in building his temples, or in offering sacrifice, and praying that his good deeds might be returned to him, and that the Achaeans might expiate his tears by the arrows of the god,' — and so on. In this way the whole becomes simple narrative.

I understand, he said. Or you may suppose the opposite case — that the intermediate passages are omitted, and the dialogue only left. That also, he said, I understand ; you mean, for example, as in tragedy.

You have conceived my meaning perfectly ; and if I mistake not, what you failed to apprehend before is now made clear to you, that poetry and mythology are, in some cases, wholly imitative — instances of this are supplied by tragedy and comedy ; there is likewise the opposite style, in which the poet is the only speaker — of this the dithyramb affords the best example ; and the combination of both is found in epic, and in several other styles of poetry. Do I take you with me? «»

TJie feebleness of imitators. 79 Yes, he said ; I see now what you meant. . Republic 111. I will ask you to remember also what I began by saying, Socrates, that we had done with the subject and might proceed to adeimantus. the style. Yes, I remember.

In saying this, I intended to imply that we must come to an understanding about the mimetic art, — whether the poets, in narrating their stories, are to be allowed by us to imitate, and if so, whether in whole or in part, and if the latter, in what parts; or should all imitation be prohibited? You mean, I suspect, to ask whether tragedy and comedy shall be admitted into our State?

Yes, I said ; but there may be more than this in question : a hint about I really do not know as yet, but whither the argument may ^T^'^/j^^' blow, thither we go. And go we will, he said.

Then, Adeimantus, let me ask you whether our guardians Our guardians ought to be imitators; or rather, has not this question been ['"ght^^^^o '-' ^ be imitators, decided by the rule already laid down that one man can only for one man do one thing well, and not many ; and that if he attempt ^^^ °"Jy ^° many, he will altogether fail of gaining much reputation well; in any? •^ Certainly.

And this is equally true of imitation ; no one man can imitate many things as well as he would imitate a single one? He cannot.

Then the same person will hardly be able to play a serious part in life, and at the same time to be an imitator and imitate many other parts as well ; for even when two species of imitation are nearly allied, the same persons cannot succeed in both, as, for example, the writers of tragedy and comedy — did you not just now call them imitations? Yes, I did ; and you are right in thinking that the same persons cannot succeed in both.

Any more than they can be rhapsodists and actors at once? True. Neither are comic and tragic actors the same ; yet all these things are but imitations. They are so. And human nature, Adeimantus, appears to have been

coined in#o yet smaller pieces, and to be as incapable of imitating many things well, as of performing well the actions of which the imitations are copies. Quite true, he replied.

If then we adhere to our original notion and bear in mind that our guardians, setting aside every other business, are to dedicate themselves wholly to the maintenance of freedom in the State, making this their craft, and engaging in no work which does not bear on this end, they ought not to practise or imitate anything else ; if they imitate at all, they should imitate from youth upward only those characters which are suitable to their profession — the courageous, temperate, holy, free, and the hke ; but they should not depict or be skilful at imitating any kind of illiberality or baseness, lest from imitation they should come to be what they imitate.

Did you never observe how imitations, beginning in early youth and continuing far into life, at length grow into habits and become a second nature, affecting body, voice, and mind? Yes, certainly, he said.

Then, I said, we will not allow those for whom we profess a care and of whom we say that they ought to be good men, to imitate a woman, whether young or old, quarrelling wjA her husband, or striving and vaunting against the gods in conceit of her happiness, or when she is in affliction, or sorrow, or weeping ; and certainly not one who is in sickness, love, or labour. Very right, he said.

Neither must they represent slaves, male or female, performing the offices of slaves? They must not. And surely not bad men, whether cowards or any others, who do the reverse of what we have just been prescribing, who scold or mock or revile one another in drink or out of drink, or who in any other manner sin against themselves and their neighbours in word or deed, as the manner of such is.

Neither should they be trained to imitate the action or 396 speech of men or women who are mad or bad ; for madness, like vice, is to be known but not to be practised or imitated. Very true, he replied.

The good man ivill not act a part unworthy of Jiini. 8 1 Neither may they imitate smiths or other artificers, or Republic iii. oarsmen, or boatswains, or the like? Socrates, How can they, he said, when they are not allowed to apply Adeimantus. their minds to the callings of any of these? Nor may they imitate the neighing of horses, the bellowing of bulls, the murmur of rivers and roll of the ocean, thunder, and all that sort of thing?

Nay, he said, if madness be forbidden, neither may they copy the behaviour of madmen. You mean, I said, if I understand you aright, that there is one sort of narrative style which may be employed by a truly good man when h& has anything to say, and that another sort will be used by a man of an opposite character and education. And which are these two sorts? he asked.

Suppose, I answered, that a just and good man in the imitations course of a narration comes on some savincr or action of ^ '^^ ""^ ^ ^ ■' o encouraged. another good man, — I should imagine that he will like to personate him, and will not be ashamed of this sort of imitation : he will be most ready to play the part of the good man when he is acting firmly and wisely ; in a less degree when he is overtaken by illness or love or drink, or has met with any other disaster.

But when he comes to a character which is unworthy of him, he will not make a study of that ; he will disdain such a person, and will assume his likeness, if at all, for a moment only when he is performing some good action ; at other times he will be ashamed to play a part which he has never practised, nor will he like to fashion and frame himself after the baser models ; he feels pi the employment of such an art, unless in jest, to be beneath him, and his mind revolts at it.

So I should expect, he replied. Then he will adopt a mode of narration such as we have illustrated out of Homer, that is to say, his style will be both imitative and narrative ; but there will be very little of the former, and a great deal of the latter. Do you agree? Certainly, he said ; that is the model which such a speaker 397 must necessarily take.

But there is another sort of character who will narrate imitations anything, and, the worse he is, the more unscrupulous he will be^"^roh[bited be ; nothing will be too bad for him : and he will be ready to VOL. III. 2 1

82

TJiree styles, siin^lCy pantomimic, mixed.

Republic III. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Two kinds of style — the one simple, the other multiplex. Iheie is also a third which is a combination of the two.

The simple style alone can be allowed by us ; the mixed style is attractive, but unsuited to the character of our State.

imitate anything, not as a joke, but in right good earnest, and before a large company.

As I was just now saying, he will attempt to represent the roll of thunder, the noise of wind and hail, or the creaking of wheels, and pulleys, and the various sounds of flutes, pipes, trumpets, and all sorts of instruments : he will bark like a dog, bleat hke a sheep, or crow like a cock ; his entire art will consist in imitation of voice and gesture, and there will be very little narration. That, he said, will be his mode of speaking.

These, then, are the two kinds of style? Yes.

And you would agree with me in saying that one of them is simple and has but slight changes ; and if the harmony and rhythm are also chosen for their simplicity, the result is that the speaker, if he speaks correctly, is always pretty much the same in style, and he will keep within the limits of a .single harmony (for the changes are not great), and in like manner he will make use of nearly the same rhythm? That is quite true, he said.

Whereas the other requires all sorts of harmonies and all sorts of rhythms, if the music and the style are to correspond, because the style has all sorts of changes. That is also perfectly true, he replied. And do not the two styles, or the mixture of the two, comprehend all poetry, and every form of expression in words? No one can say anything except in one or other of them or in both together. They include all, he said.

And shall we receive into our State all the three styles, or one only of the two unmixed styles? or would you include the mixed? I should prefer only to admit the pure imitator of virtue. Yes, I said, Adeimantus ; but the mixed style is also very charming : and indeed the pantomimic, which is the opposite of the one chosen by you, is the most popular style with children and their attendants, and with the world in general. I do not deny it.

But I suppose you would argue that such a style is unsuitable to our State, in which human nature is not twofold or manifold, for one man plays one part only?

The melody mid rJiytJim are to folloiv the words. 83 Yes ; quite unsuitable. Republic in. And this is the reason why in our State, and in our State Socrates, only, we shall find a shoemaker to be a shoemaker and not glIl^con^"^' a pilot also, and a husbandman to be a husbandman and not a dicast also, and a soldier a soldier and not a trader also, and the same throughout? True, he said.

398 And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentle- Thepamomen, who are so clever that they can imitate anything, |"'"i'c artist ' •' •' *-" IS to receive comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself great honours, and his poetry, we will fall down and worship him as "^ ^ '^ ^° "T i^ J •> r sent out of the a sweet and holy and wonderful being ; but we must country. also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist ; the law will not allow them.

And so when we have anointed him with myrrh, and set a garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls' health the rougher and severer poet or story-teller, who will imitate the style of the virtuous only, and will follow those models which we prescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers. We certainly will, he said, if we have the power.

Then now, my friend, I said, that part of music or literary education which relates to the story or myth may be considered to be finished ; for the matter and manner have both been discussed. I think so too, he said. Next in order will follow melody and song. That is obvious. Every one can see already what we ought to say about them, if we are to be consistent with ourselves.

I fear, said Glaucon, laughing, that the word ' every one ' hardly includes me, for I cannot at the moment say what they should be ; though I may guess. At any rate you can tell that a song or ode has three parts — the words, the melody, and the rhythm ; that degree of knowledge I may presuppose? Yes, he said ; so much as that you may. And as for the words, there will surely be no difference between words which are and which are not set to music ;

both will conform to the same laws, and these have been already determined by us? Yes. And the melody and rhythm will depend upon the words? Certainly. We were saying, when we spoke of the subject-matter, that we had no need of lamentation and strains of sorrow? True. And which are the harmonies expressive of sorrow? You are musical, and can tell me.

The harmonies which you mean are the mixed or tenor Lydian, and the full-toned or bass Lydian, and such like. These then, I said, must be banished ; even to women who have a character to maintain they are of no use, and much less to men. Certainly. In the next place, drunkenness and softness and indolence are utterly unbecoming the character of our guardians. Utterly unbecoming. And which are the soft or drinking harmonies?

The Ionian, he replied, and the Lydian ; they are termed 399 ' relaxed. Well, and are these of any military use? Quite the reverse, he repHed ; and if so the Dorian and the Phrygian are the only ones which you have left.

I answered : Of the harmonies I know nothing, but I want to have one warlike, to sound the note or accent which a brave man utters in the hour of danger and stern resolve, or when his cause is failing, and he is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by some other evil, and at every such crisis meets the blows of fortune with firm step and a determination to endure ; and another to be used by him in times of peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity, and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instruction and admonition, or on the other hand, when he is expressing his willingness to yield to persuasion or entreaty or admonition, and which represents him when by prudent conduct he has attained his end, not carried away by his success, but acting moderately and wisely under the circumstances, and acquiescing in the event. These

Musical instnivicnts ; rJiytJufis. 85 two harmonies I ask you to leave ; the strain of necessity Repuhik iii. and the strain of freedom, the strain of the unfortunate and Socrates, the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage, and the ^^^'^o'*- strain of temperance ; these, I say, leave. And these, he replied, are the Dorian and Phrygian harmonies of which I was just now speaking.

Then, I said, if these and these only are to be used in our The Dorian songs and melodies, we shall not want multiplicity of notes ^"^ Phrygian or a panharmonic scale? retained. I suppose not. Then we shall not maintain the artificers of lyres with three corners and complex scales, or the makers of any other many-stringed curiously-harmonised instruments? Certainly not. But what do you say to flute-makers and flute-players?

Musical Would you admit them into our State when you reflect that ^"hic^reur in this composite use of harmony the flute is worse than be rejected

all the stringed instruments put together ; even the panharmonic music is only an imitation of the flute? Clearly not. There remain then only the lyre and the harp for use in the city, and the shepherds may have a pipe in the country. That is surely the conclusion to be drawn from the argument. The preferring of Apollo and his instruments to Marsyas and his instruments is not at all strange, I said. Not at all, he replied. And so, by the dog of Egypt, we have been unconsciously purging the State, which not long ago we termed luxurious. And we have done wisely, he repHed. Then let us now finish the purgation, I said. Next in order to harmonies, rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the same rules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of metre, or metres of every kind, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressions of a courageous 400 and harmonious life ; and when we have found them, we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit, not the words to the foot and melody. To say what these rhythms are will be your duty — you must teach me them, as you have already taught me the harmonies.

and which allowed ?

86

The question of rhythms referred to Damon.

Republic III. socuates, Glaucon. Three kirtds of rhythm as there are four notes of the tetrachord.

Rhythm and harmony follow style, and style is the expression of the &ouI.

But, indeed, he replied, I cannot tell you. I only know that there are some three principles of rhythm out of which metrical systems are framed, just as in sounds there are four notes ^ out of which all the harmonies are composed ; that is an observation which I have made. But of what sort of lives they are severally the imitations I am unable to say.

Then, I said, we must take Damon into our counsels ; and he will tell us what rhythms are expressive of meanness, or insolence, or fury, or other unworthiness, and what are to be reserved for the expression of opposite feelings.

And I think that I have an indistinct recollection of his mentioning a complex Cretic rhythm ; also a dactylic or heroic, and he arranged them in some manner which I do not quite understand, making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long and short alternating ; and, unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambic as well as of a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and long quantities 2.

Also in some cases he appeared to praise or censure the movement of the foot quite as much as the rhythm ; or perhaps a combination of the two ; for I am not certain what he meant. These matters, however, as I was saying, had better be referred to Damon himself, for the analysis of the subject would be difficult, you know? Rather so, I should say.

But there is no difficulty in seeing that grace or the absence of grace is an effect of good or bad rhythm. None at all. And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good and bad style ; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style ; for our principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by the words, and not the words by them. Just so, he said, they should follow the words.

And will not the words and the character of the style depend on the temper of the soul? ' i. e. the four notes of the tetrachord. ^ Socrates expresses himself carelessly in accordance with his assumed ignorance of the details of the subject.

In the first part of the sentence he appears to be speaking of paeonic rhythms which are in the ratio of | ; in the second part, of dactylic and anapaestic rhythms, which are in the ratio of \ ; in the last clause, of iambic and trochaic rhythms, which are in the ratio of t^ or |.

Other artists, and not only poets, to he nnder the State. 87 Yes. Republic III. And everything else on the style? Socrates, Yes. GLAtCON. Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good Simplicity the rhythm depend on simplicity, — I mean the true simplicity of principle; a rightly and nobly ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only an euphemism for folly? Very true, he replied.

And if our youth are to do their work in life, must they not make these graces and harmonies their perpetual aim? They must.

4.01 And surely the art of the painter and every other creative andaprincipie and constructive art are full of them, — weaving, embroidery, ^|"^J^'s " ■' widely spread ^ architecture, and every kind of manufacture ; also nature, in nature and animal and vegetable, — in all of them there is grace or the ^'''" absence of grace.

And ugliness and discord and inharmonious motion are nearly allied to ill words and ill nature, as grace and harmony are the twin sisters of goodness and virtue and bear their likeness. That is quite true, he said.

But shall our superintendence go no further, and are the Our citizens poets onlv to be required by us to express the image of the '""^^ grow up ^ ' ^ -^ _ ^ " to manhood good in their works, on pain, if they do anything else, of amidst impresexpulsion from our State?

Or is the same control to be ex- s'O"^ o<" g''^ce ^ and beauty tended to other artists, and are they also to be prohibited from only; aii ugU- exhibiting the opposite forms of vice and intemperance and "^^^^" ^'" CI ir r r must be exmeanness and indecency in sculpture and building and the eluded. other creative arts ; and is he who cannot conform to this rule of ours to be prevented from practising his art in our State, lest the taste of our citizens be corrupted by him?

We would not have our guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feed upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little, until they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their own soul.

Let our artists rather be those who are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful ; then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything ; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, hke a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and

88

Music the most potent instrument of education.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon. The power of imparting grace is possessed by harmony.

The true musician must know the essential forms of virtue and vice.

insensibly draw the soul from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason. There can be no nobler training than that, he replied.

And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful ; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and 402 receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why ; and when reason comes he will recognise and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar.

Yes, he said, I quite agree with you in thinking that our youth should be trained in music and on the grounds which you mention.

Just as in learning to read, I said, we were satisfied when we knew the letters of the alphabet, which are very few, in all their recurring sizes and combinations ; not slighting them as unimportant whether they occupy a space large or small, but everywhere eager to make them out ; and not thinking ourselves perfect in the art of reading until we recognise them wherever they are found ^ : True — Or, as we recognise the reflection of letters in the water, or in a mirror, only when we know the letters themselves ; the same art and study giving us the knowledge of both : Exactly — Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor our guardians, whom we have to educate, can ever become musical until we and they know the essential forms of temperance, courage, liberality, magnificence, and their kindred, as well as the contrary forms, in all their combinations, and can recognise them and their images wherever they are found, not slighting

them either in small things or great, but believing them all to be within the sphere of one art and study. Most assuredly. And when a beautiful soul harmonizes with a beautiful form, and the two are cast in one mould, that will be the fairest of sights to him who has an eye to see it? The fairest indeed. And the fairest is also the loveliest? That may be assumed.

And the man who has the spirit of harmony will be mos in love with the loveliest ; but he will not love him who is of an inharmonious soul? That is true, he replied, if the deficiency be in his soul ; but if there be any merely bodily defect in another he will be patient of it, and will love all the same. I perceive, I said, that you have or have had experiences of this sort, and I agree.

But let me ask you another question : Has excess of pleasure any affinity to temperance? How can that be? he replied; pleasure deprives a man of the use of his faculties quite as much as pain. Or any affinity to virtue in general? None whatever. Any affinity to wantonness and intemperance? Yes, the greatest. And is there any greater or keener pleasure than that of sensual love? No, nor a madder.

Whereas true love is a love of beauty and order — temperate and harmonious? Quite true, he said. Then no intemperance or madness should be allowed to approach true love? Certainly not. Then mad or intemperate pleasure must never be allowed to come near the lover and his beloved ; neither of them can have any part in it if their love is of the right sort? No, indeed, Socrates, it must never come near them.

Then I suppose that in the city which we are founding you would make a law to the effect that a friend should use no other familiarity to his love than a father would use to his

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon. The harmony of soul and body the fairest of sights.

The true lover will not mind defects of the person.

True love is temperate and harmonious.

True love is free from sensuality and coarseness.

90

The good soul improves the body, not the body the soul.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon.

Gymnastic.

The body to be entrusted to the mind.

The usual training of athletes too gross and sleepy.

son, and then only for a noble purpose, and he must first have the other's consent ; and this rule is to limit him in all his intercourse, and he is never to be seen going further, or, if he exceeds, he is to be deemed guilty of coarseness and bad taste. I quite agree, he said. Thus much of music, which makes a fair ending ; for what should be the end of music if not the love of beauty? I agree, he said.

After music comes gymnastic, in which our youth are next to be trained. Certainly. Gymnastic as well as music should begin in early years ; the training in it should be careful and should continue through life.

Now my behef is, — and this is a matter upon which I should like to have your opinion in confirmation of my own, but my own behef is, — not that the good body by any bodily excellence improves the soul, but, on the contrary, that the good soul, by her own excellence, improves the body as far as this may be possible. What do you say? Yes, I agree.

Then, to the mind when adequately trained, we shall be right in handing over the more particular care of the body ; and in order to avoid prolixity we will now only give the general outlines of the subject. Very good. That they must abstain from intoxication has been already remarked by us ; for of all persons a guardian should be the last to get drunk and not know where in the world he is.

Yes, he said ; that a guardian should require another guardian to take care of him is ridiculous indeed. But next, what shall we say of their food ; for the men are in training for the great contest of all — are they not? Yes, he said. And will the habit of body of our ordinary athletes be 404 suited to them? Why not? I am afraid, I said, that a habit of body such as they have is but a sleepy sort of thing, and rather perilous to health. Do you not observe that these athletes sleep away their

The simple gymnastic twin sister of the simple music. 9 1 lives, and are liable to most dangerous illnesses if they Republic iii. depart, in ever so slight a degree, from their customary Socrates, regimen? ^"^"'-■°^- Yes, I do.

Then, I said, a finer sort of training will be required for our warrior athletes, who are to be like wakeful dogs, and to see and hear with the utmost keenness ; amid the many changes of water and also of food, of summer heat and winter cold, which they will have to endure when on a campaign, they must not be liable to break down in health. That is my view.

The really excellent gymnastic is twin sister of that simple music which we were just now describing. How so? Why, I conceive that there is a gymnastic which, like our Miiitai-y music, is simple and good ; and especially the military gym- ^'""-''^^'^ nastic. What do you mean?

My meaning may be learned from Homer ; he, you know, feeds his heroes at their feasts, when they are campaigning, on soldiers' fare ; they have no fish, although they are on the shores of the Hellespont, and they are not allowed boiled meats but only roast, which is the food most convenient for soldiers, requiring only that they should light a fire, and not involving the trouble of carrying about pots and pans. True.

And I can hardly be mistaken in saying that sweet sauces are nowhere mentioned in Homer. In proscribing them, however, he is not singular ; all professional athletes are well aware that a man who is to be in good condition should take nothing of the kind. Yes, he said ; and knowing this, they are quite right in not taking them.

Then you would not approve of Syracusan dinners, and Syracusan the refinements of Sicilian cookery? dinners and Corinthian I thmk not. courtezans Nor, if a man is to be in condition, would vou allow him to f:,^ p'^"' hibited. have a Corinthian girl as his fair friend? Certainly not.

92

The vanity of doctors and lawyers.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon. The luxurious style of living may be justly compared to the panharmonic strain of music.

Every man should be his own doctor and lawyer.

Bad as it is to go to law, it is still worse to be a lover of litigation.

Neither would you approve of the delicacies, as they are thought, of Athenian confectionary? Certainly not. All such feeding and living may be rightly compared by us to melody and song composed in the panharmonic style, and in all the rhythms. Exactly. There complexity engendered licence, and here disease ; whereas simplicity in music was the parent of temperance in the soul ; and simplicity in gymnastic of health in the body. Most true, he said.

But when intemperance and diseases multiply in a State, halls of justice and medicine are always being opened ; and the arts of the doctor and the lawyer give themselves airs, finding how keen is the interest which not only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them. Of course.

And yet what greater proof can there be of a bad and disgraceful state of education than this, that not only artisans and the meaner sort of people need the skill of first-rate physicians and judges, but also those who would profess to have had a liberal education?

Is it not disgraceful, and a great sign of the want of good-breeding, that a man should have to go abroad for his law and physic because he has none of his own at home, and must therefore surrender himself into the hands of other men whom he makes lords and judges over him? Of all things, he said, the most disgraceful.

Would you say * most,' I replied, when you consider that there is a further stage of the evil in which a man is not only a life-long litigant, passing all his days in the courts, either as plaintiff or defendant, but is actually led by his bad taste to pride himself on his Htigiousness ; he imagines that he is a master in dishonesty ; able to take every crooked turn, and wriggle into and out of every hole, bending like a withy and getting out of the way of justice: and all for what? — in order to gain small points not worth mentioning, he not knowing that so to order his life as to be able to do without a napping judge is a far higher and nobler sort of thing. Is not that still more disgraceful?

Asclepius mid Hcrodicns. 93 Yes, he said, that is still more disgraceful. Republic in.

Well, I said, and to require the help of medicine, not when Socrates, a wound has to be cured, or on occasion of an epidemic, but ^'"^"'^■on. lUst because, by indolence and a habit of life such as we have Bad also to ■' ■' , , require the been describing, men fill themselves with waters and winds, help of as if their bodies were a marsh, compelling the ingenious '"^d'^^'"^- sons of Asclepius to find more names for diseases, such as flatulence and catarrh; is not this, too, a disgrace?

Yes, he said, they do certainly give very strange and newfangled names to diseases.

Yes, I said, and I do not believe that there were any such in the time of diseases in the days of Asclepius ; and this I infer from the o/nomer thl circumstance that the hero Eurypylus, after he has been practice of wounded in Homer, drinks a posset of Pramnian wine well ^eV simple?^ 06 besprinkled with barley-meal and grated cheese, which are certainly inflammatory, and yet the sons of Asclepius who were at the Trojan war do not blame the damsel who gives him the drink, or rebuke Patroclus, who is treating his case.

Well, he said, that was surely an extraordinary drink to be given to a person in his condition. Not so extraordinary, I replied, if you bear in mind that The nursing in former days, as is commonly said, before the time of bega^n wUh Herodicus, the guild of Asclepius did not practise our pre- Herodicus. sent system of medicine, which may be said to educate diseases.

But Herodicus, being a trainer, and himself of a sickly constitution, by a combination of training and doctoring found out a way of torturing first and chiefly himself, and secondly the rest of the world. How was that? he said.

By the invention of lingering death ; for he had a mortal disease which he perpetually tended, and as recovery was out of the question, he passed his entire hfe as a valetudinarian ; he could do nothing but attend upon himself, and he was in constant torment whenever he departed in anything from his usual regimen, and so dying hard, by the help of science he struggled on to old age. A rare reward of his skill!

Yes, I said ; a reward which a man might fairly expect who never understood that, if Asclepius did not instruct his descendants in valetudinarian arts, the omission arose, not

94

The saying of Phocylides.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon.

The workingman has no time for tedious remedies.

The slow cure equally an impediment to the mechanical arts, to the practice of virtue.

from ignorance or inexperience of such a branch of medicine, but because he knew that in all well-ordered states every individual has an occupation to which he must attend, and has therefore no leisure to spend in continually being ill. This we remark in the case of the artisan, but, ludicrously enough, do not apply the same rule to people of the richer sort. How do you mean? he said.

I mean this : When a carpenter is ill he asks the physician for a rough and ready cure ; an emetic or a purge or a cautery or the knife, — these are his remedies.

And if some one prescribes for him a course of dietetics, and tells him that he must swathe and swaddle his head, and all that sort of thing, he replies at once that he has no time to be ill, and that he sees no good in a life which is spent in nursing his disease to the neglect of his customary employment ; and therefore bidding good-bye to this sort of physician, he resumes his ordinary habits, and either gets well and lives and does his business, or, if his constitution fails, he dies and has no more trouble.

Yes, he said, and a man in his condition of life ought to use the art of medicine thus far only. Has he not, I said, an occupation ; and what profit would 407 there be in his hfe if he were deprived of his occupation? Quite true, he said. But with the rich man this is otherwise ; of him we do not say that he has any specially appointed work which he must perform, if he would live. He is generally supposed to have nothing to do.

Then you never heard of the saying of Phocylides, that as soon as a man has a livelihood he should practise virtue? Nay, he said, I think that he had better begin somewhat sooner. Let us not have a dispute with him about this, I said ; but rather ask ourselves : Is the practice of virtue obligatory on the rich man, or can he live without it?

And if obligatory on him, then let us raise a further question, whether this dieting of disorders, which is an impediment to the application of the mind in carpentering and the mechanical arts, does not equally stand in the way of the sentiment of Phocylides?

Asclepius a states7nan. 95 Of that, he replied, there can be no doubt ; such excessive Republic in. care of the body, when carried beyond the rules of gymnastic, Socrates, is most inimical to the practice of virtue.

Glaucon. ^ Yes, indeed, I replied, and equally incompatible with the and to any r ^ a- r j kind of Study management of a house, an army, or an office of state ; and, or thought, what is most important of all, irreconcileable with any kind of study or thought or self-reflection — there is a constant suspicion that headache and giddiness are to be ascribed to philosophy, and hence all practising or making trial of virtue in the higher sense is absolutely stopped ; for a man is always fancying that he is being made ill, and is in constant anxiety about the state of his body.

Yes, likely enough.

And therefore our politic Asclepius may be supposed to Asclepius have exhibited the power of his art only to persons who, ^^o"^'^ "o^ ^ , , "^ , , cure diseased being generally of healthy constitution and habits of hfe, had constitutions a definite ailment ; such as these he cured by purges and ^^^^^^^ ^^^y , were of no use operations, and bade them live as usual, herein consulting to the State. the interests of the State ; but bodies which disease had penetrated through and through he would not have attempted to cure by gradual processes of evacuation and infusion : he did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or to have weak fathers begetting weaker sons; — if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure him ; for such a cure would have been of no use either to himself, or to the State.

Then, he said, you regard Asclepius as a statesman. Clearly ; and his character is further illustrated by his sons. The case of 408 Note that they were heroes in the days of old and practised the Meneiaus, . .,., , . who was atmedicmes of which I am speakmg at the siege of Troy : You tended by the

will remember how, when Pandarus wounded Menelaus, they '' pius, * Sucked the blood out of the wound, and sprinkled soothing remedies',' but they never prescribed what the patient was afterwards to eat or drink in the case of Menelaus, any more than in the case of Eurypylus ; the remedies, as they conceived, were enough to heal any man who before he was wounded was * Making the answer of Socrates begin at nal yap npbg k.t.?.. ' Iliad iv. 218.

sons of Ascle-

96

Distinction between the physician and the judge.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon.

The offence of Asclepius.

The physician should have experience of illness in his own person ;

healthy and regular in his habits ; and even though he did happen to drink a posset of Pramnian wine, he might get well all the same. But they would have nothing to do with unhealthy and intemperate subjects, whose lives were of no use either to themselves or others ; the art of medicine was * not designed for their good, and though they were as rich as Midas, the sons of Asclepius would have declined to attend them.

They were very acute persons, those sons of Asclepius. Naturally so, I replied. Nevertheless, the tragedians and Pindar disobeying our behests, although they acknowledge that Asclepius was the son of Apollo, say also that he was bribed into healing a rich man who was at the point of death, and for this reason he was struck by lightning.

But we, in accordance with the principle already affirmed by us, will not believe them when they tell us both ; — if he was the son of a god, we maintain that he was not avaricious ; or, if he was avaricious, he was not the son of a god.

All that, Socrates, is excellent ; but I should like to put a question to you : Ought there not to be good physicians in a State, and are not the best those who have treated the greatest number of constitutions good and bad? and are not the best judges in like manner those who are acquainted with all sorts of moral natures? Yes, I said, I too would have good judges and good physicians. But do you know whom I think good? Will you tell me?

I will, if I can. Let me however note that in the same question you join two things which are not the same. How so? he asked. Why, I said, you join physicians and judges. Now the most skilful physicians are those who, from their youth upwards, have combined with the knowledge of their art the greatest experience of disease ; they had better not be robust in health, and should have had all manner of diseases in their own persons.

For the body, as I conceive, is not the instrument with which they cure the body ; in that case we could not allow them ever to be or to have been sickly ; but they cure the body with the mind, and the mind which has become and is sick can cure nothing.

TJie simple medicine and simple law. 97 That is very true, he said. Republic in.

But with the judge it is otherwise ; since he governs mind Sockates, by mind ; he ought not therefore to have been trained among ^'^aucon. vicious minds, and to have associated with them from youth °" ^'^'^ "'^'^'" 1 1 1 1 1 1 <- hand, the upwards, and to have gone through the whole calendar of judge should crime, only in order that he may quickly infer the crimes "o^'eamto ^ . ... . know evil by of others as he might their bodily diseases from his own the practice self-consciousness; the honourable mind which is to form "f't. b^tby long observaa healthy judgment should have had no experience or con- tionofeviiin tamination of evil habits when young.

And this is the reason "^'^ers. why in youth good men often appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by the dishonest, because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls. Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived.

Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young ; he should have learned to know evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observation of the nature of evil in others : knowledge should be his guide, not personal experience. Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge. Yes, I replied, and he will be a good man (which is my such a answer to your question) ; for he is good who has a good i^"owiedgc of . . . . human nature soul.

But the cunning and suspicious nature of which we far better and spoke, — he who has committed many crimes, and fancies ''""^''^han . . . •' . that of the himself to be a master in wickedness, when he is amongst adept in his fellows, is wonderful in the precautions which he takes, ^"'"^' because he judges of them by himself: but when he gets into the company of men of virtue, who have the experience of age, he appears to be a fool again, owing to his unseasonable suspicions ; he cannot recognise an honest man, because he has no pattern of honesty in himself ; at the same time, as the bad are more numerous than the good, and he meets with them oftener, he thinks himself, and is by others thought to be, rather wise than foolish.

Most true, he said. Then the good and wise judge whom we are seeking is not this man, but the other ; for vice cannot know virtue too, biit a virtuous nature, educated by time, will acquire a knowledge both of virtue and vice : the virtuous, and not the vicious man has wisdom — in my opinion. And in mine also. VOL. III. — 22

98

The true aim of music and gymnastic.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon.

Music and gymnastic are equally designed for the improvement of the mind.

The mere athlete must be softened, and the philosophic nature prevented from becoming too soft.

This is the sort of medicine, and this is the sort of law, which you will sanction in your state. They will minister to better natures, giving health both of soul and of body ; but those who are diseased in their bodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable souls they will put an end to themselves. That is clearly the best thing both for the patients and for the State.

And thus our youth, having been educated only in that simple music which, as we said, inspires temperance, will be reluctant to go to law. Clearly. And the musician, who, keeping to the same track, is content to practise the simple gymnastic, will have nothing to do with medicine unless in some extreme case. That I quite believe.

The very exercises and toils which he undergoes are intended to stimulate the spirited element of his nature, and not to increase his strength ; he will not, like common athletes, use exercise and regimen to develope his muscles. Very right, he said. Neither are the two arts of music and gymnastic really designed, as is often supposed, the one for the training of the soul, the other for the training of the body.

What then is the real object of them? I believe, I said, that the teachers of both have in view chiefly the improvement of the soul. How can that be? he asked. Did you never observe, I said, the effect on the mind itself of exclusive devotion to gymnastic, or the opposite effect of an exclusive devotion to music? In what way shown? he said. The one producing a temper of hardness and ferocity, the other of softness and effeminacy, I replied.

Yes, he said, I am quite aware that the mere athlete becomes too much of a savage, and that the mere musician is melted and softened beyond what is good for him. Yet surely, I said, this ferocity only comes from spirit, which, if rightly educated, would give courage, but, if too much intensified, is liable to become hard and brutal.

The excess of nmsic and gyvuiastic. 99 That I quite think. Repubikiii. On the other hand the philosopher will have the quality of Socrates, gentleness. And this also, when too much indulged, will ^^"'^o'^" turn to softness, but, if educated rightly, will be gentle and moderate. True. And in our opinion the guardians ought to have both these qualities? Assuredly. And both should be in harmony? Beyond question.

And the harmonious soul is both temperate and courageous ? Yes. And the inharmonious is cowardly and boorish? Very true.

And, when a man allows music to play upon him and Music, if to pour into his soul through the funnel of his ears those camed too far, • 1 • 1 renders the sweet and soft and melancholy airs of which we were just now weaker nature speaking, and his whole life is passed in warbling and the effeminate, ^ " . ^ *^ . the stronger delights of song ; in the first stage of the process the passion irritable. or spirit which is in him is tempered like iron, and made useful, instead of brittle and useless.

But, if he carries on the softening and soothing process, in the next stage he begins to melt and waste, until he has wasted away his spirit and cut out the sinews of his soul ; and he becomes a feeble warrior. Very true.

If the element of spirit is naturally weak in him the change is speedily accomplished, but if he have a good deal, then the power of music weakening the spirit renders him excitable ; — on the least provocation he flames up at once, and is speedily extinguished ; instead of having spirit he grows irritable and passionate and is quite impracticable. Exactly.

And so in gymnastics, if a man takes violent exercise and And in like is a great feeder, and the reverse of a great student of music '"-'^""e'' ^^^ well-fed and philosophy, at first the high condition of his body fills athlete, if he him with pride and spirit, and he becomes twice the man that ^^^*^ "° education, he was.

lOO

The two correspondmg elements in human nature.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon. degenerates into a wild beast.

Music to be mingled with gymnastic, and both attempered to the individual soul.

Enough of principles of education : who are to be our rulers?

Certainly. And what happens? if he do nothing else, and holds no converse with the Muses, does not even that intelhgence which there may be in him, having no taste of any sort of learning or enquiry or thought or culture, grow feeble and dull and blind, his mind never waking up or receiving nourishment, and his senses not being purged of their mists? True, he said.

And he ends by becoming a hater of philosophy, uncivihzed, never using the weapon of persuasion, — he is like a wild beast, all violence and fierceness, and knows no other way of dealing; and he lives in all ignorance and evil conditions, and has no sense of propriety and grace. That is quite true, he said.

And as there are two principles of human nature, one the spirited and the other the philosophical, some God, as I should say, has given mankind two arts answering to them (and only indirectly to the soul and body), in order that these two principles (like the strings of an instrument) may be 412 relaxed or drawn tighter until they are duly harmonized. That appears to be the intention.

And he who mingles music with gymnastic in the fairest proportions, and best attempers them to the soul, may be rightly called the true musician and harmonist in a far higher sense than the tuner of the strings. You are quite right, Socrates. And such a presiding genius will be always required in our State if the government is to last. Yes, he will be absolutely necessary.

Such, then, are our principles of nurture and education : Where would be the use of going into further details about the dances of our citizens, or about their hunting and coursing, their gymnastic and equestrian contests? For these all follow the general principle, and having found that, we shall have no difficulty in discovering them. I dare say that there will be no difficulty. Very good, I said; then what is the next question?

Must we not ask who are to be rulers and who subjects? Certainly. There can be no doubt that the elder must rule the younger.

Selection and probatio7i of the guardians. I o i Clearly. Republic in. And that the best of these must rule. Socrates, That is also clear. Glaucon. Now, are not the best husbandmen those who are most ^^e elder must rule and devoted to husbandry? the younger Yes. ^^"^^ And as we are to have the best of guardians for our city, must they not be those who have most the character of guardians ? Yes.

And to this end they ought to be jvise and efficient, and to have a special care of the State? True.

And a man will be most likely to care about that which he Those are to loves? be appointed rulers who To be sure. have been And he will be most likely to love that which he reerards as ^^^^^^ '" ^", ; ^ " _ the stages of having the same interests with himself, and that of which the their life; good or evil fortune is supposed by him at any time most to affect his own? Very true, he replied. Then there must be a selection.

Let us note among the guardians those who in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her interests. Those are the right men.

And they will have to be watched at every age, in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution, and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sen^e of duty to the State. How cast off? he said. I will explain to you, I replied.

A resolution may go out of a man's mind either with his will or against his will ; with 413 his will when he gets rid of a falsehood and learns better, against his will whenever he is deprived of a truth. I understand, he said, the willing loss of a resolution ; the , meaning of the unwilling I have yet to learn. Why, I said, do you not see that men are unwillingly deprived of good, and willingly of evil? Is not to have lost the truth an evil, and to possess the truth a good? and you • -'4 • ' '

would agree that to conceive things as they are is to possess the truth? Yes, he repHed ; I agree with you in thinking that mankind are deprived of truth against their will. And is not this involuntary deprivation caused either by theft, or force, or enchantment? Still, he repHed, I do not understand you. I fear that I must have been talking darkly, like the tragedians.

I only mean that some men are changed by persuasion and that others forget ; argument steals away the hearts of one class, and time of the other; and this I call theft. Now you understand me? Yes. Those again who are forced, are those whom the violence of some pain or grief compels to change their opinion. I understand, he said, and you are quite right.

And you would also acknowledge that the enchanted are those who change their minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or the sterner influence of fear? Yes, he said ; everything that deceives may be said to enchant. Therefore, as I was just now saying, we must enquire who are the best guardians of their own conviction that what they think the interest of the State is to be the rule of their lives.

We must watch them from their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which they are most likely to forget or to be deceived, and he who remembers and is not deceived is to be selected, and he who fails in the trial is to be rejected. That will be the way? Yes. And there should also be toils and pains and conflicts prescribed for them, in which they will be made to give further proof of the same qualities. Very right, he replied.

And then, I said, we must try them with enchantments — that is the third sort of test — and see what will be their behaviour : like those who take colts amid noise and tumult to see if they are of a timid nature, so must we take our youth amid terrors of some kind, and again pass them into pleasures, and prove them more thoroughly than gold is

must be guardians of themselves. 103 proved in the furnace, that we may discover whether they Republic in. are armed against all enchantments, and of a noble bearing Socrates, always, good guardians of themselves and of the music which G'-^^^^onthey have learned, and retaining under all circumstances a rhythmical and harmonious nature, such as will be most serviceable to the individual and to the State.

And he if they stand who at every age, as boy and youth and in mature life, has '^^ ^^^\^ ^^^^ come out of the trial victorious and pure, shall be appointed honoured in a ruler and guardian of the State ; he shall be honoured in life and death, and shall receive sepulture and other memorials of honour, the greatest that we have to give. But him who fails, we must reject.

I am inclined to think that this is the sort of way in which our rulers and guardians should be chosen and appointed. I speak generally, and not with any pretension to exactness. And, speaking generally, I agree with you, he said. And perhaps the word ' guardian ' in the fullest sense The title of ought to be appHed to this higher class only who preserve us g"^'''^'^"^^^ <-' ^ ^ . .

"^ reserved for against foreign enemies and maintain peace among our the eiders, the citizens at home, that the one may not have the will, or the ^'^""^gT" '° others the power, to harm us. The young men whom we auxiliaries. before called guardians may be more properly designated auxiliaries and supporters of the principles of the rulers. I agree with you, he said.

How then may we devise one of those needful falsehoods of which we lately spoke — just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, if that be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city? What sort of lie? he said.

Nothing new, I replied ; only an old Phoenician ^ tale of The Phoeniwhat has often occurred before now in other places, (as the ^'^" ^^•^■ poets say, and have made the world believe,) though not in our time, and I do not know whether such an event could ever happen again, or could now even be made probable, if it did. How your words seem to hesitate on your lips! You will not wonder, I replied, at my hesitation when you have heard. Speak, he said, and fear not. ^ Cp. Laws, 663 E.

104

The parable of the metals.

Republic III. Socrates, Glaucon. The citizens to be told that they are really autochthonous, sent up out of the earth.

and composed of metals of various quality.

The noble (juality to rise in the State, the ignoble to descend.

Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look you in the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, which I propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to the soldiers, and lastly to the people.

They are to be told that their youth was a dream, and the education and training which they received from us, an appearance only ; in reality during all that time they were being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselves and their arms and appurtenances were manufactured ; when they were completed, the earth, their mother, sent them up ; and so, their country being their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advise for her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizens they are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers.

You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the lie which you were going to tell. True, I replied, but there is more coming ; I have only 415 told you half. Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yet God has framed you differently.

Some of you have the power of command, and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore also they have the greatest honour ; others he has made of silver, to be auxiliaries ; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen he has composed of brass and iron ; and the species will generally be preserved in the children.

But as all are of the same original stock, a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parent a golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race.

They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring ; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixture of brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, and the eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child because he has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan, just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of gold or silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State, it will be destroyed. Such is the

The auxiliaries must be watch-dogs, not wolves. 105 tale ; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe Republic in. in it?

Socrates, Not in the present generation, he replied ; there is no way ^^'^^^on. of accomplishing this ; but their sons may be made to believe l^ ^'"^'' %^^' t r> ^ ^ tjon credible? in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them. — Ves, in a I see the difficulty, I replied ; yet the fostering of such ^J'^"';^ ^^'!^'^- a belief will make them care more for the city and for one the present, another.

Enough, however, of the fiction, which may now fly abroad upon the wings of rumour, while we arm our earth-born heroes, and lead them forth under the command of their rulers.

Let them look round and select a spot The selection whence they can best suppress insurrection, if any prove refractory within, and also defend themselves against enemies, camp, who Hke wolves may come down on the fold from without ; there let them encamp, and when they have encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper Gods and prepare their dwellings. Just so, he said.

And their dwellings must be such as will shield them against the cold of winter and the heat of summer. I suppose that you mean houses, he replied. Yes, I said ; but they must be the houses of soldiers, and not of shop-keepers. What is the difference? he said. That I will endeavoiu" to explain, I replied. To keep The warriors watch-dogs, who, from want of discipline or hunger, or some '""^^ ^^ . , .

' humanized by evil habit or other, would turn upon the sheep and worry education, them, and behave not like dogs but wolves, would be a foul and monstrous thing in a shepherd? Truly monstrous, he said. And therefore every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, being stronger than our citizens, may not grow to be too much for them and become savage tyrants instead of friends and allies? Yes, great care should be taken.

And would not a really good education furnish the best safeguard ? But they are well-educated already, he replied. I cannot be so confident, my dear Glaucon, I said ; I am much more certain that they ought to be, and that true education, whatever that may be, will have the greatest

tendency to civilize and humanize them in their relations to one another, and to those who are under their protection. Very true, he replied. And not only their education, but their habitations, and all that belongs to them, should be such as will neither impair their virtue as guardians, nor tempt them to prey upon the other citizens. Any man of sense must acknowledge that. He must.

Then now let us consider what will be their way of life, if they are to realize our idea of them.

In the first place, none of them should have any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary ; neither should they have a private house or store closed against any one who has a mind to enter; their provisions should be only such as are required by trained warriors, who are men of temperance and courage ; they should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rate of pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more ; and they will go to mess and live together hke soldiers in a camp.

Gold and silver we will tell them that they have from God ; the diviner metal is within them, and they have therefore no need of the dross which is current among men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthly admixture ; for that commoner metal has 4 1 7 been the source of many unholy deeds, but their own is undefiled.

And they alone of all the citizens may not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roof with them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be their salvation, and they will be the saviours of the State.

But should they ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their own, they will become housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens ; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the State, will be at hand.

For all which reasons may we not say that thus shall our State be ordered, and that these shall be the regulations appointed by us for our guardians concerning their houses and all other matters? Yes, said Glaucon.

steph.

Here Adeimantus interposed a question: How would you Republic i v. ^ ' 9 answer, Socrates, said he, if a person were to say that you adeimantus, are making^ these people miserable, and that they are the ^o^'^^'^^s. cause of their own unhappiness ; the city in fact belongs to ^J^ objection them, but they are none the better for it ; whereas other men has made his acquire lands, and build large and handsome houses, and "tizenspoor ^ *-* and miserable : have everything handsome about them, offering sacrifices to the gods on their own account, and practising hospitality ; moreover, as you were saying just now, they have gold and silver, and all that is usual among the favourites of fortune ; but our poor citizens are no better than mercenaries who are quartered in the city and are always mounting guard ?

420 Yes, I said; and you may add that they are only fed, and worst of and not paid in addition to their food, Hke other men ; and gocr^ates the therefore they cannot, if they would, take a journey of have no pleasure ; they have no money to spend on a mistress or any "^°"^yother luxurious fancy, which, as the world goes, is thought to be happiness ; and many other accusations of the same nature might be added.

But, said he, let us suppose all this to be included in the charge. You mean to ask, I said, what will be our answer? Yes. If we proceed along the old path, my belief, I said, is Yet very that we shall find the answer.

And our answer will be that, •'•'^'y '^^y ' may be the even as they are, our guardians may very likely be the happiest of happiest of men ; but that our aim in founding the State was ""^^ '" not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole ; we thought that in a State * Or, ' that for their own good you are making these people miserable.'

io8 The State must be regarded as a whole. Republic IV. which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we Adeimantus, should be most likely to find justice, and in the ill-ordered Socrates. State injustice : and, having found them, we might then decide which of the two is the happier.

At present, I take it, we are fashioning the happy State, not piecemeal, or with a view of making a few happy citizens, but as a whole ; and by-and-by The state, Hke wc will procccd to view the opposite kind of State.

Suppose be^*ud"ed"or^ that we Were painting a statue, and some one came up to us as a whole. and Said, Why do you not put the most beautiful colours on the most beautiful parts of the body — the eyes ought to be purple, but you have made them black — to him we might fairly answer.

Sir, you would not surely have us beautify the eyes to such a degree that they are no longer eyes ; consider rather whether, by giving this and the other features their due proportion, we make the whole beautiful.

And so I say to you, do not compel us to assign to the guardians a sort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians ; for we too can clothe our husbandmen in royal apparel, and set crowns of gold on their heads, and bid them till the ground as much as they like, and no more.

Our potters also might be allowed to repose on couches, and feast by the fireside, passing round the winecup, while their wheel is conveniently at hand, and working at pottery only as much as they like ; in this way we might make every class happy — and then, as you imagine, the whole State would be happy.

But do not put this idea into our heads ; for, if we listen to you, the husbandman will be no longer a 421 husbandman, the potter will cease to be a potter, and no one will have the character of any distinct class in the State.

Now this is not of much consequence where the corruption of society, and pretension to be what you are not, is confined to cobblers ; but when the guardians of the laws and of the government are only seeming and not real guardians, then see how they turn the State upside down ; and on the other hand they alone have the power of giving order and happiness The guardians to the State.

We mean our guardians to be true saviours '""^\^^ and not the destroyers of the State, whereas our opponent is guardians, •' ' ^ ^ not boon thinking of peasants at a festival, who are enjoying a life companions. ^£ rcvelry, not of citizens who are doing their duty to the State. But, if so, we mean different things, and he is

Two sources of evil : Wealth a7id Poverty.

109

422

speaking of something which is not a State. And therefore we must consider whether in appointing our guardians we would look to their greatest happiness individually, or whether this principle of happiness does not rather reside in the State as a whole. But if the latter be the truth, then the guardians and auxiliaries, and all others equally with them, must be compelled or induced to do their own work in the best way. And thus the whole State will grow up in a noble order, and the several classes will receive the proportion of happiness which nature assigns to them. I think that you are quite right. I wonder whether you will agree with another remark which occurs to me. What may that be? There seem to be two causes of the deterioration of the arts. What are they? Wealth, I said, and poverty. How do they act? The process is as follows : When a potter becomes rich, will he, think you, any longer take the same pains with his art? Certainly not. He will grow more and more indolent and careless? Very true. And the result will be that he becomes a worse potter? Yes ; he greatly deteriorates. But, on the other hand,*if he has no money, and cannot provide himself with tools or instruments, he will not work equally well himself, nor will he teach his sons or apprentices to work equally well. Certainly not. Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth, workmen and their work are equally liable to degenerate? That is evident. Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against which the guardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the city unobserved. What evils? Wealth, I said, and poverty ; the one is the parent of

Republic IV. Adeimantus, Socrates.

When an artisan grows rich, he becomes careless : if he is very poor, he has no money to buy tools with. The city should be neither poor nor rich.

no

Can our State go to war with other States?

Republic IV. Socrates, Adeimantus. But how, being poor, can she contend against a wealthy enemy?

Our wiry soldiers will be more than a match for their fat neighbours.

And they will have allies who will readily join on condition of receiving the spoil.

luxury and indolence, and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent. That is very true, he replied ; but still I should like to know, Socrates, how our city will be able to go to war, especially against an enemy who is rich and powerful, if deprived of the sinews of war. There would certainly be a difficulty, I replied, in going to war with one such enemy ; but there is no difficulty where there are two of them.

How so? he asked. In the first place, I said, if we have to fight, our side will be trained warriors fighting against an army of rich men. That is true, he said. And do you not suppose, Adeimantus, that a single boxer who was perfect in his art would easily be a match for two stout and well-to-do gentlemen who were not boxers? Hardly, if they came upon him at once.

What, not, I said, if he were able to run away and then turn and strike at the one who first came up? And supposing he were to do this several times under the heat of a scorching sun, might he not, being an expert, overturn more than one stout personage? Certainly, he said, there would be nothing wonderful in that. And yet rich men probably have a greater superiority in the science and practise of boxing than they have in military qualities.

Likely enough. Then we may assume that our athletes will be able to fight with two or three times their own number? I agree with you, for I think you are right.

And suppose that, before engaging, our citizens send an embassy to one of the two cities, telling them what is the truth : Silver and gold we neither have nor are permitted to have, but you may ; do you therefore come and help us in war, and take the spoils of the other city : Who, on hearing these words, would choose to fight against lean wiry dogs, rather than, with the dogs on their side, against fat and tender sheep? That is not likely ; and yet there might be a danger to the

The proper size of the State. 1 1 1 poor State if the wealth of many States were to be gathered Republic iv. into one. Socrates, But how simple of you to use the term State at all of any adeimantus. but our own! Why so? You ought to speak of other States in the plural number ; But many not one of them is a city, but many cities, as they say in the ^'"^^ "^'^ game.

For indeed any city, however small, is in fact divided No : they arc into two, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich ; these fheJ^seiy"s 423 are at war with one another; and in either there are many smaller divisions, and you would be altogether beside the mark if you treated them all as a single State.

But if you deal with them as many, and give the wealth or power or persons of the one to the others, you will always have a great many friends and not many enemies. And your State, while the wise order which has now been prescribed continues to prevail in her, will be the greatest of States, I do not mean to say in reputation or appearance, but in deed and truth, though she number not more than a thousand defenders.

A single State which is her equal you will hardly find, either among Hellenes or barbarians, though many that appear to be as great and many times greater. That is most true, he said. And what, I said, will be the best limit for our rulers to fix The limit to when they are considering the size of the State and the ^\^ l^^^ °\ ■' . , ^ , the State the amount of territory which they are to include, and beyond possibility of which they will not go?

""'"y- What limit would you propose? I would allow the State to increase so far as is consistent with unity ; that, I think, is the proper limit. Very good, he said. Here then, I said, is another order which will have to be conveyed to our guardians : Let our city be accounted neither large nor small, but one and self-suflficing. And surely, said he, this is not a very severe order which we impose upon them.

And the other, said I, of which we were speaking before is The duty of lighter still, — I mean the duty of degrading the offspring of citizenTfo\he the guardians when inferior, and of elevating into the rank of rank for guardians the offspring of the lower classes, when naturally

I 12

Education the one great principle.

Republic IV. sockates, Adeimantus. which nature intended them.

Good education has a cumulative force and affects the breed.

No innovations to be made either in music or gymnastic.

Damon.

superior. The intention was, that, in the case of the citizens generally, each individual should be put to the use for which nature intended him, one to one work, and then every man would do his own business, and be one and not many ; and so the whole city would be one and not many. Yes, he said ; that is not so difficult.

The regulations which we are prescribing, my good Adeimantus, are not, as might be supposed, a number of great principles, but trifles all, if care be taken, as the saying is, of the one great thing, — a thing, however, which I would rather call, not, great, but sufficient for our purpose. What may that be? he asked.

Education, I said, and nurture : If our citizens are well educated, and grow into sensible men, they will easily see their way through all these, as well as other matters which I omit ; such, for example, as marriage, the possession of women and the procreation of children, which will all follow 424 the general principle that friends have all things in common, as the proverb says. That will be the best way of settling them.

Also, I said, the State, if once started well, moves with accumulating force like a wheel. For good nurture and education implant good constitutions, and these good constitutions taking root in a good education improve more and more, and this improvement affects the breed in man as in other animals. Very possibly, he said.

Then to sum up : This is the point to which, above all, the attention of our rulers should be directed, — that music and gymnastic be preserved in their original form, and no innovation made. They must do their utmost to maintain them intact.

And when any one says that mankind most regard * The newest song which the singers have *,' they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song ; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet ; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe

The groivtJl of licence. 1 1 3 him; — he says that when modes of music change, the funda- Republic r v. mental laws of the State always change with them. Sockates, Yes, said Adeimantus ; and you may add my suffrage to ^deimantus. Damon's and your own. Then, I said, our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortress in music? Yes, he said ; the lawlessness of which you speak too easily steals in.

Yes, I replied, in the form of amusement ; and at first sight it appears harmless.

Why, yes, he said, and there is no harm ; were it not that The spirit of little by little this spirit of licence, finding a home, impercep- b^^inniT^l'n tibly penetrates into manners and customs ; whence, issuing music, graduwith 'greater force, it invades contracts between man and man, ^hJwhoIe ^^ and from contracts goes on to laws and constitutions, in utter of life. recklessness, ending at last, Socrates, by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public.

Is that true? I said. That is my belief, he replied. Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, 425 and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens. Very true, he said.

And when they have made a good beginning in play, and The habit of by the help of music have gained the habit of good order, "J gducadon''^ then this habit of order, in a manner how unlike the lawless play of the others ! will accompany them in all their actions and be a principle of growth to them, and if there be any fallen places in the State will raise them up again. Very true, he said.

Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser if the citizens rules which their predecessors have altogether neglected. of the^mat°°r What do you mean? in them, they I mean such things as these: — when the young are to be ^e'det^nl^for silent before their elders ; how they are to show respect to themselves. them by standing and making them sit ; what honour is due to parents ; what garments or shoes are to be worn ; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and manners in general. You would agree with me? VOL. III. — 23

114

^Neque vitia neque remedia eorum.^

Republic IV. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The mere routine of administration may be omitted by us.

Illustration of reformers of the law taken from invalids who are always doctoring themselves, but will

Yes. But there is, I think, small wisdom in legislating about such matters, — I doubt if it is ever done ; nor are any precise written enactments about them likely to be lasting. Impossible. It would seem, Adeimantus, that the direction in which education starts a man, will determine his future life. Does not like always attract like? To be sure. Until some one rare and grand result is reached which may be good, and may be the reverse of good?

That is not to be denied. And for this reason, I said, I shall not attempt to legislate further about them. Naturally enough, he replied.

Well, and about the business of the agora, and the ordinary dealings between man and man, or again about agreements with artisans ; about insult and injury, or the commencement of actions, and the appointment of juries, what would you say? there may also arise questions about any impositions and exactions of market and harbour dues which may be required, and in general about the regulations of markets, police, harbours, and the Hke.

But, oh heavens! shall we condescend to legislate on any of these particulars? I think, he said, that there is no need to impose laws about them on good men ; what regulations are necessary they will find out soon enough for themselves. Yes, I said, my friend, if God will only preserve to them the laws which we have given them.

And without divine help, said Adeimantus, they will go on for ever making and mending their laws and their lives in the hope of attaining perfection. You would compare them, I said, to those invalids who, having no self-restraint, will not leave off their habits of intemperance? Exactly.

Yes, I said; and what a delightful life they lead! they are 4.26 always doctoring and increasing and complicating their disorders, and always fancying that they will be cured by any nostrum which anybody advises them to try.

Such cases are very common, he said, with invalids of this sort. Yes, I replied ; and the charming thing is that they deem him their worst enemy who tells them the truth, which is simply that, unless they give up eating and drinking and wenching and idling, neither drug nor cautery nor spell nor amulet nor any other remedy will avail. Charming! he replied. I see nothing charming in going into a passion with a man who tells you what is right.

These gentlemen, I said, do not seem to be in yoiu: good graces. Assuredly not. Nor would you praise the behaviour of States which act hke the men whom I was just now describing.

For are there not ill-ordered States in which the citizens are forbidden under pain of death to alter the constitution ; and yet he who most sweetly courts those who live under this regime and indulges them and fawns upon them and is skilful in anticipating and gratifying their humours is held to be a great and good statesman — do not these States resemble the persons whom 1 was describing?

Yes, he said ; the States are as bad as the men ; and I am very far from praising them. But do you not admire, I said, the coolness and dexterity of these ready ministers of political corruption? Yes, he said, I do ; but not of all of them, for there are some whom the applause of the multitude has deluded into the belief that they are really statesmen, and these are not much to be admired. What do you mean?

I said ; you should have more feehng for them. When a man cannot measure, and a great many others who cannot measure declare that he is four cubits high, can he help beheving what they say? Nay, he said, certainly not in that case.

Well, then, do not be angry with them ; for are they not as good as a play, trying their hand at paltry reforms such as I was describing ; they are always fancying that by legislation they will make an end of frauds in contracts, and the other rascalities which I was mentioning, not knowing that they are in reality cutting off the heads of a hydra?

1 1 6 Where is justice ? Republic IV. Yes, he said; that is just what they are doing. .

427 Socrates, I conceive, I Said, that the true legislator will not trouble Adeimantus, himself with this class of enactments whether concerning Glaucon. .... laws or the constitution either in an ill-ordered or in a wellordered State ; for in the former they are quite useless, and in the latter there will be no difficulty in devising them ; and many of them will naturally flow out of our previous regulations.

What, then, he said, is still remaining to us of the work of legislation? Nothing to us, I replied ; but to Apollo, the god of Delphi, there remains the ordering of the greatest and noblest and chiefest things of all. Which are they? he said.

Religion to be The institution of temples and sacrifices, and the entire service of gods, demigods, and heroes; also the ordering of the repositories of the dead, and the rites which have to be observed by him who would propitiate the inhabitants of the world below. These are matters of which we are ignorant ourselves, and as founders of a city we should be unwise in trusting them to any interpreter but our ancestral deity.

He is the god who sits in the centre, on the navel of the earth, and he is the interpreter of religion to all mankind. You are right, and we will do as you propose. But where, amid all this, is justice? son of Ariston, tell me where.

Now that our city has been made habitable, light a candle and search, and get your brother and Polemarchus and the rest of our friends to help, and let us see where in it we can discover justice and where injustice, and in what they differ from one another, and which of them the man who would be happy should have for his portion, whether seen or unseen by gods and men.

Nonsense, said Glaucon : did you not promise to search yourself, saying that for you not to help justice in her need would be an impiety? I do not deny that I said so ; and as you remind me, I will be as good as my word ; but you must join. We will, he replied. Well, then, I hope to make the discovery in this way:

• TJic met hod of residues. 117 I mean to begin with the assumption that our State, if rightly Republic iv. ordered, is perfect. Socrates, That is most certain. Glaicon. And being perfect, is therefore wise and valiant and temperate and just. That is likewise clear. And whichever of these qualities we find in the State, the one which is not found will be the residue? 428 Very good. If there were four things, and we were searching for one of them, wherever it might be, the one sought for might be known to us from the first, and there would be no further trouble ; or we might know the other three first, and then the fourth would clearly be the one left. Very true, he said. And is not a similar method to be pursued about the virtues, which are also four in number? Clearly. First among the virtues found in the State, wisdom comes The place of into view, and in this I detect a certain pecuharity. ^]j^ virtues m What is that? (i) The , The State which we have been describing is said to be wisdom of the *-' statesman wise as being good in counsel? advises, not Very true. f^'^"' p^"'""' •' lar arts or And good counsel is clearly a kind of knowledge, for not pursuits, by ignorance, but by knowledge, do men counsel well? Clearly. And the kinds of knowledge in a State are many and diverse? Of course. There is the knowledge of the carpenter ; but is that the sort of knowledge which gives a city the title of wise and good in counsel? Certainly not ; that would only give a city the reputation of skill in carpentering. Then a city is not to be called wise because possessing a knowledge which counsels for the best about wooden implements? Certainly not. Nor by reason of a knowledge which advises about brazen

ii8

The nature (i) of wisdom^ (^) ^/ courage.

pots, he said, nor as possessing any other similar knowle4ge? Not by reason of any of them, he said. Nor yet by reason of a knowledge which cultivates the earth ; that would give the city the name of agricultural? Yes.

Well, I said, and is there any knowledge in our recentlyfounded State among any of the citizens which advises, not about any particular thing in the State, but about the whole, and considers how a State can best deal with itself and with other States? There certainly is. And what is this knowledge, and among whom is it found? I asked.

It is the knowledge of the guardians, he replied, and is found among those whom we were just now describing as perfect guardians. And what is the name which the city derives from the possession of this sort of knowledge? The name of good in counsel and truly wise. And will there be in our city more, of these true guardians or more smiths? The smiths, he replied, will be far more numerous.

Will not the guardians be the smallest of all the classes who receive a name from the profession of some kind of knowledge? Much the smallest.

And so by reason of the smallest part or class, and of the knowledge which resides in this presiding and ruhng part of itself, the whole State, being thus constituted according to nature, will be wise ; and this, which has the only know- 429 ledge worthy to be called wisdom, has been ordained by nature to be of all classes the least. Most true.

Thus, then, I said, the nature and place in the State of one of the four virtues has somehow or other been discovered. And, in my humble opinion, very satisfactorily discovered, he replied. Again, I said, there is no difficulty in seeing the nature of

The nature of courage. 1 19 courage, and in what part that quality resides which gives the Republic iv. name of courageous to the State. » Socrates, How do you mean? Glaucon. Why, I said, every one who calls any State courageous or ^^> ^,l!^?""'" cowardly, will be thinking of the part which fights and goes makes the city out to war on the State's behalf. courageous is found chieny No one, he rephed, would ever think of any other. in the soldier.

The rest of the citizens may be courageous or may be cowardly, but their courage or cowardice will not, as I conceive, have the effect of making the city either the one or the other. Certainly not.

The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of her- it is the self which preser^^es under all circumstances that opinion pre^s^J^e^ "^ about the nature of things to be feared and not to be feared right opinion in which our legislator educated them ; and this is what you \^ beVeare? term courage. and not to be I should like to hear what you are saymg once more, for I do not think that I perfectly understand you.

I mean that courage is a kind of salvation. Salvation of what? Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and of what nature, which the law implants through education ; and I mean by the words * under all circumstances ' to intimate that in pleasure or in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves, and does not lose this opinion. Shall I give you an illustration? If you please.

You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool illustration for making the true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white ^^"^^^^n^^^ colour first ; this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, in order that the white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeing then proceeds ; and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fast colour, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take away the bloom.

But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you will have noticed how poor is the look either of purple or of any other colour. Y|s, he said ; I know that they have a washed-out and ridiculous appearance.

I20

Te7nperance, or the mastery of self.

Repiiblic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. Our soldiers must take the dye of the laws.

Two other virtues, temperance and justice, which must be considered in their proper order.

Then now, I said, you will understand what our object was in selecting our soldiers, and educating them in music and 430 gymnastic ; we were contriving influences which would prepare them to take the dye of the laws in perfection, and the colour of their opinion about dangers and of every other opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training, not to be washed away by such potent lyes as pleasure — mightier agent far in washing the soul than any soda or lye ; or by sorrow, fear, and desire, the mightiest of all other solvents.

And this sort of universal saving power of true opinion in conformity ^vith law about real and false dangers I call and maintain to be courage, unless you disagree. But I agree, he replied ; for I suppose that you mean to exclude mere uninstructed courage, such as that of a wild beast or of a slave — this, in your opinion, is not the courage which the law ordains, and ought to have another name. Most certainly.

Then I may infer courage to be such as you describe? Why, yes, said I, you may, and if you add the words * of a citizen,' you will not be far wrong; — hereafter, if you like, we will carry the examination further, but at present we are seeking not for courage but justice ; and for the purpose of our enquiry we have said enough. You are right, he replied.

Two virtues remain to be discovered in the State — first, temperance, and then justice which is the end of our search. Very true. Now, can we find justice without troubhng ourselves about temperance? I do not know how that can be accomplished, he said, nor do I desire that justice should be brought to light and temperance lost sight of ; and therefore I wish that you would do me the favour of considering temperance first.

Certainly, I replied, I should not be justified in refusing your request. Then consider, he said. Yes, I replied ; I will ; and as far as I can at present see, the virtue of temperance has more of the nature of harmony and symphony than the preceding. How so? he asked.

States y like individuals , may be temperate. I2i Temperance, I replied, is the ordering or controlling of Republic i v. certain pleasures and desires ; this is curiously enough im- Socrates, plied in the saying of ' a man being his own master ; ' and ^'^^•^o^. other traces of the same notion may be found in language. No doubt, he said. There is something ridiculous in the expression 'master of The temperate 4 3 1 himself ; ' for the master is also the servant and the servant !,^. '"'''';'""'" ^'■' ' himself, but the master ; and in all these modes of speaking the same the same person is denoted. ?7°"' "^^'^ ^ intemperate,

Certainly. is also the slave of himself.

The meaning is, I believe, that in the human soul there is

a better and also a worse principle ; and when the better has the worse under control, then a man is said to be master of himself ; and this is a term of praise : but when, owing to evil education or association, the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed by the greater mass of the worse — in this case he is blamed and is called the slave of self and unprincipled. Yes, there is reason in that. And now, I said, look at our newly-created State, and there you will find one of these two conditions realized ; for the State, as you will acknowledge, may be justly called master of itself, if the words ' temperance ' and ' self-mastery ' truly express the rule of the better part over the worse. Yes, he said, I see that what you say is true. Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants, and in the freemen so called who are of the lowest and more numerous class. Certainly, he said. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few, and those the best bom and best educated. Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State ; The State and the meaner desires of the many are held down by the pass^ions^Ld * virtuous desires and wisdom of the few. desires of That I perceive, he said. ^0^3 Then if there be any city which may be described as

122

Temperance in States is the harmony of classes.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. by the few may be rightly called temperate.

Temperance resides in the whole State.

Justice is not far off.

master of its own pleasures and desires, and master of itself, ours may claim such a designation? Certainly, he replied. It may also be called temperate, and for the same reasons? Yes. And if there be any State in which rulers and subjects will be agreed as to the question who are to rule, that again will be our State? Undoubtedly.

And the citizens being thus agreed among themselves, in which class will temperance be found — in the rulers or in the subjects? In both, as I should imagine, he replied. Do you observe that we were not far wrong in our guess that temperance was a sort of harmony? Why so?

Why, because temperance is unlike courage and wisdom, each of which resides in a part only, the one making the State wise and the other valiant ; not so temperance, which 432 extends to the whole, and runs through all the notes of the scale, and produces a harmony of the weaker and the stronger and the middle class, whether you suppose them to be stronger or weaker in wisdom or power or numbers or wealth, or anything else.

Most truly then may we deem temperance to be the agreement of the naturally superior and inferior, as to the right to rule of either, both in states and individuals. I entirely agree with you. And so, I said, we may consider three out of the four virtues to have been discovered in our State. The last of those qualities which make a state virtuous must be justice, if we only knew what that was. The inference is obvious.

The time then has arrived, Glaucon, when, like huntsmen, we should surround the cover, and look sharp that justice does not steal away, and pass out of sight and escape us ; for beyond a doubt she is somewhere in this country : watch therefore and strive to catch a sight of her, and if you see her first, let me know. Would that I could! but you should regard me rather as

a follower who has just eyes enough to see what you show him — that is about as much as I am good for. Offer up a prayer with me and follow. I will, but you must show me the way. Here is no path, I said, and the wood is dark and perplexing ; still we must push on. Let us push on. Here I saw something : Halloo! I said, I begin to perceive a track, and I believe that the quarry will not escape. Good news, he said.

Truly, I said, we are stupid fellows. Why so? Why, my good sir, at the beginning of our enquiry, ages ago, there was justice tumbling out at our feet, and we never saw her ; nothing could be more ridiculous. Like people who go about looking for what they have in their hands — that was the way with us — we looked not at what we were seeking, but at what was far off in the distance ; and therefore, I suppose, we missed her. What do you mean?

I mean to say that in reality for a long time past we have been talking of justice, and have failed to recognise her. I grow impatient at the length of your exordium.

Well then, tell me, I said, whether I am right or not : You remember the original principle which we were always laying down at the foundation of the State, that one man should practise one thing only, the thing to which his nature was best adapted ; — now justice is this principle or a part of it. Yes, we often said that one man should do one thing only.

Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody ; we said so again and again, and many others have said the same to us. Yes, we said so. Then to do one's own business in a certain way may be assumed to be justice. Can you tell me whence I derive this inference ? I cannot, but I should hke to be told.

Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in the State when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wisdom are abstracted ; and, that this is the ultimate

Republic II'. Socrates, Glaucon.

We had already found her when we spoke of one man doing one thing only.

From another point of view Justice

124

TJie four virtues in relation to the State.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. is the residue of the three others.

Our idea is confirmed by the administration of justice in lawsuits man is to have what is not his own.

No

Illustration: Classes,

cause and condition of the existence of all of them, and while remaining in them is also their preservative ; and we were saying that if the three were discovered by us, justice would be the fourth or remaining one. That follows of necessity.

If we are asked to determine which of these four qualities by its presence contributes most to the excellence of the State, whether the agreement of rulers and subjects, or the preservation in the soldiers of the opinion which the law ordains about the true nature of dangers, or wisdom and watchfulness in the rulers, or whether this other which I am mentioning, and which is found in children and women, slave and freeman, artisan, ruler, subject, — the quality, I mean, of every one doing his own work, and not being a busybody, would claim the palm — the question is not so easily answered.

Certainly, he replied, there would be a difHculty in saying which. Then the power of each individual in the State to do his own work appears to compete with the other political virtues, wisdom, temperance, courage. Yes, he said. And the virtue which enters into this competition is justice? Exactly.

Let us look at the question from another point of view : Are not the rulers in a State those to whom you would entrust the office of determining suits at law? Certainly. And are suits decided on any other ground but that a man may neither take what is another's, nor be deprived of what is his own? Yes ; that is their principle. Which is a just principle? Yes.

Then on this view also justice will be admitted to be the having and doing what is a man's own, and belongs to him? Very true. Think, now, and say w*hether you agree with me or not. Suppose a carpenter to be doing the business of a cobbler,

The just man aiid the just State. or a cobbler of a carpenter ; and suppose them to exchange their implements or their duties, or the same person to be doing the work of both, or whatever be the change ; do you think that any great harm would result to the State? Not much.

But when the cobbler or any other man whom nature designed to be a trader, having his heart lifted up by wealth or strength or the number of his followers, or any like ad vantage, attempts to force his way into the class of warriors, or a warrior into that of legislators and ' guardians, for which he is unfitted, and either to take the implements or the duties of the other ; or when one man is trader, legislator, and warrior all in one, then I think you will agree with me in saying that this interchange and this meddling of one with another is the ruin of the State.

Most true. Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, any meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing? Precisely. And the greatest degree of evil-doing to one's own city would be tenned by you injustice? Certainly.

This then is injustice ; and on the other hand when the trader, the auxiliary, and the guardian each do their own business, that is justice, and will make the city just. I agree with you. We will not, I said, be over-positive as yet ; but if, on trial, this conception of justice be verified in the individual as well as in the State, there will be no longer any room for doubt ; if it be not verified, we must have a fresh enquiry.

First let us complete the old investigation, which we began, as you remember, under the impression that, if we could previously examine justice on the larger scale, there would be less difficulty in discerning her in the individual. That larger example appeared to be the State, and accordingly we constructed as good a one as we could, knowing well that in the good State justice would be found. Let the discovery which we made be now applied to the individual — if they agree,

125 Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. like individuals, should not meddle with one another's occupations.

From the larger example of the State we will now return to the individual.

126

The same principles guide individtial and State.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon.

How can we decide whether or no the soul has three distinct principles ? Our method is inadequate, and for a better and longer one we have not at present time.

we shall be satisfied ; or, if there be a difference in the individual, we will come back to the State and have another trial of the theory. The friction of the two when rubbed 435 together may possibly strike a light in which justice will shine forth, and the vision which is then revealed we will fix in our souls. That will be in regular coiu-se ; let us do as you say.

I proceeded to ask : When two things, a greater and less, are called by the same name, are they hke or unlike in so far as they are called the same? Like, he replied. The just man then, if we regard the idea of justice only, will be like the just State? He will.

And a State was thought by us to be just when the three * classes in the State severally did their own business ; and also thought to be temperate and valiant and wise by reason of certain other affections and quahties of these same classes? True, he said.

And so of the individual ; we may assume that he has the same three principles in his own soul which are found in the State ; and he may be rightly described in the same terms, because he is affected in the same manner? Certainly, he said. Once more then, O my friend, we have alighted upon an easy question — whether the soul has these three principles or not? An easy question! Nay, rather, Socrates, the proverb holds that hard is the good.

Very true, I said ; and I do not think that the method which we are employing is at all adequate to the accurate solution of this question ; the true method is another and a longer one. Still we may arrive at a solution not below the level of the previous enquiry. May we not be satisfied with that? he said; — under the circumstances, I am quite content. I too, I replied, shall be extremely well satisfied. Then faint not in pursuing the speculation, he said. Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there

are the same principles and habits which there are in the State ; and that from the individual they pass into the State? — how else can they come there?

Take the quality of passion or spirit; — it would be ridiculous to imagine that this quality, when found in States, is not derived from the individuals who are supposed to possess it, e. g. the Thracians, Scythians, and in general the northern nations ; and the same may be said of the love of knowledge, which is the special characteristic of our part of the world, or of the 436 love of money, which may, with equal truth, be attributed to the Phoenicians and Egyptians.

Exactly so, he said. There is no difficulty in understanding this. None whatever. But the question is not quite so easy when we proceed to ask whether these principles are three or one ; whether, that is to say, we learn with one part of our nature, are angry with another, and with a third part desire the satisfaction of our natural appetites ; or whether the whole soul comes into play in each sort of action — to determine that is the difficulty.

Yes, he said ; there lies the difficulty. Then let us now try and determine whether they are the same or different. How can we? he asked. I repKed as follows : The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways ; and therefore whenever this contradiction occurs in things apparently the same, we know that they are really not the same, but different. Good.

For example, I said, can the same thing be at rest and in motion at the same time in the same part? Impossible. Still, I said, let us have a more precise statement of terms, lest we should hereafter fall out by the way. Imagine the case of a man who is standing and also moving his hands and his head, and suppose a person to say that one and the same person is in motion and at rest at the same moment

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon.

A digression in which an attempt is made to attain logical clearness.

The criterion of truth : Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same relation.

128

The nature of contraries.

Republic IV Socrates, Glaucon.

Anticipation of objections to this * law of thought.'

Likes and dislikes exist in many forms.

— to such a mode of speech we should object, and should rather say that one part of him is in motion while another is at rest. Very true.

And suppose the objector to refine still further, and to draw the nice distinction that not only parts of tops, but whole tops, when they spin round with their pegs fixed on the spot, are at rest and in motion at the same time (and he may say the same of anything which revolves in the same spot), his objection would not be admitted by us, because in such cases things are not at rest and in motion in the same parts of themselves ; we should rather say that they have both an axis and a circumference ; and that the axis stands still, for there is no deviation from the perpendicular ; and that the circumference goes round.

But if, while revolving, the axis inclines either to the right or left, forwards or backwards, then in no point of view can they be at rest. That is the correct mode of describing them, he replied. Then none of these objections will confuse us, or incline us to believe that the same thing at the same time, in the same part or in relation to the same thing, can act or be 437 acted upon in contrary ways.

Certainly not, according to my way of thinking. Yet, I said, that we may not be compelled to examine all such objections, and prove at length that they are untrue, let us assume their absurdity, and go forward on the understanding that hereafter, if this assumption turn out to be untrue, all the consequences which follow shall be withdrawn. Yes, he said, that will be the best way.

Well, I said, would you not allow that assent and dissent, desire and aversion, attraction and repulsion, are all of them opposites, whether they are regarded as active or passive (for that makes no difference in the fact of their opposition) ? Yes, he said, they are opposites. Well, I said, and hunger and thirst, and the desires in general, and again willing and wishing, — all these you would refer to the classes already mentioned. You would say — would you not? — that the soul of him who desires is seeking

Relative terms. 129 after the object of his desire ; or that he is drawing to himself Republic iv. the thing which he wishes to possess : or again, when a Socrates, person wants anything to be given him, his mind, longing for ^^•'^^^on. the realization of his desire, intimates his wish to have it by a nod of assent, as if he had been asked a question? Very true.

And what would you say of unwillingness and dislike and the absence of desire ; should not these be referred to the opposite class of repulsion and rejection? Certainly. Admitting this to be true of desire generally, let us suppose a particular class of desires, and out of these we will select hunger and thirst, as they are termed, which are the most obvious of them? Let us take that class, he said.

The object of one is food, and of the other drink? Yes.

And here comes the point : is not thirst the desire which There may be the soul has of drink, and of drink only ; not of drink qualified ^""pi^ J'^'st ' •' ^ or quahned by anything else ; for example, warm or cold, or much or thirst, having little, or, in a word, drink of any particular sort : but if the '■^^P^^^^^'y ^ ' ' ' ./ r- Simple or thirst be accompanied by heat, then the desire is of cold a qualified drink ; or, if accompanied by cold, then of warm drink ; or, ° ^^^^' if the thirst be excessive, then the drink which is desired will be excessive ; or, if not great, the quantity of drink will also be small : but thirst pure and simple will desire drink pure and simple, which is the natural satisfaction of thirst, as food is of hunger?

Yes, he said ; the simple desire is, as you say, in every case of the simple object, and the qualified desire of the 438 qualified object.

But here a confusion may arise; and I should wish to Exception: guard against an opponent starting up and saying that no JJ'^^'^^^^^°'* man desires drink only, but good drink, or food only, but a particular, good food ; for good is the universal object of desire, and thirst being a desire, will necessarily be thirst after good drink ; and the same is true of every other desire. Yes, he rephed, the opponent might have something to say. Nevertheless I should still maintain, that of relatives some VOL. III. — 24

but an universal relation.

130

Simple and compound terms.

Keptiblic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. Illustration of the argument from the use of language about correlative terms.

Recapitulation.

Anticipation of a possible confusion.

have a quality attached to either term of the relation ; others are simple and have their correlatives simple. I do not know what you mean. Well, you know of course that the greater is relative to the less ? Certainly. And the much greater to the much less? Yes. And the sometime greater to the sometime less, and the greater that is to be to the less that is to be? Certainly, he said.

And so of more and less, and of other correlative terms, such as the double and the half, or again, the heavier and the lighter, the swifter and the slower ; and of hot and cold, and of any other relatives; — is not this true of all of them? Yes. And does not the same principle hold in the sciences?

The object of science is knowledge (assuming that to be the true definition), but the object of a particular science is a particular kind of knowledge ; I mean, for example, that the science of house-building is a kind of knowledge which is defined and distinguished from other kinds and is therefore termed architecture. Certainly. Because it has a particular quality which no other has? Yes.

And it has this particular quahty because it has an object of a particular kind ; and this is true of the other arts and sciences? Yes. Now, then, if I have made myself clear, you will understand my original meaning in what I said about relatives. My meaning was, that if one term of a relation is taken alone, the other is taken alone ; if one term is qualified, the other is also qualified.

I do not mean to say that relatives may not be disparate, or that the science of health is healthy, or of disease necessarily diseased, or that the sciences of good and evil are therefore good and evil ; but only that, when the term science is no longer used absolutely, but has a qualified object which in this case is the nature of health and disease,

TJie first have simple^ the second qualified objects. 1 3 1 it becomes defined, and is hence called not merely science, Repuhik iv. but the science of medicine. Socrates, I quite understand, and I think as you do. Glaucon. 439 Would you not say that thirst is one of these essentially relative terms, having clearly a relation — Yes, thirst is relative to drink.

And a certain kind of thirst is relative to a certain kind of drink ; but thirst taken alone is neither of much nor little, nor of good nor bad, nor of any particular kind of drink, but of drink only? Certainly. Then the soul of the thirsty one, in so far as he is thirsty, desires only drink ; for this he yearns and tries to obtain it? That is plain.

And if you suppose something which pulls a thirsty soul The law of away from drink, that must be different from the thirsty comradicuon. principle which draws him like a beast to drink ; for, as we were saying, the same thing cannot at the same time with the same part of itself act in contrary ways about the same.

Impossible. • No more than you can say that the hands of the archer push and pull the bow at the same time, but what you say is that one hand pushes and the other pulls. Exactly so, he replied. And might a man be thirsty, and yet unwilling to drink? Yes, he said, it constantly happens. And in such a case what is one to say?

Would you not say that there was something in the soul bidding a man to drink, and something else forbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle which bids him? I should say so. And the forbidding principle is derived from reason, and The opposi that which bids and attracts proceeds from passion and disease? Clearly.

Then we may fairly assume that they are two, and that they differ from one another ; the one with which a man reasons, we may call the rational principle of the soul, the other, with which he loves and hungers and thirsts and feels the

tion of desire and reason.

132

The story of Leontius.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon.

The third principle of spirit or passion illustrated by an example.

Passion never takes part with desire against reason.

Righteous indignation never felt by a person of noble character when he deservedly suffers.

flutterings of any other desire, may be termed the irrational or appetitive, the ally of sundry pleasures and satisfactions? Yes, he said, we may fairly assume them to be different. Then let us finally determine that there are two principles existing in the soul. And what of passion, or spirit? Is it a third, or akin to one of the preceding? I should be inclined to say — akin to desire.

Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard, and in which I put faith. The story is, that Leontius, the son of Aglaion, coming up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside, observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution.

He felt a desire to see them, and also a dread and abhorrence of them ; for a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length 440 the desire got the better of him ; and forcing them open, he ran up to the dead bodies, saying. Look, ye wretches, take your fill of the fair sight. I have heard the story myself, he said. The moral of the tale is, that anger at times goes to war with desire, as though they were two distinct things.

Yes ; that is the meaning, he said.

And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself, and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit is on the side of his reason ; — but for the passionate or spirited element to take part with the desires when reason decides that she should not be opposed 1, is a sort of thing which I believe that you never observed occurring in yourself, nor, as I should imagine, in any one else?

Certainly not. Suppose that a man thinks he has done a wrong to another, the nobler he is the less able is he to feel indignant at any suffering, such as hunger, or cold, or any other pain which the injured person may inflict upon him — these he deems to be just, and, as I say, his anger refuses to be excited by them. True, he said.

But when he thinks that he is the sufferer of the wrong, ^ Reading [iri delv avTiirpciTTetv, without a comma after deiv.

Passion or spirit opposed to desire. 133 then he boils and chafes, and is on the side of what he Repubiiciv. beheves to be justice ; and because he suffers hunger or cold Socrates, or other pain he is only the more determined to persevere and ^^aucon. conquer. His noble spirit will not be quelled until he either slays or is slain ; or until he hears the voice of the shepherd, that is, reason, bidding his dog bark no more.

The illustration is perfect, he repHed ; and in our State, as we were saying, the auxiliaries were to be dogs, and to hear the voice of the rulers, who are their shepherds. I perceive, I said, that you quite understand me ; there is, however, a further point which I wish you to consider. What point?

You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to be a kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary ; for in the conflict of the soul spirit is arrayed on the side of the rational principle. Most assuredly. But a further question arises : Is passion different from Not two, reason also, or only a kind of reason ; in which latter case, ^"^ ^^^^^ .

"^ _ _ _ pnnciples in instead of three principles in the soul, there will only be two, the soul, as in 44 1 the rational and the concupiscent ; or rather, as the State was ^^^ ^^^^' composed of three classes, traders, auxiliaries, counsellors, so may there not be in the individual soul a third element which is passion or spirit, and when not corrupted by bad education is the natural auxiliary of reason? Yes, he said, there must be a third.

Yes, I replied, if passion, which has already been shown to be different from desire, turn out also to be different from reason. But that is easily proved : — We may observe even in young children that they are full of spirit almost as soon as they are bom, whereas some of them never seem to attain to the use of reason, and most of them late enough.

Excellent, I said, and you may see passion equally in brute animals, which is a further proof of the truth of what you are saying. And we may once more appeal to the words of Appeal to Homer, which have been already quoted by us, ' He smote his breast, and thus rebuked his soul * ; * ^ Od. XX. 17, quoted supra, III. 390 D.

Homer.

134

TJie individual like the State.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon.

The conclusion that the same three principles exist both in the State and in the individual applied to each of them.

Music and gymnastic will harmonize passion and reason. These two combined will control desire,

for in this verse Homer has clearly supposed the power which reasons about the better and worse to be different from the unreasoning anger which is rebuked by it. Very true, he said. And so, after much tossing, we have reached land, and are fairly agreed that the same principles which exist in the State exist also in the individual, and that they are three in number. Exactly. Must we not then infer that the individual is wise in the same way, and in virtue of the same quality which makes the State wise? Certainly. Also that the same quality which constitutes courage in the State constitutes courage in the individual, and that both the State and the individual bear the same relation to all the other virtues? Assuredly. And the individual will be acknowledged by us to be just in the same way in which the State is just? That follows of course. We cannot but remember that the justice of the State consisted in each of the three classes doing the work of its own class ? We are not very likely to have forgotten, he said. We must recollect that the individual in whom the several qualities of his nature do their own work will be just, and will do his own work? Yes, he said, we must remember that too. And ought not the rational principle, which is wise, and has the care of the whole soul, to rule, and the passionate or spirited principle to be the subject and ally? Certainly. And, as we were saying, the united influence of music and gymnastic will bring them into accord, nerving and sustaining the reason with noble words and lessons, and moderating and soothing and civilizing the wildness of passion by 442 harmony and rhythm? Quite true, he said. And these two, thus nurtured and educated, and having

TJie alliance of passion and reason.

135

learned truly to know their own functions, will rule ' over the concupiscent, which in each of us is the largest part of the soul and by nature most insatiable of gain ; over this they will keep guard, lest, waxing great and strong with the fulness of bodily pleasures, as they are termed, the concupiscent soul, no longer confined to her own sphere, should attempt to enslave and rule those who are not her natural-bom subjects, and overturn the whole life of man?

Very true, he said. Both together will they not be the best defenders of the whole soul and the whole body against attacks from without ; the one counselling, and the other fighting under his leader, and courageously executing his commands and counsels? True. And he is to be deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure and in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or ought not to fear? Right, he replied.

And him we call wise who has in him that little part which rules, and which proclaims these commands ; that part too being supposed to have a knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the three parts and of the whole? Assuredly.

And would you not say that he is temperate who has these same elements in friendly harmony, in whom the one ruling principle of reason, and the two subject ones of spirit and desire are equally agreed that reason ought to rule, and do not rebel? Certainly, he said, that is the true account of temperance whether in the State or individual. And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtue of what quality a man will be just.

That is very certain. And is justice dimmer in the individual, and is her form different, or is she the same which we found her to be in the State? ' Reading -KpocrarTjGtrov with Bekker ; or, if the reading ■Kpoarijotrov, which is found in the MSS., be adopted, then the nominative must be supplied from the previous sentence: ' Music and gymnastic will place in authority over . . . This is very awkward, and the awkwardness is increased by the necessity of changing the subject at TTjpijOETOv.

Republic IK Socrates, Glaucon.

and will be the best defenders both of body and soul.

The courageous.

The wise.

The temperate.

The just.

136

Justice in the individual and in the State.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. . The nature of justice illustrated by commonplace instances.

We have realized the hope entertained in the first construction of the State.

The three principles harmonize in one.

There is no difference in my opinion, he said. Because, if any doubt is still lingering in our minds, a few commonplace instances will satisfy us of the truth of what I am saying. What sort of instances do you mean? If the case is put to us, must we not admit that the just State, or the man who is trained in the principles of such a 443 State, will be less likely than the unjust to make away with a deposit of gold or silver?

Would any one deny this? No one, he rephed. Will the just man or citizen ever be guilty of sacrilege or theft, or treachery either to his friends or to his country? Never. Neither will he ever break faith where there have been oaths or agreements? Impossible. No one will be less likely to commit adultery, or to dishonour his father and mother, or to fail in his religious duties ? No one.

And the reason is that each part of him is doing its own business, whether in ruling or being ruled? Exactly so. Are you satisfied then that the quality which makes such men and such states is justice, or do you hope to discover some other? Not I, indeed.

Then our dream has been realized ; and the suspicion which we entertained at the beginning of our work of construction, that some divine power must have conducted us to a primary form of justice, has now been verified? Yes, certainly.

And the division of labour which required the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to be doing each his own business, and not another's, was a shadow of justice, and for that reason it was of use? Clearly. But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concerned however, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is the true self and concernment of

The true conception of the just and unjust.

137 man: for the just man does not permit the several elements Republic i v. within him to interfere with one another, or any of them to Socrates, do the work of others, — he sets in order his own inner life, ^^'^^^o^. and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself ; and when he has bound together the three principles The harmony within him, which may be compared to the higher, lower, °j.^ "'"*" and middle notes of the scale, and the intermediate intervals — when he has bound all these together, and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whether in a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in some affair of poHtics or private business ; always thinking and calling that which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition, just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom, and that which at any 444 time impairs this condition, he will call unjust action, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance.

You have said the exact truth, Socrates. Very good ; and if we were to affirm that we had discovered the just man and the just State, and the nature of justice in each of them, we should not be telling a falsehood? Most certainly not. May we say so, then? Let us say so. And now, I said, injustice has to be considered. Clearly.

Must not injustice be a strife which arises among the three injustice the principles — a meddlesomeness, and interference, and rising up °pp°^"^ °^ of a part of the soul against the whole, an assertion of unlawful authority, which is made by a rebellious subject against a true prince, of whom he is the natural vassal, — what is all this confusion and delusion but injustice, and intemperance and cowardice and ignorance, and every form of vice?

Exactly so. And if the nature of justice and injustice be known, then the meaning of acting unjustly and being unjust, or, again, of acting justly, will also be perfectly clear? What do you mean? he said. Why, I said, they are like disease and health ; being in the soul just what disease and health are in the body.

138

Justice a natural self-government.

Republic IV. Socrates, Glaucon. Analogy of body and soul. Health : disease : : justice : injustice.

The old question, whether the just or the unjust is the happier, has become ridiculous.

How so? he said. Why, I said, that which is healthy causes health, and that which is unhealthy causes disease. Yes. And just actions cause justice, and unjust actions cause injustice? That is certain. And the creation of health is the institution of a natural order and government of one by another in the parts of the body ; and the creation of disease is the production of a state of things at variance with this natural order? True.

And is not the creation of justice the institution of a natural order and government of one by another in the parts of the soul, and the creation of injustice the production of a state of things at variance with the natural order? Exactly so, he said. Then virtue is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul, and vice the disease and weakness and deformity of the same? True.

And do not good practices lead to virtue, and evil practices to vice? Assuredly. Still our old question of the comparative advantage of 445 justice and injustice has not been answered: Which is the more profitable, to be just and act >ustly and practise virtue, whether seen or unseen of gods and men, or to be unjust and act unjustly, if only unpunished and unreformed? In my judgment, Socrates, the question has now become ridiculous.

We know that, when the bodily constitution is gone, life is no longer endurable, though pampered with all kinds of meats and drinks, and having all wealth and all power; and shall we be told that when the very essence of the vital principle is undermined and corrupted, life is still worth having to a man, if only he be allowed to do whatever he likes with the single exception that he is not to acquire justice and virtue, or to escape from injustice and vice; assuming them both to be such as we have described? Yes, I said, the question is, as you say, ridiculous. Still,

One form of virtue, four of vice. 1 39 as we are near the spot at which we may see the truth in the Republic ir. clearest manner with our own eyes, let us not faint by the Socrates, way. • Glaucon. Certainly not, he replied. Come up hither, I said, and behold the various forms of vice, those of them, I mean, which are worth looking at. 1 am following you, he replied : proceed. I said, The argument seems to have reached a height from which, as from some tower of speculation, a man may look down and see that virtue is one, but that the forms of vice are innumerable ; there being four special ones which are deserving of note. What do you mean? he said. I mean, I rephed, that there appear to be as many forms of As many the soul as there are distinct forms of the State. forms of the soul as of How many? the State. There are five of the State, and five of the soul, I said. What are they? The first, I said, is that which we have been describing, and which may be said to have two names, monarchy and aristocracy, accordingly as rule is exercised by one distinguished man or by many. True, he replied. But I regard the two names as describing one form only ; for whether the government is in the hands of one or many, if the governors have been trained in the manner which we have supposed, the fundamental laws of the State will be maintained. That is true, he replied.

BOOK V.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus. The community of women and children.

The saying ' Friends have all things in common ' is an insufficient solution of the problem.

Such is the good and true City or State, and the good andsteph. true man is of the same pattern ; and if this is right every "^4-9 other is wrong ; and the evil is one which affects not only the ordering of the State, but also the regulation of the individual soul, and is exhibited in four forms. What are they? he said. I was proceeding to tell the order in which the four evil forms appeared to me to succeed one another, when Polemarchus, who was sitting a little way off, just beyond Adeimantus, began to whisper to him : stretching forth his hand, he took hold of the upper part of his coat by the shoulder, and drew him towards him, leaning forward himself so as to be quite close and saying something in his ear, of which I only caught the words, ' Shall we let him off, or what shall we do ? ' Certainly not, said Adeimantus, raising his voice. Who is it, I said, whom you are refusing to let off? You, he said. I repeated \ Why am I especially not to be let off? Why, he said, we think that you are lazy, and mean to cheat us out of a whole chapter which is a very important part of the story ; and you fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding ; as if it were self-evident to everybody, that in the matter of women and children * friends have all things in common.' And was I not right, Adeimantus? Yes, he said ; but what is right in this particular case, like everything else, requires to be explained ; for community may be of many kinds. Please, therefore, to say what sort of community you mean. We have been long

' Reading In hyli eIttov.

TJie diffic2ilty of tJic subject.

141 expecting that you would tell us something about the family Republic r. life of your citizens — how they will bring children into the Socrates, world, and rear them when they have arrived, and, in ql^ucon^"^' general, what is the nature of this community of women and thrasymachildren — for we are of opinion that the right or wrong ^^^^' management of such matters will have a great and paramount influence on the State for good or for evil.

And now, since the question is still undetermined, and you are taking in hand another State, we have resolved, as you heard, not to let you go until you give an account of all this. To that resolution, said Glaucon, you may regard me as saying Agreed. And without more ado, said Thrasymachus, you may consider us all to be equally agreed. I said, You know not what you are doing in thus assailing me: What an argument are you raising about the State!

Just as I thought that I had finished, and was only too glad The feigned that I had laid this question to sleep, and was reflecting how so^ates^ fortunate I was in your acceptance of what I then said, you ask me to begin again at the very foundation, ignorant of what a hornet's nest of words you are stirring. Now I foresaw this gathering trouble, and avoided it.

For what purpose do you conceive that we have come The goodhere, said Thrasymachus, — to look for gold, or to hear dis- ThraT macourse ? chus. Yes, but discourse should have a limit. Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole of life is the only hmit which wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses.

But never mind about us ; take heart yourself and answer the question in your own way : What sort of community of women and children is this which is to prevail among our guardians? and how shall we manage the period between birth and education, which seems to require the greatest care? Tell us how these things will be.

Yes, my simple friend, but the answer is the reverse of easy ; many more doubts arise about this than about om* previous conclusions. For the practicability of what is said / may be doubted ; and looked at in another point of view, ( whether the scheme, if ever so practicable, would be for the 1 best, is also doubtful. Hence I feel a reluctance to approach

the subject, lest our aspiration, my dear friend, should turn out to be a dream only. Fear not, he replied, for your audience will not be hard upon you ; they are not sceptical or hostile. I said : My good friend, I suppose that you mean to encourage me by these words. Yes, he said.

Then let me tell you that you are doing just the reverse ; the encouragement which you offer would have been all very well had I myself believed that I knew what I was talking about : to declare the truth about matters of high interest which a man honours and loves among wise men who love him need occasion no fear or faltering in his mind ; but to carry on an argument when you are yourself only a hesitating enquirer, which is my condition, is a dangerous and slippery 451 thing ; and the danger is not that I shall be laughed at (of which the fear would be childish), but that I shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sure of my footing, and drag my friends after me in my fall.

And I pray Nemesis not to visit upon me the words which I am going to utter. , For I do indeed believe that to be an involuntary homicide is a less crime than to be a deceiver about beauty or goodness or justice in the matter of laws ^ And that is a risk which I would rather run among enemies than among friends, and therefore you do well to encourage me 2.

Glaucon laughed and said : Well then, Socrates, in case you and your argument do us any serious injury you shall be acquitted beforehand of the homicide, and shall not be held to be a deceiver ; take courage then and speak. Well, I said, the law says that when a man is acquitted he is free from guilt, and what holds at law may hold in argument. Then why should you mind?

Well, I replied, I suppose that I must retrace my steps and say what I perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place. The part of the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes the turn of the women. Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readily since I am invited by you. ' Or inserting koL before vo/iif^ov : ' a deceiver about beauty or goodness or principles of justice or law. '^ Reading uote ev fie Trapa/nvOel.

For men born and educated like our citizens, the only way, in my opinion, of arriving at a right conclusion about the possession and use of women and children is to follow the path on which we originally started, when we said that the men were to be the guardians and watchdogs of the herd. True.

Let us further suppose the birth an*^ eoucation of our women to be subject to similar or nearly similar regulations ; then we shall see whether the result accords with our design. What do you mean?

What I mean may be put into the form of a question, I said : Are dogs divided into hes and shes, or do they both share equally in hunting and in keeping watch and in the other duties of dogs? or do we entrust to the males the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while we leave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and suckling their puppies is labour enough for them?

No, he said, they share alike ; the only difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker. But can you use different animals for the same purpose, unless they are bred and fed in the same way? You cannot. Then, if women are to have the same duties as men, they 452 must have the same nurture and education? Yes. The education which was assigned to the men was music and gymnastic. Yes.

Then women must be taught music and gymnastic and also the art of war, which they must practise like the men? That is the inference, I suppose. I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous. No doubt of it.

Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially when they are no longer young ; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty, any more than the enthusiastic

Republic V. S0CKATE$, Glaucon.

No distinction among the animals such as is made between men and women.

Women must be taught music, gymnastic, and military exercises equally with men.

144

The jests of the wits.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

Convention should not be permitted to stand in the way of a higher good.

old men who in spite of wrinkles and ugliness continue to frequent the gymnasia. Yes, indeed, he said : according to present notions the proposal would be thought ridiculous.

But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation ; how they will talk of women's attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing armour and riding upon horseback! Very true, he replied.

Yet having begun we must go forward to the rough places of the law ; at the same time begging of these gentlemen for once in their life to be serious.

Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the Hellenes were of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians, that the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and improper ; and when first the Cretans and then the Lacedaemonians introduced the custom, the wits of that day might equally have ridiculed the innovation. No doubt.

But when experience showed that to let all things be uncovered was far better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to the outward eye vanished before the better principle which reason asserted, then the man was perceived to be a fool who directs the shafts of his ridicule at any other sight but that of folly and vice, or seriously inclines to weigh the beautiful by any other standard but that of the good ^ Very true, he replied.

First, then, whether the question is to be put in jest or in earnest, let us come to an understanding about the nature of 453 woman : Is she capable of sharing either wholly or partially in the actions of men, or not at all? And is the art of war one of those arts in which she can or can not share? That will be the best way of commencing the enquiry, and will probably lead to the fairest conclusion. That will be much the best way.

Shall we take the other side first and begin by arguing against ourselves ; in this manner the adversary's position will not be undefended. * Reading with Paris A, koX Kokov . . .

The seeintJtg cojitradiction of the argiunent. 1 45 Why not? he said. Republic v. Then let us put a speech into the mouths of our opponents. Sockates, They will say : ' Socrates and Glaucon, no adversary need g^-^"^"^- convict vou, for you yourselves, at the first foundation of the ^^^-'ct'on- J ' J . We were State, admitted the principle that everybody was to do the saying that one work suited to his own nature.

And certainly, if I am ^'^^'"^,'^"^, . •' should do his not mistaken, such an admission was made by us. 'And do own work: not the natures of men and women differ very much in- ^^^^^ ""^ ^ ■' women and deed? ' And we shall reply: Of course they do. Then we men severally shall be asked, 'Whether the tasks assicrned to men and ^/'°'''^°^ ' ° their own ? to women should not be different, and such as are agreeable to their different natures?

' Certainly they should. ' But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures are so entirely different, ought to perform the same actions?' — What defence will you make for* us, my good Sir, against any one who offers these objections? That is not an easy question to answer when asked suddenly ; and I shall and I do beg of you to draw out the case on our side.

These are the objections, Glaucon, and there are many others of a Hke kind, which I foresaw long ago ; they made me afraid and reluctant to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women and children. By Zeus, he said, the problem to be solved is anything but easy. Why yes, I said, but the fact is that when a man is out of his depth, whether he has fallen into a little swimming bath or into mid ocean, he has to swim all the same.

Very true. And must not we swim and try to reach the shore : we will hope that Arion's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us? I suppose so, he said. Well then, let us see if any way of escape can be found. We acknowledged — did we not? that different natures ought to have different pursuits, and that men's and women's natures are different.

And now what are we saying? — that different natures ought to have the same pursuits, — this is the inconsistency which is charged upon us. VOL. III. — 25

146

Is there an essential or only an accidental

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

The seeming inconsistency arises out of a verbal opposition.

When we assigned to different natures different pursuits, we meant only those differences of nature which affected the pursuits.

Precisely. Verily, Glaucon, I said, glorious is the power of the art of 454 contradiction! Why do you say so? Because I think that many a man falls into the practice against his will. When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really disputing, just because he cannot define and divide, and so know that of which he is speaking ; and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in the spirit of contention and not of fair discussion.

Yes, he replied, such is very often the case ; but what has that to do with us and our argument? A great deal ; for there is certainly a danger of our getting unintentionally into a verbal opposition. In what way?

Why we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth, that different natures ought to have different pursuits, but we never considered at all what was the meaning of sameness or difference of nature, or why we distinguished them when we assigned different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same natures. Why, no, he said, that was never considered by us.

I said : Suppose that by way of illustration we were to ask the question whether there is not an opposition in nature between bald men and hairy men ; and if this is admitted by us, then, if bald men are cobblers, we should forbid the hairy men to be cobblers, and conversely? That would be a jest, he said.

Yes, I said, a jest; and why? because we never meant when we constructed the State, that the opposition of natures should extend to every difference, but only to those differences which affected the pursuit in which the individual is engaged ; we should have argued, for example, that a physician and one who is in mind a physician ^ may be said to have the same nature. True. Whereas the physician and the carpenter have different natures? Certainly. ^ Reading larpdv /uev Kal larpiKov rfjv ipvxfjt^ bvra.

And if, I said, the male and female sex appear to differ in their fitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit or art ought to be assigned to one or the other of them ; but if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to a proof that a woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive ; and we shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have the same pursuits.

Very true, he said. Next, we shall ask our opponent how, in reference to any 455 of the pursuits or arts of civic life, the natiu'e of a woman differs from that of a man? That will be quite fair. And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply that to give a sufficient answer on the instant is not easy ; but after a Httle reflection there is no difficulty. Yes, perhaps.

Suppose then that we invite him to accompany us in the argument, and then we may hope to show him that there is nothing peculiar in the constitution of women which would affect them in the administration of the State. By all means.

Let us say to him : Come now, and we will ask you a question: — when you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty ; a little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal ; whereas the other, after much study and application, no sooner learns than he forgets ; or again, did you mean, that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a hindrance to him? — would not these be the sort of differences which distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?

No one will deny that. And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex has not all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree than the female? Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear to be

148 The same qualities in men and women. Republic V. great, and in which for her to be beaten by a man is of all Socrates, things the most absurd? Glaucon. Yq^ g^j.g quij-g right, he repHed, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex : although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.

And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of administration in a state which a woman has because she is a woman, or which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both ; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man. Very true.

Men and Then are we to impose all our enactments on men and women are to ^Qne of them ou womcn? be governed by the same That will never do. laws and to Q^^ woman has a gift of healiner, another not; one is 41^6 have the same . . ^ . °; ^ ^ pursuits. a musician, and another has no music in her nature? Very true. And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, and another is unwarlike and hates gymnastics? Certainly.

And one woman is a philosopher, and another is an enemy of philosophy ; one has spirit, and another is without spirit? That is also true. Then one woman will have the temper of a guardian, and another not. Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by differences of this sort? Yes. Men and women ahke possess the qualities which make a guardian ; they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness. Obviously.

And those women who have such qualities are to be selected as the companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and whom they resemble in capacity and in character? Very true. And ought not the same natures to have the same pursuits? They ought. Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural

Then their education should be the same. 149 in assigning music and gymnastic to the wives of the guardians Republic v. — to that point we come round again. Socrates, Certainly not. ^^^^■^°^- The law which we then enacted was agreeable to nature, and therefore not an impossibility or mere aspiration ; and ^ the contrary practice, which prevails at present, is in reahty a violation of nature. That appears to be true. We had to consider, first, whether our proposals were possible, and secondly whether they were the most beneficial? Yes. And the possibihty has been acknowledged? Yes. The very great benefit has next to be established? Quite so. You will admit that the same education which makes a man There are difa good guardian will make a woman a good guardian ; for ^^""^"^ degrees their original nature is the same? both in TIT women and in men. I should like to ask you a question. What is it? Would you say that all men are equal in excellence, or is one man better than another? The latter. And in the commonwealth which we were founding do you cu^ conceive the guardians who have been brought up on our ^ model system to be more perfect men, or the cobblers whose education has been cobbling? What a ridiculous question! 'S You have answered me, I replied : Well, and may we not further say that our guardians are the best of our citizens? By far the best. And will not their wives be the best women? Yes, by far the best. And can there be anything better for the interests of the State than that the men and women of a State should be as good as possible? There can be nothing better. 457 And this is what the arts of music and gymnastic, when present in such manner as we have described, will accomplish?

ISO

The first and second waves.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

Certainly. Then we have made an enactment not only possible but in the highest degree beneficial to the State? True. Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue will be their robe, and let them share in the toils of war and the defence of their country ; only in the distribution of labours the hghter are to be assigned to the women, who are the weaker natures, but in other respects their duties are to be the same.

And as for the man who laughs at naked women exercising their bodies from the best of motives, in his laughter he is plucking * A fruit of unripe wisdom,' and he himself is ignorant of what he is laughing at, or what he is about ; — for that is, and ever will be, the best of sayings, That the useful is the noble a?id the hurtful is the base. Very true.

Here, then, is one difficulty in our law about women, which we may say that we have now escaped ; the wave has not swallowed us up alive for enacting that the guardians of either sex should have all their pursuits in common ; to the utility and also to the possibility of this arrangement the consistency of the argument with itself bears witness. Yes, that was a mighty wave which you have escaped.

Yes, I said, but a greater is coming ; you will not think much of this when you see the next. Go on ; let me see. The law, I said, which is the sequel of this and of all that has preceded, is to the following effect, — ' that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.

Yes, he said, that is a much greater wave than the other ; and the possibility as well as the utility of such a law are far more questionable. I do not think, I said, that there can be any dispute about the very great utility of having wives and children in common ; the possibility is quite another matter, and will be very much disputed.

The day dream. 1 5 i I think that a good many doubts may be raised about both. Republic r. You imply that the two questions must be combined, I Sockates, repHed.

Now I meant that you should admit the utihty ; ^^^^^^nand in this way, as I thouerht, I should escape from one ^^f""''.|^.. •^ ' . ... and possibility of them, and then there would remain only the possibility. ofacommu- But that httle attempt is detected, and therefore you will ""^ °/^.;^"'" * ■' and children. please to give a defence of both. Well, I said, I submit to my fate.

Yet grant me a little 458 favour: let me feast my mind with the dream as day dreamers are in the habit of feasting themselves when they are walking alone ; for before they have discovered any means of effecting their wishes — that is a matter which never troubles them — they would rather not tire themselves by thinking about possibilities ; but assuming that what they desire is already granted to them, they proceed with their plan, and dehght in detailing what they mean to do when their wish has come true — that is a way which they have of not doing much good to a capacity which was never good for much.

Now I The utility to myself am beginning to lose heart, and I should like, with Reconsidered your permission, to pass over the question of possibihty at possibility present. Assuming therefore the possibility of the proposal, ^'"^^'■^^'■'^^• I shall now proceed to enquire how the rulers will carry out these arrangements, and I shall demonstrate that our plan, if executed, will be of the greatest benefit to the State and to the guardians.

First of all, then, if you have no objection, I will endeavour with your help to consider the advantages of the measure ; ^ and hereafter the question of possibility. I have no objection ; proceed.

First, I think that if our rulers and their auxiliaries are to be worthy of the name which they bear, there must be willingness to obey in the one and the power of command in the other ; the guardians must themselves obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any details which are entrusted to their care. That is right, he said.

You, 1 said, who are their legislator, having selected the Thciegisiator men, will now select the women and give them to them ; — thev '"'" ^^'""^^ " ' -^ guardians must be as far as possible of like natures with them ; and male and they must Hve in common houses and meet at common meals. ^''!"^'^' ""'^^ "' will None of them will have anything specially his or her own ;

152 The breeding of animals. Republic V. they will be together, and will be brought up together, and Socrates, wiU associate at gymnastic exercises.

And so they will Glaucon. i^g drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse meet at com- ^^j^-j^ each othcr — neccssity is not too strong a word, I think? mon meals , , , and exercises, Yes, lie Said j — ncccssity, not geometrical, but another sort and will be q£ neccssitv which lovers know, and which is far more condrawn to one _ _ •' another by an vinciug and Constraining to the mass of mankind.

True, I said ; and this, Glaucon, like all the rest, must proceed after an orderly fashion ; in a city of the blessed, licentiousness is an unholy thing which the rulers will forbid. Yes, he said, and it ought not to be permitted. Then clearly the next thing will be to make matrimony sacred in the highest degree, and what is most beneficial will be deemed sacred? Exactly.

459 The breeding And how Can marriages be made most beneficial? — that is ofhuman ^ Question which I put to vou, because I see in your house bemgs, as of ^ r j ^ j animals, to be dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. from the best -^q^ J besccch you, do tell me, have you ever attended and from those ' ■' ' ' ^ who are of a to their pairing and breeding? ripe age. In what particulars?

Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others? True. And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only? From the best. And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age? I choose only those of ripe age. And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate? Certainly.

And the same of horses and of animals in general? Undoubtedly. Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species! Certainly, the same principle holds ; but why does this involve any particular skill?

Hymeneal festivals. 1 5 3 Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise Republic v. upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know Socrates, that when patients do not require medicines, but have only ^'^^^'^-o^- to be put under a recfinien, the inferior sort of practitioner Useful Ues *^ o ' i < yg^y honest is deemed to be good enough ; but when medicine has to be knaveries.' given, then the doctor should be more of a man.

That is quite true, he said ; but to what are you alluding? I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects : we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of advantage. And we were very right. And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births. How so?

Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that Arrangements the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, ^°'' '^^ ""' , ' provement of and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and the breed; that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition.

Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebeUion. Very true. Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will and for the bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will ^^^guif^'O" of ^ c> o 7 population.

460 be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets : the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

Certainly, he replied. We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which Pairing by lot. the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

To be sure, he said. And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them ; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible. True.

And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for offices are to be held by women as well as by men — Yes — The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter ; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.

Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is to be kept pure. They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers to the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognises her own child ; and other wet-nurses may be engaged if more are required.

Care will also be taken that the process of suckhng shall not be protracted too long ; and the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants. You suppose the wives of our guardians to have a fine easy time of it when they are having children. Why, said I, and so they ought. Let us, however, proceed with our scheme.

We were saying that the parents should be in the prime of life? Very true. And what is the prime of life? May it not be defined as a period of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man's? Which years do you mean to include? A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children to the State, and continue to bear them until forty ; a man may begin at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the

point at which the pulse of life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he be fifty-five. 461 Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigour.

Any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes part in the public hymeneals shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing ; the child of which he is the father, if it steals into life, will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and prayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and priests and the whole city will offer, that the new generation may be better and more useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his child will be the offspring of darkness and strange lust.

Very true, he replied. And the same law will apply to any one of those within the prescribed age who forms a connection with any women in the prime of life without the sanction of the rulers ; for we shall say that he is raising up a bastard to the State, uncertified and unconsecrated. Very true, he replied.

This applies, however, only to those who are within the specified age : after that we allow them to range at will, except that a man may not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his mother or his mother's mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibited from marrying their sons or fathers, or son's son or father's father, and so on in either direction.

And we grant all this, accompanying the permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo which may come into being from seeing the light ; and if any force a way to the birth, the parents must understand that the offspring of such an union cannot be maintained, and arrange accordingly. That also, he said, is a reasonable proposition. But how will they know who are fathers and daughters, and so on? They will never know.

The way will be this: — dating from the day of the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call all the male children who are born in the seventh and the tenth month afterwards his sons, and the female children his daughters, and they will call him father, and he will call their children his grandchildren, and they

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon. twenty to forty ; a man to beget them from twenty-five to fifty-five.

After the prescribed age has been passed, more licence is allowed : but all who were born after certain hymeneal festivals at which their parents or grandparents came together must be kept separate.

156

'Meiiin and tuum.^

Republic V. sockates, Glaucon.

The greatest good of States, unity; the greatest evil, discord. The one the result of public, the other of private feelings.

will call the elder generation grandfathers and grandmothers. All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I was saying, will be forbidden to intermarry.

This, however, is not to be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters ; if the lot favours them, and they receive the sanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them. Quite right, he replied. Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to which the guardians of our State are to have their wives and families in common.

And now you would have the argument show that this community is consistent with the rest of our polity, and also that nothing can be better — would you not? Yes, certainly.

Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in the organization of a State, — what is the greatest good, and what is the greatest evil, and then consider whether our previous description has the stamp of the good or of the evil? By all means.

Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity? There cannot. And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains — where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions of joy and sorrow? No doubt.

Yes ; and where there is no common but only private feehng a State is disorganized — when you have one half of the world triumphing and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens? Certainly. Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the use of the terms ' mine ' and * not mine,' ' his ' and 'not his. Exactly so. And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest

number of persons apply the terms ' mine ' and ' not mine ' in Republic i the same way to the same thing? Quite true.

Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the individual — as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt, the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a centre and forming one kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizes all together with the part affected, and we say that the man has a pain in his finger ; and the same expression is used about any other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or of pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.

Very true, he replied ; and I agree with you that in the best-ordered State there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you describe. Then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil, the whole State will make his case their own, and will either rejoice or sorrow with him? Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a well-ordered State.

It will now be time, I said, for us to return to our State and see whether this or some other form is most in accordance with these fundamental principles. Very good. Our State like every other has rulers and subjects? True. All of whom will call one another citizens? Of course. But is there not another name which people give to their rulers in other States? Generally they call them masters, but in democratic States they simply call them rulers.

And in our State what other name besides that of citizens do the people give the rulers? They are called saviours and helpers, he replied. And what do the rulers call the people? Their maintainers and foster-fathers. And what do they call them in other States? Slaves. And what do the rulers call one another in other States?

How different are the terms which are applied to the rulers in other States and in our own !

158

The community of property and of

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

The State one family.

"•S,

Using the same terms, they will have the same modes of thinking and acting, and this is to be attributed mainly to the community of women and children.

Fellow-rulers. And what in ours? Fellow-guardians. Did you ever know an example in any other State of a ruler who would speak of one of his colleagues as his friend and of another as not being his friend? Yes, very often. And the friend he regards and describes as one in whom he has an interest, and the other as a stranger in whom he has no interest? Exactly. But would any of your guardians think or speak of any other guardian as a stranger?

Certainly he would not ; for every one whom they meet will be regarded by them either as a brother or sister, or father or mother, or son or daughter, or as the child or parent of those who are thus connected with him. Capital, I said ; but let me ask you once more : Shall they be a family in name only ; or shall they in all their actions be true to the name?

For example, in the use of the word ' father,' would the care of a father be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedience to him which the law commands ; and is the violator of these duties to be regarded as an impious and unrighteous person who is not likely to receive much good either at the hands of God or of man?

Are these to be or not to be the strains which the children will hear repeated in their ears by all the citizens about those who are intimated to them to be their parents and the rest of their kinsfolk? These, he said, and none other ; for what can be more ridiculous than for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only and not to act in the spirit of them?

Then in our city the language of harmony and concord will be more often heard than in any other. As I was describing before, when any one is well or ill, the universal word will be ' with me it is well ' or ' it is ill. Most true. And agreeably to this mode of thinking and speaking, were we not saying that they will have their pleasures and pains in common?

women and cJiildreii tends to JiarjnoJiy and peace. 159 Yes, and so they will. Republic v. And they will have a common interest in the same thing Socrates, which they will alike call ' my own,' and having this common ^^'-aucon. interest they will have a common feeling of pleasure and pain? Yes, far more so than in other States.

And the reason of this, over and above the general constitution of the State, will be that the guardians will have a community of women and children? That will be the chief reason. And this unity of feeling we admitted to be the greatest good, as was implied in our own comparison of a well-ordered State to the relation of the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or pain? That we acknowledged, and very rightly.

Then the community of wives and children among our citizens is clearly the source of the greatest good to the State? Certainly.

And this agrees with the other principle which we were affirming, — that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any other property ; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive from the other citizens, and they were to have no private expenses ; for we intended them to preserve their true character of guardians. Right, he replied.

Both the community of property and the community of There will be families, as I am savinor, tend to make them more truly "°p"^^'^ . . . , . interests guardians ; they will not tear the city in pieces by differing among them, about ' mine ' and ' not mine ; ' each man dracrfiinff any ac- ^"^ therefore ' _ o® 07 no lawsuits quisition which he has made into a separate house of his or trials for own, where he has a separate wife and children and private ^^^|'"''°'' ' ^ ^ violence to pleasures and pains ; but all will be affected as far as may be eiders. by the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion about what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towards a common end.

Certainly, he replied. And as they have nothing but their persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints will have no existence among them ; they will be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or relations are the occasion.

Of course they will. Neither will trials for assault or insult ever be likely to occur among them. For that equals should defend themselves against equals we shall maintain to be honourable and right; we shall make the protection of the person a 465 matter of necessity. That is good, he said.

Yes ; and there is a further good in the law ; viz. that if a man has a quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then and there, and not proceed to more dangerous lengths. Certainly. To the elder shall be assigned the duty of ruling and chastising the younger. Clearly. Nor can there be a doubt that the younger will not strike or do any other violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him ; nor will he slight him in any way.

For there are two guardians, shame and fear, mighty to prevent him : shame, which makes men refrain from laying hands on those who are to them in the relation of parents ; fear, that the injured one will be succoured by the others who are his brothers, sons, fathers. That is true, he replied. Then in every way the laws will help the citizens to keep the peace with one another? Yes, there will be no want of peace.

And as the guardians will never quarrel among themselves there will be no danger of the rest of the city being divided either against them or against one another. None whatever.

I hardly like even to mention the little meannesses of which they will be rid, for they are beneath notice : such, for example, as the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy necessaries for their household, borrowing and then repudiating, getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands of women and slaves to keep — the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer in this way are mean enough and obvious enough, and not worth speaking of.

Yes, he said, a man has no need of eyes in order to perceive that. And from all these evils they will be delivered, and their life will be blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more blessed. How so? The Olympic victor, I said, is deemed happy in receiving a part only of the blessedness which is secured to our citizens, who have won a more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance at the public cost.

For the victory which they have won is the salvation of the whole State ; and the crown with which they and their children are crowned is the fulness of all that life needs ; they receive rewards from the hands of their country while living, and after death have an honourable burial. Yes, he said, and glorious rewards they are.

Do you remember, I said, how in the course of the previous 466 discussion ^ some one who shall be nameless accused us of making our guardians unhappy — they had nothing and might have possessed all things — to whom we replied that, if an occasion offered, we might perhaps hereafter consider this question, but that, as at present advised, we would make our guardians truly guardians, and that we were fashioning the State with a view to the greatest happiness, not of any particular class, but of the whole?

Yes, I remember. And what do you say, now that the life of our protectors is made out to be far better and nobler than that of Olympic victors — is the life of shoemakers, or any other artisans, or of husbandmen, to be compared with it? Certainly not.

At the same time I ought here to repeat what I have said elsewhere, that if any of our guardians shall try to be happy in such a manner that he will cease to be a guardian, and is not content with this safe and harmonious life, which, in our judgment, is of all lives the best, but infatuated by some youthful conceit of happiness which gets up into his head shall seek to appropriate the whole state to himself, then he

Republic V. Socrates, G LA ICON.

Answer to the charge of Adeimantus that we made our citizens unhappy for their own good.

Their life not to be compared with that of citizens in ordinary States. He who seeks to he more than a guardian IS naught.

' Pages 419, 420 ff.

VOL. in. — 26

l62

'Half is more than the whole.'

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

The common way of life includes common education, common children, common services and duties of men and women.

The children to accompany their parents on military expeditions ;

will have to learn how wisely Hesiod spoke, when he said, ' half is more than the whole. If he were to consult me, I should say to him : Stay where you are, when you have the offer of such a life.

You agree then, I said, that men and women are to have a common way of life such as we have described — common education, common children ; and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether abiding in the city or going out to war ; they are to keep watch together, and to hunt together like dogs ; and always and in all things, as far as they are able, women are to share with the men?

And in so doing they will do what is best, and will not violate, but preserve the natural relation of the sexes. I agree with you, he replied. The enquiry, I said, has yet to be made, whether such a community will be found possible — as among other animals, so also among men — and if possible, in what way possible? You have anticipated the question which I was about to suggest.

There is no difficulty, I said, in seeing how war will be carried on by them. How? Why, of course they will go on expeditions together ; and will take with them any of their children who are strong enough, that, after the manner of the artisan's child, they may look on at the work which they will have to do when they are grown up ; and besides looking on they will have to 467 help and be of use in war, and to wait upon their fathers and mothers.

Did you never observe in the arts how the potters' boys look on and help, long before they touch the wheel? Yes, I have. And shall potters be more careful in educating their children and in giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their duties than our guardians will be? The idea is ridiculous, he said.

There is also the effect on the parents, with whom, as with other animals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest incentive to valour. That is quite true, Socrates ; and yet if they are defeated, which may often happen in war, how great the danger is!

the children will be lost as well as their parents, and the Republic v. State will never recover. True, I said ; but would you never allow them to run any risk? I am far from saying that. Well, but if they are ever to run a risk should they not do so on some occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the better for it? Clearly. Whether the future soldiers do or do not see war in the days of their youth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some risk may fairly be incurred. Yes, very important. This then must be our first step, — to make our children spectators of war ; but we must also contrive that they shall be secured against danger ; then all will be well. True. Their parents may be supposed not to be blind to the risks of war, but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions are safe and what dangerous? That may be assumed. And they will take them on the safe expeditions and be cautious about the dangerous ones? True. And they will place them under the command of experienced veterans who will be their leaders and teachers? Very properly. Still, the dangers of war cannot be always foreseen ; there is a good deal of chance about them? True. Then against such chances the children must be at once furnished with wings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away and escape. What do you mean? he said. I mean that we must mount them on horses in their earliest youth, and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see war : the horses must not be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable and yet the swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an excellent view of what is here- 468 after to be their own business ; and if there is danger they have only to follow their elder leaders and escape.

1 64

The rewards and distinctions of heroes.

Republic I'. Socrates, Glaucon. The coward is to be degraded into a lower rank.

The hero to receive honour from his comrades and favour from his beloved,

and to have precedence, and a larger share of meats and drinks ;

I believe that you are right, he said. Next, as to war ; what are to be the relations of your soldiers to one another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to propose that the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or is guilty of any other act of cowardice, should be degraded into the rank of a husbandman or artisan. What do you think? By all means, I should say.

And he who allows himself to be taken prisoner may as well be made a present of to his enemies ; he is their lawful prey, and let them do what they like with him. Certainly. But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done to him? In the first place, he shall receive honour in the army from his youthful comrades ; every one of them in succession shall crown him. What do you say? I approve.

And what do you say to his receiving the right hand of fellowship ? To that too, I agree. But you will hardly agree to my next proposal. What is your proposal? That he should kiss and be kissed by them. Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say : Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the expedition lasts.

So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valour. Capital, I said. That the brave man is to have more wives than others has been already determined : and he is to have first choices in such matters more than others, in order that he may have as many children as possible? Agreed.

Again, there is another manner in which, according to Homer, brave youths should be honoured ; for he tells how Ajax 1, after he had distinguished himself in battle, was rewarded with long chines, which seems to be a compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower of his age, being not only a tribute of honour but also a very strengthening thing. 1 Iliad, vii. 321.

'None but the brave deserve the fair. 165 Most true, he said. Republic v.

Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our teacher ; and we Socrates, too, at sacrifices and on the like occasions, will honour the ^^^^'^"^ brave according to the measure of their valour, whether men or women, with hymns and those other distinctions which we were mentioning ; also with ' seats of precedence, and meats and full cups ' ; ' and in honouring them, we shall be at the same time training them. That, he replied, is excellent.

Yes, I said ; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say, in the first place, that he is of the golden race? To be sure. Nav, have we not the authority of He.siod for affirming that also to be when'they are dead Xfi^^^,"' 469 ' They are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters of evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men ' ? * Yes ; and we accept his authority.

We must learn of the god how we are to order the sepulture of divine and heroic personages, and what is to be their special distinction ; and we must do as he bids? By all means. And in ages to come we will reverence them and kneel before their sepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but any who are deemed pre-eminently good, whether they die from age, or in any other way, shall be admitted to the same honours.

That is very right, he said. Next, how shall our soldiers treat their enemies? What Behaviour about this? to enemies. In what respect do you mean? First of all, in regard to slavery? Do you think it right that Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave them, if they can help?

Should not their custom be to spare them, considering the danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the barbarians ? To spare them is infinitely better. ' Iliad, viii. 162. ^ Probably Works and Days, 121 foil.

1 66

How shall our soldiers treat their enemies?

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon. No Hellene shall be made a slave.

Those who fall in battle are not to be despoiled.

The arms of Hellenes are not to be offered at temples ;

nor Hellenic territory devastated.

Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave ; that is a rule which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe. Certainly, he said ; they will in this way be united against the barbarians and will keep their hands off one another. Next as to the slain ; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anything but their armour? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy afford an excuse for not facing the battle?

Cowards skulk about the dead, pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army before now has been lost from this love of plunder. Very true.

And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear behind him, — is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him instead? Very like a dog, he said. Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their burial?

Yes, he replied, we most certainly must. Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good 470 feeling with other Hellenes ; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offering of spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded by the god himself? Very true.

Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burning of houses, what is to be the practice? May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing your opinion? Both should be forbidden, in my judgment ; I would take the annual produce and no more. Shall I tell you why? Pray do.

Why, you see, there is a difference in the names * discord ' and ' war,' and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures ; the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of what is external and foreign ; and the first of the two is termed discord, and only the second, war.

Wars of Hellcfies with Helle7ies and barbarians. 167 That is a very proper distinction, he replied. Republic v. And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Socrates, Hellenic race is all united together by ties of blood and ^'-^"^o^- friendship, and alien and strange to the barbarians? Very good, he said.

And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war ; but when Hellenes Hellenic warfight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in ^^y^'^^^'y *^ -'a kind of a state of disorder and discord, they being by nature friends ; discord not and such enmity is to be called discord. intended to ^ be lasting.

I agree. Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to be discord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy the lands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strife appear!

No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear in pieces his own nurse and mother : There might be reason in the conqueror depriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they would have the idea of peace in their hearts and would not mean to go on fighting for ever. Yes, he said, that is a better temper than the other. And will not the city, which you are founding, be an Hellenic city? It ought to be, he replied.

Then will not the citizens be good and civilized? Yes, very civilized. And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas The lover of as their own land, and share in the com,mon temples? wni°Jsobr Most certainly. a lover of And any difference which arises among them will be 471 regarded by them as discord only — a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called a war? Certainly not.

Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to be reconciled? Certainly. They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroy their opponents ; they will be correctors, not enemies?

i68

When will Socrates come to the point ?

Republic I'. Socrates, Glaucon. Hellenes should deal mildly with Hellenes ; and with barbarians as Hellenes now deal with one another.

The complaint of Glaucon respecting the hesitation of Socrates.

Just SO. And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas, nor will they burn houses, nor ever suppose that the whole population of a city — men, women, and children — are equally their enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few persons and that the many are their friends.

And for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and rase their houses ; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction? I agree, he said, that our citizens should thus deal with their Hellenic enemies ; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with one another.

Then let us enact this law also for our guardians: — that they are neither to devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their houses. Agreed ; and we may agree also in thinking that these, like all our previous enactments, are very good.

But still I must say, Socrates, that if you are allowed to go on in this way you will entirely forget the other question which at the commencement of this discussion you thrust aside: — Is such an order of things possible, and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to acknowledge that the plan \vhich you propose, if only feasible, would do all sorts of good to the State.

I will add, what you have omitted, that your citizens will be the bravest of warriors, and will never leave their ranks, for they will all know one another, and each will call the other father, brother, son ; and if you suppose the women to join their armies, whether in the same rank or in the rear, either as a terror to the enemy, or as auxiharies in case of need, I know that they will then be absolutely invincible ; and there are many domestic advantages which might also be mentioned and which I also fully acknowledge : but, as I admit all these advantages and as many more as you please, if only this State of yours were to come into existence, we need say no more about them ; assuming then the existence of the State, let us now turn to the question of possibility and ways and means — the rest may be left.

The third and greatest wave. 169 472 If I loiter^ for a moment, you instantly make a raid upon Republic v, me, I said, and have no mercy ; I have hardly escaped the Socrates, first and second waves, and you seem not to be aware that ^^'^^'™^- vou are now brincrincr upon me the third, which is the Socrates cx- <^ ^ ^ cuses himself greatest and heaviest.

When you have seen and heard the and makes third wave, I think you will be more considerate and will °"^ "I ^^'° ^ . . remarks acknowledge that some fear and hesitation was natural re- preparatory specting a proposal so extraordinary as that which I have ^° ^ ^"^' now to state and investigate.

The more appeals of this sort which you make, he said, the more determined are we that you shall tell us how such a State is possible : speak out and at once. Let me begin by reminding you that we found our way hither in the search after justice and injustice. True, he replied; but what of that?

1 was only going to ask whether, if we have discovered them, we are to require that the just man should in nothing fail of absolute justice ; or may we be satisfied with an approximation, and the attainment in him of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men? The approximation will be enough.

We were enquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal.

We were to look at these in order that we might judge of our own (i) The ideal happiness and unhappiness according to the standard which ^^^ ^J^hith"^^ they exhibited and the degree in which we resembled can never them, but not with any view of showing that they could reauLd^^^ exist in fact. True, he said.

Would a painter be any the worse because, after having delineated with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was unable to show that any such man could ever have existed? He would be none the worse. Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State? To be sure. And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to ' Reading oTpayyevo/jiiv<i}.

170

The actual falls sJiort of the ideal.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon. (2) but is none the worse for this.

(3) Although the ideal cannot be realized, one or two"* changes, or rather a single change, might revolutionize a State.

Socrates goes forth to meet the wave.

prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner described ? Surely not, he replied. That is the truth, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try and show how and under what conditions the possibihty is highest, I must ask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admissions. What admissions? I want to know whether ideals are ever fully realized in 473 language?

Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the actual, whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall short of the truth? What do you say? I agree.

Then you must not insist on my proving that the actual State will in every respect coincide with the ideal : if we are only able to discover how a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit that we have discovered the possibility which you demand ; and will be contented. I am sure that I should be contented — will not you? Yes, I will.

Let me next endeavour to show what is that fault in States which is the cause of their present maladministration, and what is the least change which will enable a State to pass into the truer form ; and let the change, if possible, be of one thing only, or, if not, of two ; at any rate, let the changes be as few and slight as possible. Certainly, he replied.

I think, I said, that there might be a reform of the State if only one change were made, which is not a slight or easy though still a possible one. What is it? he said. Now then, I said, I go to meet that which I liken to the greatest of the waves ; yet shall the word be spoken, even though the wave break and drown me in laughter and dishonour ; and do you mark my words. Proceed.

I said : Until philosophers are kings ^ or the kings and pi'inces of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one^ and those

When philosophers are kiftgs. 1 7 1 conunoner natures 7vho pursue either to the exclusion of the Republic v. other are compe/kd to stand aside, cities will never have rest Socrates, from their evils, — no, nor the human race, as I believe, — and ^^^^'-o^ then only will this our State have a possibility of life and '^-'"eswiii ■^ ^ • ^ ./ never cease behold the light of day.

Such was the thought, my dear from ni until Glaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not seemed '^'"'^ ^""^^ ^ ' governed by too extravagant ; for to be convinced that in no other State can philosophers.' there be happiness private or pubhc is indeed a hard thing. Socrates, what do you mean?

I would have you consider that the word which you have uttered is one at which numerous persons, and very respectable persons too, in a what will the 474 figure pulling off their coats all in a moment, and seizing ^^'■•^'^ ^ay to any weapon that comes to hand, will run at you might and main, before you know where you are, intending to do heaven knows what ; and if you don't prepare an answer, and put yourself in motion, you will be ' pared by their fine wits,' and no mistake.

You got me into the scrape, I said. And I was quite right ; however, I will do all I can to get you out of it ; but I can only give you good-v/ill and good advice, and, perhaps, I may be able to fit answers to your questions better than another — that is all. And now, having such an auxiliary, you must do yoiu: best to show the unbelievers that you are right. I ought to try, I said, since you offer me such invaluable assistance.

And I think that, if there is to be a chance of But who is a our escaping, we must explain to them whom we mean when philosopher? we say that philosophers are to rule in the State ; then we shall be able to defend ourselves : There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to study philosophy and to be leaders in the State ; and others who are not born to be philosophers, and are meant to be followers rather than leaders.

Then now for a definition, he said. Follow me, I said, and I hope that I may in some way or other be able to give you a satisfactory explanation. Proceed. I dare say that you remember, and therefore I need not Parallel of remind you, that a lover, if he is worthy of the name, ought ^^e lover, to show his love, not to some one part of that which he loves, but to the whole.

172

The definition of a philosopher

Republic V. Socrates, (iLAUCON. The lover of the fair loves them all ;

the lover of wines all wines;

the lover of honour all honour;

the philosopher, or lover of wisdom, all knowledge.

I really do not understand, and therefore beg of you to assist my memory. Another person, I said, might fairly reply as you do ; but a man of pleasure like yourself ought to know that all who are in the flower of youth do somehow or other raise a pang or emotion in a lover's breast, and are thought by him to be worthy of his affectionate regards.

Is not this a way which you have with the fair : one has a snub nose, and you praise his charming face ; the hook-nose of another has, you say, a royal look ; while he who is neither snub nor hooked has the grace of regularity : the dark visage is manly, the fair are children of the gods ; and as to the sweet * honey pale,' as they are called, what is the very name but the invention of a lover who talks in diminutives, and is not averse to paleness if appearing on the cheek of youth?

In a word, there is no excuse which you will not make, and nothing which you will 475 not say, in order not to lose a single flower that blooms in the spring-time of youth. If you make me an authority in matters of love, for the sake of the argument, I assent. And what do you say of lovers of wine? Do you not see them doing the same? They are glad of any pretext of drinking any wine. Very good.

And the same is true of ambitious men ; if they cannot command an army, they are willing to command a file ; and if they cannot be honoured by really great and important persons, they are glad to be honoured by lesser and meaner people, — but honour of some kind they must have. Exactly. Once more let me ask : Does he who desires any class of goods, desire the whole class or a part only? The whole.

And may we not say of the philosopher that he is a lover, not of a part of wisdom only, but of the whole? Yes, of the whole. And he who dislikes learning, especially in youth, when he has no power of judging what is good and what is not, such an one we maintain not to be a philosopher or a lover of knowledge, just as he who refuses his food is not hungry.

TJic true philosopher and the imitators. 173 and may be said to have a bad appetite and not a good Republic r. one ? Socrates, Very true, he said. Glaucok. Whereas he who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and who is curious to learn and is never satisfied, may be justly termed a philosopher? Am I not right? Glaucon said : If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will Under find many a strange being will have a title to the name.

All h"°eier^are the lovers of sights have a delight in learning, and must not to be therefore be included.

Musical amateurs, too, are a folk '"V' ^ , ' ' sights and Strangely out of place among philosophers, for they are the sounds, or last persons in the world who would come to anything like a JJ^" ^^^ ^^^^ philosophical discussion, if they could help, while they run knowledge, about at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had let out their ^mTteurs and ears to hear every chorus ; whether the performance is in the like. town or country — that makes no difference — they are there.

Now are we to maintain that all these and any who have similar tastes, as well as the professors of quite minor arts, are philosophers? Certainly not, I replied ; they are only an imitation. He said: Who then are the true philosophers? Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision of truth. That is also good, he said ; but I should hke to know what you mean?

To another, I replied, I might have a difficulty in explaining ; but I am sure that you will admit a proposition which I am about to make. What is the proposition? That since beauty is the opposite of ugliness, they are two? Certainly. And inasmuch as they are two, each of them is one? True again.

And of just and unjust, good and evil, and of every other class, the same remark holds : taken singly, each of them is one ; but from the various combinations of them with actions and things and with one another, they are seen in all sorts of hghts and appear many? Very true. And this is the distinction which I draw between the sight-

174

Things beautiful and absolute beauty.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

True knowledge is the ability to distinguish between the one and many, between the idea and the objects which partake of the idea.

loving, art-loving, practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and who are alone worthy of the name of philosophers. How do you distinguish them? he said. The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or loving absolute beauty. True, he replied.

Few are they who are able to attain to the sight of this. Very true. And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty is unable to follow — of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only? Reflect: is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who hkens dissimilar things, who puts the copy in the place of the real object?

I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming. But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects — is he a dreamer, or is he awake? He is wide awake.

And may we not say that the mind of the one who knows has knowledge, and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion? Certainly. But suppose that the latter should quarrel with us and dispute our statement, can we administer any soothing cordial or advice to him, without revealing to him that there is sad disorder in his wits? We must certainly offer him some good advice, he replied.

Come, then, and let us think of something to say to him. Shall we begin by assuring him that he is welcome to any knowledge which he may have, and that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we should like to ask him a question : Does he who has knowledge know something or nothing? (You must answer for him.) I answer that he knows something.

Being, not being, the intermediate. 175 Something that is or is not? Republic v. Something that is ; for how can that which is not ever be Socrates, •t ^ Glaucon. known?

And are we assured, after looking at the matter from many ^^^^^ '^^^" ' " ^ ■' intermediate points of view, that absolute being is or may be absolutely between being known, but that the utterly non-existent is utterly unknown? and not being, ' . ^ •' and a cor- Nothing can be more certain. responding Good.

But if there be anything which is of such a nature b^^t^J^l^e^n'^''''^ as to be and not to be, that will have a place intermediate ignorance and between pure being and the absolute negation of being? xhirinte^!

Yes, between them. mediate is a *j 1 ij jji.1-' J* faculty termed And, as knowledge corresponded to bemg and ignorance j^jon of necessity to not-being, for that intermediate between being and not-being there has to be discovered a corresponding intermediate between ignorance and knowledge, if there be such? Certainly. Do we admit the existence of opinion? Undoubtedly. As being the same with knowledge, or another faculty? Another faculty.

Then opinion and knowledge have to do with different kinds of matter corresponding to this difference of faculties? Yes. Arid knowledge is relative to being and knows being. But before I proceed further I will make a division. What division? I will begin by placing faculties in a class by themselves : they are powers in us, and in all other things, by which we do as we do. Sight and hearing, for example, I should call faculties.

Have I clearly explained the class which I mean? Yes, I quite understand. Then let me tell you my view about them. I do not see them, and therefore the distinctions of figure, colour, and the like, which enable me to discern the differences of some things, do not apply to them.

In speaking of a faculty I think only of its sphere and its result ; and that which has the same sphere and the same result I call the same faculty, but that which has another sphere and another result I call different. Would that be your way of speaking?

176

Knowledge^ ignorance, opinion.

Republic V. Socrates, Glaucon.

Opinion differs from knowledge because the one errs and the other is unerring.

It also differs from ignorance, which is concerned with nothing.

Yes. And will you be so very good as to answer one more question? Would you say that knowledge is a faculty, or in what class would you place it? Certainly knowledge is a faculty, and the mightiest of all faculties. And is opinion also a faculty? Certainly, he said ; for opinion is that with which we are able to form an opinion. And yet you were acknowledging a little while ago that knowledge is not the same as opinion?

Why, yes, he said: how can any reasonable being ever 47 S identify that which is infallible with that which errs? An excellent answer, proving, I said, that we are quite conscious of a distinction between them. Yes. Then knowledge and opinion having distinct powers have also distinct spheres or subject-matters? That is certain. Being is the sphere or subject-matter of knowledge, and knowledge is to know the nature of being? Yes.

And opinion is to have an opinion? Yes. And do we know what we opine? or is the subject-matter of opinion the same as the subject-matter of knowledge? Nay, he replied, that has been already disproven ; if difference in faculty implies difference in the sphere or subject-matter, and if, as we were saying, opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties, then the sphere of knowledge and of opinion cannot be the same.

Then if being is the subject-matter of knowledge, something else must be the subject-matter of opinion? Yes, something else. Well then, is not-being the subject-matter of opinion? or, rather, how can there be an opinion at all about not-being? Reflect : when a man has an opinion, has he not an opinion about something? Can he have an opinion which is an opinion about nothing? Impossible.

The interval betiveen being and not -being. 1 77 He who has an opinion has an opinion about some one Republic v. thing? Socrates, • Yes , Glaucon. And not-being is not one thing but, properly speaking, nothing? True. Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to be the necessarycorrelative ; of being, knowledge? True, he said. Then opinion is not concerned either with being or with not-being? Not with either. And can therefore neither be ignorance nor knowledge? That seems to be true. But is opinion to be sought without and beyond either of its place is them, in a greater clearness than knowledge, or in a greater "°^ '° "^^ darkness than ignorance? without or In neither. ^"^^f , knowledge or Then I suppose that opinion appears to you to be darker ignorance, but than knowledge, but lighter than ignorance? between them. Both ; and in no small degree. And also to be within and between them? Yes. Then you would infer that opinion is intermediate? No question. But were we not saying before, that if anything appeared to be of a sort which is and is not at the same time, that sort of thing would appear also to lie in the interval between pure being and absolute not-being ; and that the corresponding faculty is neither knowledge nor ignorance, but will be found in the interval between them? True. And in that interval there has now been discovered something which we call opinion? There has. Then what remains to be discovered is the object which partakes equally of the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly be termed either, pure and simple ; this unknown term, when discovered, we may truly call the subject of opinion, and assign each to their proper faculty, — VOL. III. — 27

178

The piLuning riddle.

the extremes to the faculties of the extremes and the mean to the faculty of the mean. True. This being premised, I would ask the gentleman who is of 479 opinion that there is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty — in whose opinion the beautiful is the manifold — he, I say, your lover of beautiful sights, who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is one, and the just is one, or that anything is one — to him I would appeal, saying.

Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell us whether, of all these beautiful things, there is one which will not be found ugly ; or of the just, which will not be found unjust ; or of the holy, which will not also be unholy? No, he replied ; the beautiful will in some point of view be found ugly ; and the same is true of the rest. And may not the many which are doubles be also halves? — doubles, that is, of one thing, and halves of another?

Quite true. And things great and small, heavy and light, as they are termed, will not be denoted by these any more than by the opposite names? True ; both these and the opposite names will always attach to all of them. And can any one of those many things which are called by particular names be said to be this rather than not to be this?

He replied : They are like the punning riddles which are asked at feasts or the children's puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the bat, with what he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the bat was sitting. The individual objects of which I am speaking are also a riddle, and have a double sense : nor can you fix them in your mind, either as being or not-being, or both, or neither. Then what will you do with them? I said.

Can they have a better place than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in greater darkness or negation than notbeing, or more full of light and existence than being. That is quite true, he said. Thus then we seem to have discovered that the many ideas which the multitude entertain about the beautiful and about

The opposition of knoivledge and opinion.

179

all other things are tossing about in some region which is Republic v. half-way between pure being and pure not-being? Socrates, We have. g^.kx:^o^. Yes ; and we had before agreed that anything of this kind which we might find was to be described as matter of opinion, and not as matter of knowledge ; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detained by the intermediate faculty. Quite true. Then those who see the many beautiful, and who yet Opinion is the neither see absolute beauty, nor can follow any guide who '^"o^iedge, ' ' . not of the points the way thither; who see the many just, and not absolute, but absolute justice, and the like, — such persons may be said to of^hemany. haye opinion but not knowledge? That is certain. But those who see the absolute and eternal and immutable may be said to know, and not to haye opinion only? Neither can that be denied. The one loye and embrace the subjects of knowledge, the other those of opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare 480 say you will remember, who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colours, but would not tolerate the existence of absolute beauty. Yes, I remember. Shall we then be guilty of any impropriety in calling them loyers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they be very angry with us for thus describing them? 1 shall tell them not to be angry ; no man should be angry at what is true. But those who love the truth in each thing are to be called lovers of wisdom and not lovers of opinion. Assuredly.

BOOK VI.

Republic VI. Socrates, Gl.AUCON.

If we had time, we might have a nearer view of the true and false philosopher.

Which of them shall tbe our guardians ? A question hardly to be asked.

And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary steph. way, the true and the false philosophers have at length ap- 4^4 peared in view. I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened.

I suppose not, I said ; and yet I believe that we might have had a better view of both of them if the discussion could have been confined to this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaiting us, which he who desires to see in what respect the hfe of the just differs from that of the unjust must consider. And what is the next question? he asked. Surely, I said, the one which follows next in order.

Inasmuch as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers, I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our State? And how can we rightly answer that question? Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State — let them be our guardians. Very good.

Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes? There can be no question of that.

And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not

The qualities of the philosophic nature. t8i already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of Republic vi. them — are not such persons, I ask, simply blind ? Sockates. Truly, he replied, they are much in that condition. Glaucon. And shall they be our guardians when there are others who, besides being their equals in experience and falling short of them in no particular of virtue, also know the very truth of each thing?

There can be no reason, he said, for rejecting those who 4<S5; have this greatest of all great qualities; they must always have the first place unless they fail in some other respect. Suppose then, I said, that we determine how far they can unite this and the other excellences. By all means. In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of Thephiiosothe philosopher has to be ascertained.

We must come to an ^J"" ^^^ '''y" iT r Qf truth and of understanding about him, and, when we have done so, then, all true being. if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the State. What do you mean?

Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption. Agreed. And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all true being ; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honourable, which they are willing to renounce ; as we .said before of the lover and the man of ambition. True.

And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not another quality which they should also possess? What quality? Truthfulness : they will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth. Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them.

' May be,' my friend, I replied, is not the word ; say rather, 'must be affirmed:' for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections.

l82

The spectator of all tune and all existence.

Republic VI. Socrates, Glaijcon.

He will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and therefore temperate and the reverse of covetous or mean.

^A,

In the magnificenceof his contemplations he will not think much of human life.

Right, he said. And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth? How can there be? Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood? Never. The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as far as in him lies, desire all truth? Assuredly. But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others ; they will be like a stream which has been drawn off into another channel. True. He whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure — I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one. That is most certain. Such an one is sure to be of covetous ; for the motives

temperate and the reverse which make another man

desirous of having and spending, have no place in his character. Very true. Another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be 486 considered. What is that? There should be no secret corner of illiberality ; nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever longing after the whole of things both divine and human. Most true, he replied. Then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existence, think much of human life? He cannot. Or can such an one account death fearful? No indeed. Then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philosophy?

In idea the philosopJier is perfect. 183 Certainly not. Republic vi. Or again : can he who is harmoniously constituted, who is Socrates, not covetous or mean, or a boaster, or a coward — can he, ^'-'^^'^o'^- I say, ever be unjust or hard in his dealings? Impossible. Then you will soon observe whether a man is just and He win be erentle, or rude and unsociable; these are the signs which °f^e^"''^' o ' ' ° sociable, distinguish even in youth the philosophical nature from harmonious the unphilosophical. "''^'"'"^f ^ ^ lover of learn- True, ing, having a There is another point which should be remarked. ^°^ memory '^ and moving What point? spontaneously Whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning; for o"bJng°'^ no one will love that which gives him pain, and in which after much toil he makes little progress. Certainly not. And again, if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns, will he not be an empty vessel? That is certain. Labouring in vain, he must end in hating himself and his fruitless occupation? Yes. Then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophic natures ; we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory? Certainly. And once more, the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tend to disproportion? Undoubtedly. And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion? To proportion. Then, besides other qualities, we must try to find a naturally well-proportioned and gracious mind, which will move spontaneously towards the true being of everything. Certainly. Well, and do not all these qualities, which we have been enumerating, go together, and are they not, in a manner, necessary to a soul, which is to have a full and perfect participation of being?

1 84

/// fact, says Adeiinantus, he is the reverse of perfect.

Republic V'l. Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus. Conclusion : What a blameless study then is philosophy !

Nay, says Adeimantus, you can prove anything, but your hearers are unconvinced all the same.

Common opinion declares philosophers to be either rogues or useless.

Socrates, instead of denying this statement, admits the truth of it.

They are absolutely necessary, he replied. And must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue who has the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn, — noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance, who are his kindred? The god of jealousy himself, he said, could find no fault with such a study. And to men like him, I said, when perfected by years and education, and to these only you will entrust the State.

Here Adeimantus interposed and said : To these statements, Socrates, no one can offer a reply ; but when you talk in this way, a strange feeling passes over the minds of your hearers : They fancy that they are led astray a little at each step in the argument, owing to their own want of skill in asking and answering questions; these littles accumulate, and at the end of the discussion they are found to have sustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear to be turned upside down.

And as unskilful players of draughts are at last shut up by their more skilful adversaries and have no piece to move, so they too find themselves shut up at last ; for they have nothing to say in this new game of which words are the counters ; and yet all the time they are in the right. The observation is suggested to me by what is now occurring.

For any one of us might say, that although in words he is not able to meet you at each step of the argument, he sees as a fact that the votaries of philosophy, when they carry on the study, not only in youth as a part of education, but as the pursuit of their maturer years, most of them become strange monsters, not to say utter rogues, and that those who may be considered the best of them are made useless to the world by the very study which you extol.

Well, and do you think that those who say so are wrong? I cannot tell, he rephed ; but I should like to know what is your opinion. Hear my answer ; I am of opinion that they are quite right. Then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not cease from evil until philosophers rule in them, when philosophers are acknowledged by us to be of no use to them? You ask a question, I said, to which a reply can only be given in a parable.

The parable of f/w ship. 185 « Yes, Socrates ; and that is a way of speaking to which you Republic vi. are not at all accustomed, I suppose. Socrates, I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having Adeimantus. plunged me into such a hopeless discussion ; but now hear ^ parable.

488 the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination : for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it ; and therefore, if 1 am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, Hke the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is The nobic a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and rather dull his knowledge of navigation is not much better.

The thek?e°tter '" sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering — mind); the every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he J^hemob of^^ has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who politicians); taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that f^^e true^' ° it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any philosopher). one who says the contrary.

They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them ; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores ; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such manner as might be expected of them.

Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing ; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not — the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part

1 86

Why is philosophy in such evil repute?

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The interpretation.

The uselessness of philosophers arises out of the unwillingness of mankind to make use of them.

The real enemies of philosophy her professing followers.

of their calling I Now in vessels which are in a state of 489 mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? Of course, said Adeimantus. Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State ; for you understand already. Certainly.

Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities ; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. I will.

Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right ; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves.

The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him — that is not the order of nature ; neither are * the wise to go to the doors of the rich ' — the ingenious author of this saying told a lie — but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern.

The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him ; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp ; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and stargazers. Precisely so, he said.

P'or these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not hkely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction ; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you

' Or, applying ottwc ^l Kvl^epv^aei to the mutineers, ' 13ut only understanding {'tTzaiovraq) that he (the mutinous pilot) must rule in spite of other people, never considering that there is an art of command which may be practised in combination with the pilot's art.'

The noble nature of the philosopher.

187

suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless ; in which opinion I agreed. Yes. And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? True. Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? By all means. And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature. Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things ; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy. Yes, that was said. Well, and is not this one quality, to mention no others, greatly at variance with present notions of him? Certainly, he said. And have we not a right to say in his defence, that the true lover of knowledge is always striving after being — that is his nature ; he will not rest in the multiplicity of individuals which is an appearance only, but will go on — the keen edge will not be blunted, nor the force of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge of the true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred power in the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becoming incorporate with very being, having begotten mind and truth, he will have knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not till then, will he cease from his travail. Nothing, he said, can be more just than such a description of him. And will the love of a lie be any part of a philosopher's nature? Will he not utterly hate a lie? He will. And when truth is the captain, we cannot suspect any evil of the band which he leads? Impossible.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The corruption of philosophy due to many causes.

But before considering this, let us re-enumerate the qualities of the philosopher :

his love of essence, of truth, of justice, besides his other virtues and natural gifts.

1 88

Republic VI. Socrates, aoeimantus.

The reasons why philosophical natures so easily deteriorate.

(i) There are hut a few of them ;

(2) and they may be distracted from philosophy by their own virtues;

Why do so few attain to this perfection ? Justice and health of mind will be of the company, and temperance will follow after? True, he replied. Neither is there any reason why I should again set in array the philosopher's virtues, as you will doubtless remember that courage, magnificence, apprehension, memory, were his natural gifts.

And you objected that, although no one could deny what I then said, still, if you leave words and look at facts, the persons who are thus described are some of them manifestly useless, and the greater number utterly depraved ; we were then led to enquire into the grounds of these accusations, and have now arrived at the point of asking why are the majority bad, which question of necessity brought us back to the examination and definition of the true philosopher.

Exactly.

And we have next to consider the corruptions of the philosophic nature, why so many are spoiled and so few escape spoiling — I am speaking of those who were said to be useless but not wicked — and, when we have done with them, we will 491 speak of the imitators of philosophy, what manner of men are they who aspire after a profession which is above them and of which they are unworthy, and then, by their manifold inconsistencies, bring upon philosophy, and upon all philosophers, that universal reprobation of which we speak.

What are these corruptions? he said. I will see if I can explain them to you. Every one will admit that a nature having in perfection all the qualities which we required in a philosopher, is a rare plant which is seldom seen among men. Rare indeed. And what numberless and powerful causes tend to destroy these rare natures! What causes?

In the first place there are their own virtues, their courage, temperance, and the rest of them, every one of which praiseworthy qualities (and this is a most singular circumstance) destroys and distracts from philosophy the soul which is the possessor of them. That is very singular, he replied.

Then there are all the ordinary goods of life — beauty, wealth, strength, rank, and great connections in the State — you understand the sort of things — these also have a corrupting and distracting effect. I understand ; but I should like to know more precisely what you mean about them.

Grasp the truth as a whole, I said, and in the right way ; you will then have no difficulty in apprehending the preceding remarks, and they will no longer appear strange to you. And how am I to do so? he asked.

Why, I said, we know that all germs or seeds, whether vegetable or animal, when they fail to meet with proper nutriment or climate or soil, in proportion to their vigour, are all the more sensitive to the want of a suitable environment, for evil is a greater enemy to what is good than to what is not. Very true.

There is reason in supposing that the finest natures, when under alien conditions, receive more injury than the inferior, because the contrast is greater. Certainly. And may we not say, Adeimantus, that the most gifted minds, when they are ill-educated, become pre-eminently bad ?

Do not great crimes and the spirit of pure evil spring out of a fulness of nature ruined by education rather than from any inferiority, whereas weak natures are scarcely capable of any very great good or very great evil? There I think that you are right.

And our philosopher follows the same analogy — he is like a plant which, having proper nurture, must necessarily grow and mature into all virtue, but, if sown and planted in an alien soil, becomes the most noxious of all weeds, unless he be preserved by some divine power. Do you really think, as people so often say, that our youth are corrupted by Sophists, or that private teachers of the art corrupt them in any degree worth speaking of?

Are not the public who say these things the greatest of all Sophists? And do they not educate to perfection young and old, men and women alike, and fashion them after their own hearts? When is this accomplished? he said.

Republic VI. sockates, Adeimantus. and also, (3), by the ordinary goods of life.

(4) The finer natures more liable to injury than the inferior.

(5) They are not corrupted by private sophists, but compelled by the opinion of the world meeting in the assembly or in some other place of resort.

190

The unequal contest.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

(6) The other compulsion of violence and death.

They must be saved, if at all, by the power of God.

When they meet together, and the world sits down at an assembly, or in a court of law, or a theatre, or a camp, or in any other popular resort, and there is a great uproar, and they praise some things which are being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggerating both, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocks and the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of the praise or blame — at such a time will not a young man's heart, as they say, leap within him?

Will any private training enable him to stand firm against the overwhelming flood of popular opinion? or will he be carried away by the stream? Will he not have the notions of good and evil which the public in general have — he will do as they do, and as they are, such will he be? Yes, Socrates ; necessity will compel him. And yet, I said, there is a still greater necessity, which has not been mentioned. What is that?

The gentle force of attainder or confiscation or death, which, as you are aware, these new Sophists and educators, who are the public, apply when their words are powerless. Indeed they do ; and in right good earnest. Now what opinion of any other Sophist, or of any private person, can be expected to overcome in such an unequal contest? None, he replied.

No, indeed, I said, even to make the attempt is a great piece of folly ; there neither is, nor has been, nor is ever likely to be, any different type of character ^ which has had no other training in virtue but that which is supplied by public opinion ^ — I speak, my friend, of human virtue only ; what is more than human, as the proverb says, is not included : for I would not have you ignorant that, in the present evil state of governments, whatever is saved and comes to good is saved by the power of God, as we may truly say.

I quite assent, he replied. Then let me crave your assent also to a further observation. What are you going to say? Why, that all those mercenary individuals, whom the many ' Or, taking Trapd in another sense, ' trained to virtue on their principles.'

The fatal power of popular opinion. 191 call Sophists and whom they deem to be their adversaries, do, Republic vi. in fact, teach nothing but the opinion of the many, that is Socrates, to say, the opinions of their assemblies ; and this is their ^deimantus. wisdom.

I might compare them to a man who should study j^'^''^'^?!' the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed behaviour and bv him — he would learn how to approach and handle him, 'en^p^'^ 0^^ -' . people looked also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous at from their or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, worse side). and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated ; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute.

Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast j , delights and evil to be that which he dislikes ; and he can ' give no other account of them except that the just and noble are the necessary, having never himself seen, and having no power of explaining to others the nature of either, or the difference between them, which is immense. By heaven, would not such an one be a rare educator? Indeed he would.

And in what way does he who thinks that wisdom is the discernment of the tempers and tastes of the motley multitude, whether in painting or music, or, finally, in politics, differ from him whom I have been describing ?

For when a He who man consorts with the many, and exhibits to them his poem ^^trthe^^ or other work of art or the service which he has done the people win State, making them his judges ^ when he is not obliged, the thdr'^taltes so-called necessity of Diomede will oblige him to produce and win whatever they praise.

And yet the reasons are utterly ^"j^at^pkases ludicrous which they give in confirmation of their own them, notions about the honourable and good. Did you ever hear any of them which were not? No, nor am I likely to hear. You recognise the truth of what I have been saying? Then * Putting a comma after rwv dvayKaluv.

let me ask you to consider further whether the world will ever be induced to believe in the existence of absolute beauty rather than of the many beautiful, or of the absolute in each 494 kind rather than of the many in each kind? Certainly not. Then the world cannot possibly be a philosopher? Impossible. And therefore philosophers must inevitably fall under the censure of the world? They must.

And of individuals who consort with the mob and seek to please them? That is evident. Then, do you see any way in which the philosopher can be preserved in his calling to the end? and remember what we were saying of him, that he was to have quickness and memory and courage and magnificence — these were admitted by us to be the true philosopher's gifts. Yes.

Will not such an one from his early childhood be in all things first among all, especially if his bodily endowments are hke his mental ones? Certainly, he said. And his friends and fellow-citizens will want to use him as he gets older for their own purposes? No question. Falling at his feet, they will make requests to him and do him honour and flatter him, because they want to get into their hands now, the power which he will one day possess.

That often happens, he said. And what will a man such as he is be likely to do under such circumstances, especially if he be a citizen of a great city, rich and noble, and a tall proper youth? Will he not be full of boundless aspirations, and fancy himself able to manage the affairs of Hellenes and of barbarians, and having got such notions into his head will he not dilate and elevate himself in the fulness of vain pomp and senseless pride?

To be sure he will. Now, when he is in this state of mind, if some one gently comes to him and tells him that he is a fool and must get

understanding, which can only be got by slaving for it, do you think that, under such adverse circumstances, he will be easily induced to listen? Far otherwise.

And even if there be some one who through inherent goodness or natural reasonableness has had his eyes opened a httle and is humbled and taken captive by philosophy, how will his friends behave when they think that they are likely to lose the advantage which they were hoping to reap from his companionship?

Will they not do and say anything to prevent him from yielding to his better nature and to render his teacher powerless, using to this end private intrigues as well as public prosecutions? There can be no doubt of it. And how can one who is thus circumstanced ever become a philosopher? Impossible.

Then were we not right in saying that even the very qualities which make a man a philosopher may, if he be illeducated, divert him from philosophy, no less than riches and their accompaniments and the other so-called goods of life? We were quite right.

Thus, my excellent friend, is brought about all that ruin and failure which I have been describing of the natures best adapted to the best of all pursuits ; they are natures which we maintain to be rare at any time ; this being the class out of which come the men who are the authors of the greatest evil to States and individuals ; and also of the greatest good when the tide carries them in that direction ; but a small man never was the doer of any great thing either to individuals or to States.

That is most true, he said.

And so philosophy is left desolate, with her marriage rite incomplete : for her own have fallen away and forsaken her, and while they are leading a false and unbecoming life, other unworthy persons, seeing that she has no kinsmen to be her protectors, enter in and dishonour her ; and fasten upon her the reproaches which, as you say, her reprovers utter, who affirm of her votaries that some are good for nothing, and that the greater number deserve the severest punishment. VOL. III. — 28

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus. reason, will be easily drawn away from philosophy.

The very qualities which make a man a philosopher may also divert him from philosophy.

Great natures alone are capable, either of great good, or great evil.

194

PhilosopJiy in her low estate.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus. The attractiveness of philosophy to the vulgar.

The tnesaliiance of philosophy.

Few are the worthy disciples:

That is certainly what people say. Yes ; and what else would you expect, I said, when you think of the puny creatures who, seeing this land open to them — a land well stocked with fair names and showy titles — like prisoners running out of prison into a sanctuary, take a leap out of their trades into philosophy ; those who do so being probably the cleverest hands at their own miserable crafts?

For, although philosophy be in this evil case, still there remains a dignity about her which is not to be found in the arts. And many are thus attracted by her whose natures are imperfect and whose souls are maimed and disfigured by their meannesses, as their bodies are by their trades and crafts. Is not this unavoidable? Yes.

Are they not exactly like a bald little tinker who has just got out of durance and come into a fortune ; he takes a bath and puts on a new coat, and is decked out as a bridegroom going to marry his master's daughter, who is left poor and desolate ? A most exact parallel. What will be the issue of such marriages? Will they not be vile and bastard? There can be no question of it.

And when persons who are unworthy of education approach philosophy and make an alliance with her who is in a rank above them, what sort of ideas and opinions are likely to be generated? ^ Will they not be sophisms captivating to the ear ', having nothing in them genuine, or worthy of or akin to true wisdom? No doubt, he said.

' Then, Adeimantus, I said, the worthy disciples of philosophy will be but a small remnant : perchance some noble and welleducated person, detained by exile in her service, who in the absence of corrupting influences remains devoted to her ; or some lofty soul born in a mean city, the politics of which he contemns and neglects ; and there may be a gifted few who leave the arts, which they justly despise, and come to her; — or peradventure there are some who are restrained by our friend Theages' bridle ; for everything in the life of Theages * Or ' will they not deserve to be called sophisms,' ....

conspired to divert him from philosophy ; but ill-health kept him away from politics. My own case of the internal sign is hardly worth mentioning, for rarely, if ever, has such a monitor been given to any other man.

Those who belong to this small class have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and have also seen enough of the madness of the multitude ; and they know that no politician is honest, nor is there any champion of justice at whose side they may fight and be saved.

Such an one may be compared to a man who has fallen among wild beasts — he will not join in the wickedness of his fellows, but neither is he able singly to resist all their fierce natures, and therefore seeing that he would be of no use to the State or to his friends, and reflecting that he would have to throw away his hfe without doing any good either to himself or others, he holds his peace, and goes his own way.

He is like one who, in the storm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along, retires under the shelter of a wall ; and seeing the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he is content, if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil or unrighteousness, and depart in peace and good-will, with bright hopes. Yes, he said, and he will have done a great work before he departs.

A great work — yes ; but not the greatest, unless he find a State suitable to him ; for in a State which is suitable to him, he will have a larger growth and be the saviour of his country, as well as of himself. The causes why philosophy is in such an evil name have now been sufficiently explained : the injustice of the charges against her has been shown — is there anything more which you wish to say?

Nothing more on that subject, he replied ; but I should like to know which of the governments now existing is in your opinion the one adapted to her.

Not any of them, I said ; and that is precisely the accusation which I bring against them — not one of them is worthy of the philosophic nature, "and hence that nature is warped and estranged; — as the exotic seed which is sown in a foreign land becomes denaturalized, and is wont to be overpowered and to lose itself in the new soil, even so this growth

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

and these are unable to resist the madness of the world ;

they therefore in order to escape the storm take shelter behmd a wall and live their own life.

No existing State suited to philosophy.

196

How philosophy is and how it ought to be studied.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Even our own State requires the addition of the hving authority.

The superficial study of philosophy which exists in the present day.

of philosophy, instead of persisting, degenerates and receives another character.

But if philosophy ever finds in the State that perfection which she herself is, then will be seen that she is in truth divine, and that all other things, whether natures of men or institutions, are but human; — and now, I know, that you are going to ask, What that State is : No, he said ; there you are wrong, for I was going to ask another question — whether it is the State of which we are the founders and inventors, or some other?

Yes, I replied, ours in most respects ; but you may remember my saying before, that some living authority would always be required in the State having the same idea of the constitution which guided you when as legislator you were laying down the laws. That was said, he replied.

Yes, but not in a satisfactory manner ; you frightened us by interposing objections, which certainly showed that the discussion would be long and difficult ; and what still remains is the reverse of easy. What is there remaining? The question how the study of philosophy may be so ordered as not to be the ruin of the State : All great attempts are attended with risk ; ' hard is the good,' as men say.

Still, he said, let the point be cleared up, and the enquiry will then be complete. I shall not be hindered, I said, by any want of will, but, if at all, by a want of power : my zeal you may see for yourselves ; and please to remark in what I am about to say how boldly and unhesitatingly I declare that States should pursue philosophy, not as they do now, but in a different spirit. In what manner?

At present, I said, the students of philosophy are quite 498 young ; beginning when they are hardly past childhood, they devote only the time saved from moneymaking and housekeeping to such pursuits ; and even those of them who are reputed to have most of the philosophic spirit, when they come within sight of the great difficulty of the subject, I mean dialectic, take themselves off.

In after life when invited by some one else, they may, perhaps, go and hear a lecture, and about this they make much ado, for philosophy is not considered

by them to be their proper business : at last, when they grow old, in most cases they are extinguished more truly than Heracleitus' sun, inasmuch as they never light up again '. But what ought to be their course? Just the opposite.

In childhood and youth their study, and what philosophy they learn, should be suited to their tender years : during this period while they are growing up towards manhood, the chief and special care should be given to their bodies that they may have them to use in the service of philosophy ; as life advances and the intellect begins to mature, let them increase the gymnastics of the soul ; but when the strength of our citizens fails and is past civil and military duties, then let them range at will and engage in no serious labour, as we intend them to live happily here, and to crown this life with a similar happiness in another.

How truly in earnest you are, Socrates! he said; I am sure of that ; and yet most of your hearers, if I am not mistaken, are likely to be still more earnest in their opposition to you, and will never be convinced; Thrasymachus least of all.

Do not make a quarrel, I said, between Thrasymachus and me, who have recently become friends, although, indeed, we were never enemies ; for I shall go on striving to the utmost until I either convert him and other men, or do something which may profit them against the day when they live again, and hold the like discourse in another state of existence. You are speaking of a time which is not very near.

Rather, I repHed, of a time which is as nothing in comparison with eternity. Nevertheless, I do not wonder that the many refuse to believe ; for they have never seen that of which we are now speaking realized ; they have seen only a conventional imitation of philosophy, consisting of words artificially brought together, not like these of ours having a natural unity.

But a human being who in word and work is perfectly moulded, as far as he can be, into the proportion and likeness of virtue — such a man ruling in a city which 499 bears the same image, they have never yet seen, neither one nor many of them — do you think that they ever did? ^ Heracleitus said that the sun was extinguished every evening and relighted every morning.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Thrasymachus once more.

The people hate philosophy because they have only known bad and conventional imitations of it.

198

The better tnind of the world.

RepuHic VI. Socrates, aueimantus.

Somewhere, at some time, there may have been or may be a philosopher who is also the ruler of a State.

No indeed. No, my friend, and they have seldom, if ever, heard free and noble sentiments ; such as men utter when they are earnestly and by every means in their power seeking after truth for the sake of knowledge, while they look coldly on the subtleties of controversy, of which the end is opinion and strife, whether they meet with them in the courts of law or in society. They are strangers, he said, to the words of which you speak.

And this was what we foresaw, and this was the reason why truth forced us to admit, not without fear and hesitation, that neither cities nor States nor individuals will ever attain perfection until the small class of philosophers w^hom we termed useless but not corrupt are providentially compelled, whether they will or not, to take care of the State, and until a like necessity be laid on the State to obey them ^ ; or until kings, or if not kings, the sons of kings or princes, are divinely inspired with a true love of true philosophy.

That either or both of these alternatives are impossible, I see no reason to affirm : if they were so, we might indeed be justly ridiculed as dreamers and visionaries. Am I not right? Quite right.

If then, in the countless ages of the past, or at the present hour in some foreign clime which is far away and beyond our ken, the perfected philosopher is or has been or hereafter shall be compelled by a superior power to have the charge of the State, we are ready to assert to the death, that this our constitution has been, and is — yea, and will be whenever the Muse of Philosophy is queen.

There is no impossibility in all this ; that there is a difficulty, we acknowledge ourselves. My opinion agrees with yours, he said. But do you mean to say that this is not the opinion of the multitude? I should imagine not, he replied. O my friend, I said, do not attack the multitude : they will change their minds, if, not in an aggressive spirit, but gently

and with the view of soothing them and removing their dishke of over-education, you show them your philosophers as they really are and describe as you were just now doing 500 their character and profession, and then mankind will see that he of whom you are speaking is not such as they supposed — if they view him in this new light, they will surely change their notion of him, and answer in another strain ^ Who can be at enmity with one who loves them, who that is himself gentle and free from envy will be jealous of one in whom there is no jealousy? Nay, let me answer for you, that in a few this harsh temper may be found but not in the majority of mankind. I quite agree with you, he said. And do you not also think, as I do, that the harsh feeling which the many entertain towards philosophy originates in the pretenders, who rush in uninvited, and are always abusing them, and finding fault with them, who make persons instead of things the theme of their conversation? and nothing can be more unbecoming in philosophers than this. It is most unbecoming. For he, Adeimantus, whose mind is fixed upon true being, has surely no time to look down upon the affairs of earth, or to be filled with malice and envy, contending against men ; his eye is ever directed towards things fixed and immutable, which he sees neither injuring nor injured by one another, but all in order moving according to reason ; these he imitates, and to these he will, as far as he can, conform himself. Can a man help imitating that with which he holds reverential converse? Impossible. And the philosopher holding converse with the divine order, becomes orderly and divine, as far as the nature of man allows ; but like every one else, he will suffer from detraction. Of course.

Republic VI. sockates, Adeimantus.

The feeling against philosophy is is really a feeling against pretended philosophers who are always talking about persons.

The true philosopher, who has his eye fixed upon immutable principles, will fashion States after the heavenly image.

' Reading ^ koI eav ovtu deuvTm without a question, and alloiav toi : or, retaining the question and taking a/Aoiav 66^av in a new sense : ' Do you mean to say really that, viewing him in this light, they will be of another mind from yours, and answer in another strain?'

200

The form ajid likeness of God.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

He will begin with a ' tabula rasa* and there inscribe his laws.

And if a necessity be laid upon him of fashioning, not only himself, but human nature generally, whether in States or individuals, into that which he beholds elsewhere, will he, think you, be an unskilful artificer of justice, temperance, and every civil virtue? Anything but unskilful. And if the world perceives that what we are saying about him is the truth, will they be angry with philosophy?

Will they disbelieve us, when we tell them that no State can be happy which is not designed by artists who imitate the heavenly pattern? They will not be angry if they understand, he said. But how will they draw out the plan of which you are speaking? 501 They will begin by taking the State and the manners of men, from which, as from a tablet, they will rub out the picture, and leave a clean surface. This is no easy task.

But whether easy or not, herein will lie the difference between them and every other legislator, — they will have nothing to do either with individual or State, and will inscribe no laws, until they have either found, or themselves made, a clean surface. They will be very right, he said. Having effected this, they will proceed to trace an outline of the constitution? No doubt.

And when they are filling in the work, as I conceive, they will often turn their eyes upwards and downwards : I mean that they will first look at absolute justice and beauty and temperance, and again at the human copy ; and will mingle and temper the various elements of life into the image of a man ; and this they will conceive according to that other image, which, when existing among men. Homer calls the form and Hkeness of God.

Very true, he said. And one feature they will erase, and another they will put in, until they have made the ways of men, as far as possible, agreeable to the ways of God? Indeed, he said, in no way could they make a fairer picture. And now, I said, are we beginning to persuade those whom

you described as rushing at us with might and main, that the painter of constitutions is such an one as we were praising ; at whom they were so very indignant because to his hands we committed the State ; and are they growing a little calmer at what they have just heard? Much calmer, if there is any sense in them. Why, where can they still find any ground for objection? Will they doubt that the philosopher is a lover of truth and being?

They would not be so unreasonable. Or that his nature, being such as we have delineated, is akin to the highest good? Neither can they doubt this. But again, will they tell us that such a nature, placed under favorable circumstances, will not be perfectly good and wise if any ever was? Or will they prefer those whom we have rejected? Surely not.

Then will they still be angry at our saying, that, until philosophers bear rule, States and individuals will have no rest from evil, nor will this our imaginary State ever be realized? I think that they will be less angry. Shall we assume that they are not only less angry but 502 quite gentle, and that they have been converted and for very shame, if for no other reason, cannot refuse to come to terms? By all means, he said.

Then let us suppose that the reconciliation has been effected. Will any one deny the other point, that there may be sons of kings or princes who are by nature philosophers? Surely no man, he said.

And when they have come into being will any one say that they must of necessity be destroyed ; that they can hardly be saved is not denied even by us ; but that in the whole course of ages no single one of them can escape — who will venture to affirm this? Who indeed! But, said I, one is enough; let there be one man who has a city obedient to his will, and he might bring into existence the ideal pohty about which the world is so incredulous. Yes, one is enough.

Rep7iblic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus. The enemies of philosophy, when they hear the truth, are gradually propitiated,

and at length become quite gentle.

There may have been one son of a king a philosopher who has remained uncorrupted and has a State obedient to his will.

202

The secofid educatioii, lasting through life.

Republic VI. socratks, Adeimantus.

Our constitution then is not unattainable.

Recapitulation.

The ruler may impose the laws and institutions which we have been describing, and the citizens may possibly be willing to obey them? Certainly. And that others should approve, of what we approve, is no miracle or impossibility? I think not. But we have sufficiently shown, in what has preceded, that all this, if only possible, is assuredly for the best. We have.

And now we say not only that our laws, if they could be enacted, would be for the best, but also that the enactment of them, though difficult, is not impossible. Very good. And so with pain and toil we have reached the end of one subject, but more remains to be discussed; — how and by what studies and pursuits will the saviours of the constitution be created, 'and at what ages are they to apply themselves to their several studies? Certainly.

I omitted the troublesome business of the possession of women, and the procreation of children, and the appointment of the rulers, because I knew that the perfect State would be eyed with jealousy and was difficult of attainment ; but that piece of cleverness was not of much service to me, for I had to discuss them all the same.

The women and children are now disposed of, but the other question of the rulers must be investigated from the very beginning.

We were saying, as you will remember, that they were to be lovers of their country, tried by the test of pleasures and pains, and neither 503 in hardships, nor in dangers, nor at any other critical moment were to lose their patriotism — he was to be rejected who failed, but he who always came forth pure, hke gold tried in the refiner's fire, was to be made a ruler, and to receive honours and rewards in life and after death.

This was the sort of thing which was being said, and then the argument turned aside and veiled her face ; not liking to stir the question which has now arisen. I perfectly remember, he said. Yes, my friend, I said, and I then shrank from hazarding

The tratntJig of the rulers. 203 the bold word ; but now let me dare to say — that the perfect Republic vi. guardian must be a philosopher. Socrates, Yes, he said, let that be affirmed. Ade.mantus. And do not suppose that there will be many of them ; for '^^^ guardian ^ * ■' ^ must be a the gifts which were deemed by us to be essential rarely philosopher, crow together ; they are mostly found in shreds and patches.

"^^^ ^ phiiosoo o -^ •' ^ pher must be What do you mean? he said. a person of You are aware, I replied, that quick intelligence, memory, ''^'^^ ^'^^^ s'agacity, cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow Thecontrast together, and that persons who possess them and are at and solid temthe same time high-spirited and magnanimous are not so p^'^'"^"^^- constituted by nature as to live orderly and in a peaceful and settled manner ; they are driven any way by their impulses, and ail solid principle goes out of them.

Very true, he said. On the other hand, those steadfast natures which can better be depended upon, which in a battle are impregnable to fear and immovable, are equally immovable when there is anything to be learned ; they are always in a torpid state, and are apt to yawn and go to sleep over any intellectual toil. Quite true.

And yet we were saying that both qualities were necessary They must in those to whom the higher education is to be imparted, and ^ ""' ^ • who are to share in any office or command. Certainly, he said. And will they be a class which is rarely found? Yes, indeed.

Then the aspirant must not only be tested in those labours He who is to and dancrers and pleasures which we mentioned before, but ^^•^j^°'"- '-' ^ ' mand must there is another kind of probation which we did not mention be tested in — he must be exercised also in many kinds of knowledge, to ^f^knoJiedgc see whether the soul will be able to endure the highest of all, 504 or will faint under them, as in any other studies and exercises.

Yes, he said, you are quite right in testing him. But what do you mean by the highest of all knowledge? You may remember, I said, that we divided the soul into three parts ; and distinguished the several natures of justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom? Indeed, he said, if I had forgotten, I should not deserve to hear more.

204

TJie longer road.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus. The shorter exposition of education, which has been already given, inadequate.

The guardian must take the longer road of the higher learning,

And do you remember the word of caution which preceded the discussion of them^? To what do you refer? We were saying, if I am not mistaken, that he who wanted to see them in their perfect beauty must take a longer and more circuitous way, at the end of which they would appear ; but that we could add on a popular exposition of them on a level with the discussion which had preceded.

And you replied that such an exposition would be enough for you, and so the enquiry was continued in what to me seemed to be a very inaccurate manner ; whether you were satisfied or not, it is for you to say. Yes, he said, I thought and the others thought that you gave us a fair measure of truth.

But, my friend, I said, a measure of such things which in any degree falls short of the whole truth is not fair measure ; for nothing imperfect is the measure of anything, although persons are too apt to be contented and think that they need search no further. Not an uncommon case when people are indolent. Yes, I said ; and there cannot be any worse fault in a guardian of the State and of the laws. True.

The guardian then, I said, must be required to take the longer circuit, and toil at learning as well as at gymnastics, or he will never reach the highest knowledge of all whichj as we were just now saying, is his proper calling. What, he said, is there a knowledge still higher than this — higher than justice and the other virtues? Yes, I said, there is.

And of the virtues too we must behold not the outline merely, as at present — nothing short of the most finished picture should satisfy us. When little things are elaborated with an infinity of pains, in order that they may appear in their full beauty and utmost clearness, how ridiculous that we should not think the highest truths worthy of attaining the highest accuracy ! A right noble thought 2; but do you suppose that we » Cp. IV. 435 D.

'^ Or, separating koX fiala from a^iov, ' True, he said, and a noble thought ' : or a^iov to diavdrjfia may ])Q a gloss.

shall refrain from asking you what is this highest knowledge? Nay, I said, ask if you will ; but I am certain that you have heard the answer many times, and now you either do not understand me or, as I rather think, you are disposed to be 505 troublesome; for you have often been told that the idea of good is the highest knowledge, and that all other things become useful and advantageous only by their use of this.

You can hardly be ignorant that of this I was about to speak, concerning which, as you have often heard me say, we know so little ; and, without which, any other knowledge or possession of any kind will profit us nothing. Do you think that the possession of all other things is of any value if we do not possess the good? or the knowledge of all other things if we have no knowledge of beauty and goodness? Assuredly not.

You are further aware that most people affirm pleasure to be the good, but the finer sort of wits say it is knowledge? Yes. And you are aware too that the latter cannot explain what they mean by knowledge, but are obliged after all to say knowledge of the good? How ridiculous!

Yes, I said, that they should begin by reproaching us with our ignorance of the good, and then presume our knowledge of it — for the good they define to be knowledge of the good, just as if we understood them when they use the term ' good ' — this is of course ridiculous. Most true, he said. And those who make pleasure their good are in equal perplexity ; for they are compelled to admit that there are bad pleasures as well as good. Certainly.

And therefore to acknowledge that bad and good are the same? True. There can be no doubt about the numerous difficulties in which this question is involved. There can be none. Further, do we not see that many are willing to do or to

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantuswhich leads upwards at last to the idea of good.

But what is the good? Some say pleasure, others knowledge, which they absurdly explain to mean knowledge of the good.

206

The nature of good.

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Every man pursues the good, but without knowing the nature of it.

The guardian ought to know these things.

have or to seem to be what is just and honourable without the reahty ; but no one is satisfied ■ with the appearance of good — the reahty is what they seek ; in the case of the good, appearance is despised by every one. Very true, he said.

Of this then, which every soul of man pursues and makes the end of all his actions, having a presentiment that there is such an end, and yet hesitating because neither knowing the nature nor having the same assurance of this as of other things, and therefore losing whatever good there is in other things, — of a principle such and so great as this ought the best men in our State, to whom everything is entrusted, to be in the darkness of ignorance?

Certainly not, he said. I am sure, I said, that he who does not know how the beautiful and the just are likewise good will be but a sorry guardian of them ; and I suspect that no one who is ignorant of the good will have a true knowledge of them. That, he said, is a shrewd suspicion of yours. And if we only have a guardian who has this knowledge our State will be perfectly ordered?

Of course, he replied ; but I wish that you would tell me whether you conceive this supreme principle of the good to be knowledge or pleasure, or different from either? Aye, I said, I knew all along that a fastidious gentleman^ like you would not be contented with the thoughts of other people about these matters.

True, Socrates ; but I must say that one who like you has passed a lifetime in the study of philosophy should not be always repeating the opinions of others, and never telling his own. Well, but has any one a right to say positively what he does not know? Not, he said, with the assurance of positive certainty ; he has no right to do that : but he may say what he thinks, as a matter of opinion.

And do you not know, I said, that all mere opinions are bad, and the best of them blind? You would not deny that * Reading avrjp KaMg: or reading dv^p Ka2,ug, ' I quite well knew from the very fir.st, that you, &c.'

those who have any true notion without intelligence are only like blind men who feel their way along the road? Very true. And do you wish to behold what is l)lind and crooked and base, when others will tell you of brightness and beauty?

Still, I must implore you, Socrates, said Glaucon, not to turn away just as you are reaching the goal ; if you will only give such an explanation of the good as you have already given of justice and temperance and the other virtues, we shall be satisfied. Yes, my friend, and I shall be at least equally satisfied, but I cannot help fearing that I shall fail, and that my indiscreet zeal will bring ridicule upon me.

No, sweet sirs, let us not at present ask what is the actual nature of the good, for to reach what is now in my thoughts would be an effort too great for me. But of the child of the good who is likest him, 1 would fain speak, if I could be sure that you wished to hear — otherwise, not. By all means, he said, tell us about the child, and you shall remain in our debt for the account of the parent.

I do indeed wish, I replied, that I could pay, and you receive, the account of the parent, and not, as now, of the offspring only ; take, however, this latter by way of interest *, and at the same time have a care that I do not render a false account, although I have no intention of deceiving you. Yes, we will take all the care that we can : proceed.

Yes, I said, but I must first come to an understanding with you, and remind you of what I have mentioned in the course of this discussion, and at many other times. What? The old story, that there is a many beautiful and a many good, and so of other things which we describe and define ; to all of them the term ' many ' is applied. True, he said.

And there is an absolute beauty and an absolute good, and of other things to which the term * many ' is apphed there is an absolute ; for they may be brought under a single idea, which is called the essence of each. Very true. ^ A play upon ro/cof, which means both ' offspring' and ' interest.'

Republic VI. Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon.

We can only attain to the things of mind through the things of sense.

']"he 'child' of the good.

208

Sight, the eye, and the sun.

Reptibiic VI. Socrates, Glaucon.

Sight the most complex of the senses,

and, unlike the other senses, requires the addition of a third nature before it can be used. This third nature is light.

The many, as we say, are seen but not known, and the ideas are known but not seen. Exactly. And what is the organ with which we see the visible things? The sight, he said. And with the hearing, I said, we hear, and with the other senses perceive the other objects of sense? True. But have you remarked that sight is by far the most costly and complex piece of workmanship which the artificer of the senses ever contrived? No, I never have, he said.

Then reflect: has the ear or voice need of any third or additional nature in order that the one may be able to hear and the other to be heard? Nothing of the sort. No, indeed, I rephed ; and the same is true of most, if not all, the other senses — you would not say that any of them requires such an addition? Certainly not. But you see that without the addition of some other nature there is no seeing or being seen? How do you mean?

Sight being, as I conceive, in the eyes, and he who has eyes wanting to see ; colour being also present in them, still unless there be a third nature specially adapted to the purpose, the owner of the eyes will see nothing and the colours will be invisible. Of what nature are you speaking? Of that which you term light, I replied. True, he said.

Noble, then, is the bond which hnks together sight and 5*^^ visibility, and great beyond other bonds by no small difference of nature ; for light is their bond, and light is no ignoble thing? Nay, he said, the reverse of ignoble. And which, I said, of the gods in heaven would you say was the lord of this element? Whose is that light which makes the eye to see perfectly and the visible to appear?

The 'lord of light ' is the child of the good. 209 You mean the sun, as you and all mankind say. Republic vi. May not the relation of sight to this deity be described as Socrates, r^ll . .^ Glaucon. follows? How? Neither sight nor the eye in which sight resides is the sun? No. Yet of all the organs of sense the eye is the most like the The eye like P the sun, but not the same By far the most like. vvith it.

And the power which the eye possesses is a sort of effluence which is dispensed from the sun? Exactly. Then the sun is not sight, but the author of sight who is recognised by sight? True, he said.

And this is he whom I call the child of the good, whom the good begat in his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in relation to sight and the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual world in relation to mind and the things of mind : Will you be a little more explicit? he said.

Why, you know, I said, that the eyes, when a person directs them towards objects on which the light of day is no longer shining, but the moon and stars only, see dimly, and are nearly blind ; they seem to have no clearness of vision in them? Very true.

But when they are directed towards objects on which the visible objects sun shines, they see clearly and there is sight in them ? ^J^^ ^ whenTh" Certainly. sun shines And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on "n,°hi.soriy which truth and being shine, the soul perceives and under- known when , , . ,. .,.,,. , , J illuminated by Stands, and is radiant with mtelligence ; but when turned the idea of towards the twilight of becoming and perishing, then she e°°^ has opinion only, and goes blinking about, and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to have no intelligence?

Just so. Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowing to the knower is what I would have you term the VOL. III. — 29

210

The analogy of the visible and invisible.

Republic VI. Socrates, Glaucon. The idea of good higher than science or truth (the objective than the subjective).

As the sun is the cause of generation, so the good is the cause of being and essence.

idea of good, and this you will deem to be the cause of science ', and of truth in so far as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge ; beautiful too, as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming this other nature as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previous instance, light 5^9 and sight may be truly said to be hke the sun, and yet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truth may be deemed to be like the good, but not the good ; the good has a place of honour yet higher. What a wonder of beauty that must be, he said, which is the author of science and truth, and yet surpasses them in beauty ; for you surely cannot mean to say that pleasure is the good? God forbid, I replied ; but may I ask you to consider the image in another point of view? In what point of view? You would say, would you not, that the sun is not only the author of visibihty in all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth, though he himself is not generation ? Certainly. In hke manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledge to all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the good is not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power. Glaucon said, with a ludicrous earnestness : By the light of heaven, how amazing! Yes, I said, and the exaggeration may be set down to you , for you made me utter my fancies. And pray continue to utter them ; at any rate let us hear if there is anything more to be said about the similitude of the sun. Yes, I said, there is a great deal more. Then omit nothing, however slight. I will do my best, I said ; but I should think that a great deal will have to be omitted. I hope not, he said. You have to imagine, then, that there are two ruling

' Reading ^tavoov.

The subdivisions of them. 2 1 1 powers, and that one of them is set over the intellectual Republic vi. world, the other over the visible. I do not say heaven, lest Socrates, you should fancy that I am playing upon the name (ovpavog, Glaucon. dparog). May I suppose that you have this distinction of the visible and intelligible fixed in your mind? I have.

Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal ^ The two parts, and divide each of them again in the same proportion, JP ^^^nd and suppose the two main divisions to answer, one to the knowledge visible and the other to the inteUigible, and then compare sente^^ ^ -x the subdivisions in respect of their clearness and want of line which is clearness, and you will find that the first section in the t^^o unequal 5 1 o sphere of the visible consists of images.

And by images I parts, mean, in the first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections in water and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like: Do you understand? Yes, I understand. Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance, to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows or is made. Very good.

Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have different degrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphere of opinion is to the sphere of knowledge? Most undoubtedly. Next proceed to consider the manner in which the sphere of the intellectual is to be divided. In what manner?

Thus: — There are two subdivisions, in the lower of which images and the soul uses the figures given by the former division as ^^^'^^ ^^^^ . images ; the enquiry can only be hypothetical, and instead of going upwards to a principle descends to the other end ; in the higher of the two, the soul passes out of hypotheses, and goes up to a principle which is above hypotheses, making no ;use of images ^ as in the former case, but proceeding only in and through the ideas themselves. I do not quite understand your meaning, he said. ' Reading aviaa. * Reading uvnep eKeivo e'lKdvuif.

212

The use of hypotJieses in either division.

Republic VI. Socrates, Glaucon. The hypotheses of mathematics.

In both spheres hypotheses are used, in the lower taking the form of images, but in the higher the soul ascends above hypotheses to the idea of good.

Dialectic by the help of hypotheses rises above hypotheses. .

Then I will try again ; you will understand me better when I have made some prehminary remarks.

You are aware that students of geometry, arithmetic, and the kindred sciences assume the odd and the even and the figures and three kinds of angles and the like in their several branches of science ; these are their hypotheses, which they and everybody are supposed to know, and therefore they do not deign to give any account of them either to themselves or others ; but they begin with them, and go on until they arrive at last, and in a consistent manner, at their conclusion?

Yes, he said, I know.

And do you not know also that although they make lise of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble ; not of the figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on — the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind?

That is true. And of this kind I spoke as the intelligible, although in the search after it the soul is compelled to use hypotheses ; not ascending to a first principle, because she is unable to rise above the region of hypothesis, but employing the objects of which the shadows below are resemblances in their turn as images, they having in relation to the shadows and reflections of them a greater distinctness, and therefore a higher value.

I understand, he said, that you are speaking of the province of geometry and the sister arts.

And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you will understand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as hypotheses — that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole ; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by successive steps she descends again without the aid of

511

TJic four faculties.

213

any sensible object, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends. I understand you, he replied ; not perfectly, for you seem to me to be describing a task which is really tremendous ; but, at any rate, I understand you to say that knowledge and being, which the science of dialectic contemplates, are clearer than the notions of the arts, as they are termed, which proceed from hypotheses only : these are also contemplated by the understanding, and not by the senses : yet, because they start from hypotheses and do not ascend to a principle, those who contemplate them appear to you not to exercise the higher reason upon them, although when a first principle is added to them they are cognizable by the higher reason. And the habit which is concerned with geometry and the cognate sciences I suppose that you would term understanding and not reason, as being intermediate between opinion and reason. You have quite conceived my meaning, I said ; and now, corresponding to these four divisions, let there be four faculties in the soul — reason answering to the highest, understanding to the second, faith (or conviction) to the third, and perception of shadows to the last — and let there be a scale of them, and let us suppose that the several faculties have clearness in the same degree that their objects have truth. I understand, he replied, and give my assent, and accept your arrangement.

Republic VI. Socrates, Glaucon.

Return to psychology.

Four faculties : Reason, understanding, faith, perception of shadows.

BOOK VII.

Republic VII. >OCRATES, Jlaucon. ['he den, the (risoners : the ight at a listance ;

he low wall, md the noving igures of vhich the hadows are een on the •pposite wall >f the den.

And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far oursteph. nature is enlightened or unenlightened: — Behold! human 5^4 beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den ; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way ; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. I see. And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear 515 over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Like ourselves, I replied ; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? True, he said ; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows? Yes, he said. And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them 1? ^ Reading TrapdvTa,

The world of shadows and of realities.

215

Very true. And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? No question, he rephed. To them, I said, the truth would be Hterally nothing but the shadows of the images. That is certain.

And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error.

At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains ; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the reahties of which in his former state he had seen the shadows ; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, — what will be his reply?

And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, — will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him? Far truer.

And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him? True, he said.

And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be 516 pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities. Not all in a moment, he said. He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. The prisoners would mistake the shadows for realities.

And when released, they would still persist in maintaining the superior truth of the shadows.

When dragged upwards, they would be dazzled by excess of light.

2l6

The prisoners return out of the light into tJie den.

Repjiblic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

At length they will see the sun and understand his nature.

They would then pity their old companions of the den.

upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves ; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven ; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day? Certainly. Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another ; and he will contemplate him as he is. Certainly. He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold? Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him. And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would fehcitate himself on the change, and pity them? Certainly, he would. And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together ; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honours and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, ' Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,'

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and hve after their manner? Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner. Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly

TJie interpretation of t/ie parable. 2 i 7 out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation ; would he Republic \'ii. not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness? Socrates, To be sure, he said. ^'^^"°^- And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in ^"'^^^^ ^ they returned measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never to the den c 1 7 moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and '^^^ ^'""^^ J I 7 o 7 see much before his eyes had become steady (and the time which worse than . would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be 1^"^^=^^° ^ 00 had never very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would left it. say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes ; and that it was better not even to think of ascending ; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the Hght, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. No question, he said. This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear The prison

is the world

Glaucon, to the previous argument ; the prison-house is the ^^. world of sight, the Hght of the fire is the sun, and you will light of the not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards ^^^^^ ^^""' to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor bdief, which, at your desire, I have expressed — whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that yn the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with ah effort ; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author^ of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the •. immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual ; \ and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you. Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs ; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell ; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted. Yes, very natural. And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving

2l8

'The light of the body is the eye'

Republic VII. Socrates, CIlaucon. Nothing extraordinary in the philosopher being unable to see in the dark. The eyes may be blinded in two ways, by excess or by defect of light.

The conversion of the soul is the turning round the eye from darkness to light.

himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice? Anything but surprising, he replied.

Any one who has common sense will remember that the 51H bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the hght or from going into the hght, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye ; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh ; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light.

And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other ; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this* than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the hght into the den. That, he said, is a very just distinction.

But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, Hke sight into blind eyes. They undoubtedly say this, he repHed.

Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already ; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.

Very true. And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and quickest manner ; not implanting

the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from' the truth? Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.

And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the virtue of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable ; or, on the other 5 1 9 hand, hurtful and useless.

Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue — how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end ; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eye-sight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness? Very true, he said.

But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their youth ; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below — if, I say, they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes are tiu^ned to now.

Very likely.

Yes, I said ; and there is another thing which is likely, or rather a necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of State : not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all their actions, private as well as public ; nor the latter, because they will not act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of the blest.

V>ry true, he rephed. Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. The virtue of wisdom has a divine power which may be turned either towards good or towards evil.

Neither the uneducated nor the overeducated will be good servants of the State.

220

The children of light will descend

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

Men should ascend to the upper world, but they should also return to the lower.

The dutier of philosophers.

Their obligations to their country will induce them to take part in her government.

knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all — they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good ; but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now. What do you mean?

I mean that they remain in the upper world : but this must not be allowed ; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners i"n the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not. But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse hfe, when they might have a better?

You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest ; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another ; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State.

True, he said, I had forgotten. Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others ; we shall explain to them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics : and this is reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not have them.

Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to share in the double duty.

Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State, which is also yours, will be a reality, and not a dream

and give light to the inJiabitants of the den. 221 only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other Republic vii. States, in which men fight with one another about shadows Socrates, only and are distracted in the struggle for power, which in ^^^^^n. their eyes is a great good.

Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst. Quite true, he replied. And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in the heavenly light?

Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the They win be commands which we impose upon them are iust ; there can ^'"'"^but >■ f^ J ' not anxious be no doubt that every one of them will take office as a stern to rule, necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State. Yes, my friend, I said ; and there Hes the point.

' You The states- 2 1 must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life '"^"/^"f^b^ ■' provided with than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered a better ufe State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule ^^^f^^^at^fa J ' ■' ruler; and who are truly rich, not in silver and gold, but in virtue and then he win wisdom, which are the true blessings of life.

Whereas if "^^6°^^^ they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and • hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be ; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State. Most true, he replied.

And the only life which looks down upon the life of pohtical ambition is that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other? Indeed, I do not, he said. And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the ,/ task? For, if they are, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight. No question. Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will be the men wh(; are wisest about affairs of

222

The first and second education.

Republic Vfl. Socrates, Glaucon.

The training of the guardians.

What knowledge will draw the soul upwards ?

Recapitulation. The first education had two parts, music and gymnastic.

State, and by whom the State is best administered, and who at the same time have other honours and another and a better life than that of pohtics? They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied. And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and how they are to be brought from darkness to light, — as some are said to have ascended from the world below to the gods? By all means, he rephed. The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oystershell ', but the turning round of a soul passing from a day which is httle better than night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below 2, which we afhrm to be true philosophy ? Quite so. And should we not enquire what sort of knowledge has the power of effecting such a change? Certainly. What sort of knowledge is there which would draw the soul from becoming to being? And another consideration has just occuiTed to me : You will remember that our young men are to be warrior athletes? Yes, that was said. Then this new kind of knowledge must have an additional quality ? What quality? Usefulness in war. Yes, if possible. There were two parts in our former scheme of education, were there not? Just so. There was gymnastic which presided over the growth and decay of the body, and may therefore be regarded as having to do with generation and corruption? True. Then that is not the knowledge which we are seeking to discover?

522

Palamedes in the play. 223 No. Republic III. But what do you say of music, what also entered to a Socrates, certain extent into our former scheme? glaucon.

Music, he said, as you will remember, was the counterpart of gymnastic, and trained the guardians by the influences of habit, by harmony making them harmonious, by rhythm rhythmical, but not giving them science ; and the words, whether fabulous or possibly true, had kindred elements of rhythm and harmony in them. But in music there was nothing which tended to that good which you are now seeking.

You are most accurate, I said, in your recollection ; in music there certainly was nothing of the kind. But what branch of knowledge is there, my dear Glaucon, which is of the desired nature ; since all the useful arts were reckoned mean by us? Undoubtedly ; and yet if music and gymnastic are excluded, and the arts are also excluded, what remains?

Well, I said, there may be nothing left of our special subjects ; and then we shall have to take something which is not special, but of universal application. What may that be? A something which all arts and sciences and intelligences There remains use in common, and which every one first has to learn among g^'^Licadon °" the elements of education. arithmetic- What is that?

The little matter of distinguishing one, two, and three — in a word, number and calculation : — do not all arts and sciences necessarily partake of them? Yes. , Then the art of war partakes of them? To be sure. Then Palamedes, whenever he appears in tragedy, proves Agamemnon ridiculously unfit to be a general.

Did you never remark how he declares that he had invented number, and had numbered the ships and set in array the ranks of the army at Troy ; which implies that they had never been numbered before, and Agamemnon must be supposed literally to have been incapable of counting his own feet — how could he if he was ignorant of number? And if that is true, what sort of general must he have been?

Republic VII. I should say a very strange one, if this was as you Socrates, Say. Glaucon. q^^ ^g deny that a warrior should have a knowledge of arithmetic? Certainly he should, if he is to have the smallest understanding of military tactics, or indeed, I should rather say, if he is to be a man at all. I should like to know whether you have the same notion which I have of this study? What is your notion?

It appears to me to be a study of the kind which we are seeking, and which leads naturally to reflection, but never to have been rightly used ; for the true use of it is simply to draw the soul towards being. Will you explain your meaning? he said.

I will try, I said ; and I wish you would share the enquiry with me, and say * yes ' or ' no ' when I attempt to distinguish in my own mind what branches of knowledge have this attracting power, in order that we may have clearer proof that arithmetic is, as I suspect, one of them. Explain, he said.

I mean to say that objects of sense are of two kinds ; some of them do not invite thought because the sense is an adequate judge of them ; while in the case of other objects sense is so untrustworthy that further enquiry is imperatively demanded. You are clearly referring, he said, to the manner in which the senses are imposed upon by distance, and by painting in light and shade. No, I said, that is not at all my meaning.

Then what is your meaning? When speaking of uninviting objects, I mean those which do not pass from one sensation to the opposite ; inviting objects are those which do ; in this latter case the sense coming upon the object,, whether at a distance or near, gives no more vivid idea of anything in particular than of its opposite.

An illustration will make my meaning clearer : — here are three fingers — a little finger, a second finger, and a middle finger. Very good.

You may suppose that they are seen quite close comes the point. What is it? Each of them equally appears a finger, whether seen in the middle or at the extremity, whether white or black, or thick or thin — it makes no difference ; a finger is a finger all the same. In these cases a man is not compelled to ask of thought the question what is a finger? for the sight never intimates to the mind that a finger is other than a finger. True.

And therefore, I said, as we might expect, there is nothing here which invites or excites intelligence. There is not, he said. But is this equally true of the greatness and smallness of the fingers? Can sight adequately perceive them? and is no difference made by the circumstance that one of the fingers is in the middle and another at the extremity?

And in like manner does the touch adequately perceive the qualities of thickness or thinness, of softness or hardness? And so of the other senses ; do they give perfect intimations of such 524 matters? Is not their mode of operation on this wise — the sense which is concerned with the quality of hardness is necessarily concerned also with the quality of softness, and only intimates to the soul that the same thing is felt to be both hard and soft?

You are quite right, he said. And must not the soul be perplexed at this intimation which the sense gives of a hard which is also soft? AVhat, again, is the meaning of light and heavy, if that which is light is also heavy, and that which is heavy, hght? Yes, he said, these intimations which the soul receives are very curious and require to be explained.

Yes, I said, and in these perplexities the soul naturally summons to her aid calculation and intelligence, that she may see whether the several objects announced to her are one or two. True. And if they turn out to be two, is not each of them one and different? Certainly. VOL. III. — 30

And here Republic ///.

Socrates, Glalcon. No difficulty in simple perception.

But the same senses at the same time give different impressions which are at first indistinct and have to be distinguished by the mind.

The aid of numbers is invoked in order to remove the confusion.

226

The stimitlating power of oppositioit.

Republic VII. SOCKATES, (jLAUCON.

The chaos then begins to be defined.

The parting of the visible and intelligible.

Thought is aroused by the contradiction of the one and many.

And if each is one, and both are two, she will conceive the two as in a state of division, for if they were undivided they could only be conceived of as one? True. The eye certainly did see both small and great, but only in a confused manner ; they were not distinguished. Yes. Whereas the thinking mind, intending to light up the chaos, was compelled to reverse the process, and look at small and great as separate and not confused. Very true.

Was not this the beginning of the enquiry ' What is great? ' and ' What is small? ' Exactly so. And thus arose the distinction of the visible and the intelligible. Most true. This was what I meant when I spoke of impressions which invited the intellect, or the reverse — those which are simultaneous with opposite impressions, invite thought ; those which are not simultaneous do not. I understand, he said, and agree with you.

And to which class do unity and number belong? I do not know, he repHed.

Think a little and you will see that what has preceded will supply the answer ; for if simple unity could be adequately perceived by the sight or by any other sense, then, as we were saying in the case of the finger, there would be nothing to attract towards being ; but when there is some contradiction always present, and one is the reverse of one and involves the conception of pluraHty, then thought begins to be aroused within us, and the soul perplexed and wanting to arrive at a decision asks * WhaHs absolj^^^^ ' This is the way in which the study of the one has a power of drawing 525 and converting the mind to the contemplation of true being.

And surely, he said, this occurs notably in the case of one ; for we see the same thing to be both one and infinite in multitude? Yes, I said ; and this being true of one must be equally true of all number?

Certainly. And all arithmetic and calculation have to do with number? Yes. And they appear to lead the mind towards truth? Yes, in a very remarkable manner.

Then this is knowledge of the kind for which we are seeking, having a double use, military and philosophical ; for the man of war must learn the art of number or he will not know how to array his troops, and the philosopher also, because he has to rise out of the sea of change and lay hold of true being, and therefore he must be an arithmetician. That is true. And our guardian is both warrior and philosopher? Certainly.

Then this is a kind of knowledge which legislation may fitly prescribe ; and we must endeavour to persuade those who are to be the principal men of our State to go and learn arithmetic, not as amateurs, but they must carry on the study until they see the nature of numbers with the mind only ; nor again, like merchants or retail-traders, with a view to buying or selling, but for the sake of their military use, and of the soul herself ; and because this will be the easiest way for her to pass from becoming to truth and being.

That is excellent, he said. Yes, I said, and now having spoken of it, I must add how charming the science is! and in how many ways it conduces to our desired end, if pursued in the spirit of a philosopher, and not of a shopkeeper! How do you mean?

I mean, as I was saying, that arithmetic has a very great and elevating effect, compelling the soul to reason about abstract number, and rebelling against the introduction of visible or tangible objects into the argument.

You know how steadily the masters of the art repel and ridicule any one who attempts to divide absolute unity when he is calculating, and if you divide, they multiply 1, taking care that one shall continue one and not become lost in fractions.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

Arithmetic has a practical and also a philosophical use, the latter the higher.

The higher arithmetic is concerned, not with visible or tangible objects, but with abstract numbers. .

' Meaning either (i) that they integrate the number because they deny the possibility of fractions; or (2) that division is regarded by them as a process of multiplication, for the fractions of one continue to be units.

228

Order of Studies ^ i) Arithmetic, 2) Geometry.

Republic VII. sockates, Glaucon.

The arithmetician is naturally quick, and the study of arithmetic gives him still greater quickness.

Geometry has practical applications;

That is very true. Now, suppose a person were to say to them : O my friends, what are these wonderful numbers about which you are reasoning, in which, as you say, there is a unity such as you demand, and each unit is equal, invariable, indivisible, — what would they answer? "^ They would answer, as I should conceive, that they were speaking of those numbers which can only be realized in thought.

Then you see that this knowledge may be truly called necessary, necessitating as it clearly does the use of the pure intelligence in the attainment of pure truth? Yes ; that is a marked characteristic of it.

And have you further observed, that those who have a natural talent for calculation are generally quick at every other kind of knowledge ; and even the dull, if they have had an arithmetical training, although they may derive no other advantage from it, always become much quicker than they would otherwise have been. Very true, he said. And indeed, you will not easily find a more difficult study, and not many as difficult. You will not.

And, for all these reasons, arithmetic is a kind of knowledge in which the best natures should be trained, and which must not be given up. I agree. Let this then be made one of our subjects of education. And next, shall we enquire whether the kindred science also concerns us? You mean geometry? Exactly so.

Clearly, he said, we are concerned with that part of geometry which relates to war ; for in pitching a camp, or taking up a position, or closing or extending the lines of an army, or any other military manoeuvre, whether in actual battle or on a march, it will make all the difference whether a general is or is not a geometrician. Yes, I said, but for that purpose a very little of either geometry or calculation will be enough ; the question relates

rather to the greater and more advanced part of geometry — whether that tends in any degree to make more easy the vision of the idea of good ; and thither, as I was saying, all things tend which compel the soul to turn her gaze towards that place, where is the full perfection of being, which she ought, by all means, to behold. True, he said. Then if geometry compels us to view being, it concerns us ; if becoming only, it does not concern us?

527 Yes, that is what we assert. Yet anybody who has the least acquaintance with geometry will not deny that such a conception of the science is in flat contradiction to the ordinary language of geometricians. How so?

They have in view practice only, and are always speaking, in a narrow and ridiculous manner, of squaring and extending and applying and the like — they confuse the necessities of geometry with those of daily life ; whereas knowledge is ♦ the real object of the whole science. Certainly, he said. Then must not a further admission be made? What admission?

That the knowledge at which geometry aims is knowledge of the eternal, and not of aught perishing and transient. That, he replied, may be readily allowed, and is true. Then, my noble friend, geometry will draw the soul towards truth, and create the spirit of philosophy, and raise up that which is now unhappily allowed to fall down. Nothing will be more likely to have such an effect.

Then nothing should be more sternly laid down than that the inhabitants of your fair city should by all means learn geometry. Moreover the science has indirect effects, which are not small. Of what kind? he said. There are the military advantages of which you spoke, I said ; and in all departments of knowledge, as experience proves, any one who has studied geometry is infinitely quicker of apprehension than one who has not. Yes indeed, he said, there is an infinite difference between them.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. these however arc trifling in comparison with that greater part of the science which tends towards the good,

and is concerned with the eternal.

230

Solid geometry should precede 3) solids in motion.

Ke/>Hblic VII. sockates, Glaucon.

Astronomy, like the previous sciences, is at first praised by Glaucon for its practical uses.

Correction of the order.

Then shall we propose this as a second branch of knowledge which our youth will study? Let us do so, he replied. And suppose we make astronomy the third — what do you say? I am strongly inclined to it, he said ; the observation of the seasons and of months and years is as essential to the general as it is to the farmer or sailor.

I am amused, I said, at yoiu* fear of the world, which makes you guard against the appearance of insisting upon useless studies ; and I quite admit the difficulty of believing that in every man there is an eye of the soul which, when by other pursuits lost and dimmed, is by these purified and re-illumined ; and is more precious far than ten thousand bodily eyes, for by it alone is truth seen.

Now there are two classes of persons : one class of those who will agree with you and will take your words as a revelation ; another class to whom they will be utterly unmeaning, and who will naturally deem them to be idle tales, for they see no sort of profit which is to be obtained from them. And therefore you had better decide at once with which of the two you are proposing to argue.

You will very likely say with neither, and that your chief aim in carrying on the argument is your own improvement ; at the same time you do not grudge to others any benefit which they may receive. I think that I should prefer to carry on the argument mainly on my own behalf. Then take a step backward, for we have gone wrong in the order of the sciences. What was the mistake? he said.

After plane geometry, I said, we proceeded at once to sohds in revolution, instead of taking solids in themselves; whereas after the second dimension the third, which is concerned with cubes and dirnensions of depth, ought to have followed. That is true, Socrates ; but so little seems to be known as yet about these subjects.

Why, yes, I said, and for two reasons: — in the first place, no government patronises them ; this leads to a want of energy in the pursuit of them, and they are difficult ; in the

^ If the government would only take it up' 231 second place, students cannot learn them unless they have a Republic vii. director. But then a director can hardly be found, and even Socrates, if he could, as matters now stand, the students, who are very ^^•'^"^"o^- ' conceited, would not attend to him.

That, however, would The pmabie condition be Otherwise if the whole State became the director of these of solid studies and gave honour to them ; then disciples would want s^o"™^''^- to come, and there would be continuous and earnest search, and discoveries would be made ; since even now, disregarded as they are by the world, and maimed of their fair proportions, and although none of their votaries can tell the use of them, still these studies force their way by their natural charm, and very likely, if they had the help of the State, they would some day emerge into light.

Yes, he said, there is a remarkable charm in them. But I do not clearly understand the change in the order. First you began with a geometry of plane surfaces? Yes, I said. And you placed astronomy next, and then you made a step backward?

Yes, and I have delayed you by my hurry ; the ludicrous The motion state of sohd geometry, which, in natural order, should have °^^°''^^- followed, made me pass over this branch and go on to astronomy, or motion of solids. True, he said. Then assuming that the science now omitted would come into existence if encouraged by the State, let us go on to astronomy, which will be fourth. The right order, he replied.

And now, Socrates, as you Giaucon rebuked the vulgar manner in which I praised astronomy ^°Z^ . , " ^ J sentimental 529 before, my praise shall be given in your own spirit. For about every one, as I think, must see that astronomy compels ^^"■°"°'"> the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another. Every one but myself, I said ; to every one else this may be clear, but not to me. And what then would you say?

I should rather say that those who elevate astronomy into philosophy appear to me to make us look downwards and not upwards. What do you mean? he asked.

You, I replied, have in your mind a truly sublime conception of our knowledge of the things above. And I dare say that if a person were to throw his head back and study the fretted ceiling, you would still think that his mind was the percipient, and not his eyes.

And you are very likely right, and I may be a simpleton : but, in my opinion, that knowledge only which is of being and of the unseen can make the soul look upwards, and whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinks on the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I would deny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science ; his soul is looking downwards, not upwards, whether his way to knowledge is by water or by land, w^hether he floats, or only hes on his back.

I acknowledge, he said, the justice of your rebuke. Still, I should like to ascertain how astronomy can be learned in any manner more conducive to that knowledge of which we are speaking?

I will tell you, I said : The starry heaven which we behold is wrought upon a visible ground, and therefore, although the fairest and most perfect of visible things, must necessarily be deemed inferior far to the true motions of absolute swiftness and absolute slowness, which are relative to each other, and carry with them that which is contained in them, in the true number and in every true figure.

Now, these are to be apprehended by reason and intelHgence, but not by sight. True, he rephed.

The spangled heavens should be used as a pattern and with a view to that higher knowledge ; their beauty is like the beauty of figures or pictures excellently wrought by the hand of Daedalus, or some other great artist, which we may chance to behold ; any geometrician who saw them would appreciate the exquisiteness of their workmanship, but he would never dream of thinking that in them he could find the true equal or the true double, or the truth of any other proportion.

No, he replied, such an idea would be ridiculous. And will not a true astronomer have the same feeling when he looks at the movements of the stars? Will he not think that heaven and the things in heaven are framed by the

5) Harmonics, another form. 233 Creator of them in the most perfect manner?

Rut he will Republic vii. never imagine that the proportions of night and clay, or of Socrates, both to the month, or of the month to the year, or of the ^^^^'•^°nstars to these and to one another, and any other things that are material and visible can also be eternal and subject to no deviation — that would be absurd ; and it is e(iually absurd to take so much pains in investigating their exact truth.

I quite agree, though I never thought of this before. Then, I said, in astronomy, as in geometry, we should The real employ problems, and let the heavens alone if we would ^"trmionf^or approach the subject in the right way and so make the geometry is to natural gift of reason to be of any real use. the^?se of ^ That, he said, is a work infinitely beyond our present abstractions, astronomers.

Yes, I said ; and there are many other things which must also have a similar extension given to them, if our legislation is to be of any value. But can you tell me of any other suitable study? No, he said, not without thinking. Motion, I said, has many forms, and not one only ; two of them are obvious enough even to wits no better than ours ; and there are others, as I imagine, which may be left to wiser persons. But where are the two?

There is a second, I said, which is the counterpart of the one already named. And what may that be?

The second, I said, would seem relatively to the ears to be whataswhat the first is to the eyes ; for I conceive that as the eyes ^['^""'"y '"^ ^^ -' ^ the eye, harare designed to look up at the stars, so are the ears to hear monies are harmonious motions ; and these are sister sciences — as the *° *^^ ^^^' Pythagoreans say, and we, Glaucon, agree with them? Yes, he replied.

But this, I said, is a laborious study, and therefore we had better go and learn of them ; and they will tell us whether there are any other applications of these sciences. At the same time, we must not lose sight of our own higher object. What is that? There is a perfection which all knowledge ought to reach,

234

Harmonics : empirical^ Pythagorean, ideal.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. They must be studied with a view to the good and not after the fashion of the empirics or even of the Pythagoreans.

All these studies must be correlated with one another.

and which our pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of, as I was saying that they did in astronomy. For in the science of harmony, as you probably know, the same 531 thing happens. The teachers of harmony compare the sounds and consonances which are heard only, and their labour, like that of the astronomers, is in vain.

Yes, by heaven ! he said ; and 'tis as good as a play to hear them talking about their condensed notes, as they call them ; they put their ears close alongside of the strings like persons catching a sound from their neighbour's wall ^ — one set of them declaring that they distinguish an intermediate note and have found the least interval which should be the unit of measurement ; the others insisting that the two sounds have passed into the same — either party setting their ears before their understanding.

You mean, I said, those gentlemen who tease and torture the strings and rack them on the pegs of the instrument : I might carry on the metaphor and speak after their manner of the blows which the plectrum gives, and make accusations against the strings, both of backwardness and forwardness to sound; but this would be tedious, and therefore I w^ill.only say that these are not the men, and that I am referring to the Pythagoreans, of whom I was just now proposing to enquire about harmony.

For they too are in error, like the astronomers ; they investigate the numbers of the harmonies which are heard, but they never attain to problems — that is to say, they never reach the natural harmonies of number, or reflect why some numbers are harmonious and others not. That, he said, is a thing of more than mortal knowledge.

A thing, I replied, which I would rather call useful ; that is, if sought after with a view to the beautiful and good ; but if pursued in any other spirit, useless. Very true, he said.

Now, when all these studies reach the point of intercommunion and connection with one another, and come to be considered in their mutual affinities, then, I think, but not till then, will the pursuit of them have a value for our objects ; otherwise there is no profit in them. * Or, ' close alongside of their neighbour's instruments, as if to catch a sound from them.'

I suspect so ; but you are speaking, Socrates, of a vast work. What do you mean? I said; the prelude or what? Do you not know that all this is but the prelude to the actual strain which we have to learn? For you surely would not regard the skilled mathematician as a dialectician? Assuredly not, he said ; I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning.

But do you imagine that men who are unable to give and take a reason will have the knowledge which we require of them? Neither can this be supposed. And so, Glaucon, I said, we have at last arrived at the hymn of dialectic.

This is that strain which is of the intellect only, but which the faculty of sight will nevertheless be found to imitate ; for sight, as you may remember, was imagined by us after a while to behold the real animals and stars, and last of all the sun himself.

And so with dialectic ; when a person starts on the discovery of the absolute by the light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, and perseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perception of the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectual world, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible. Exactly, he said. Then this is the progress which you call dialectic? True.

But the release of the prisoners from chains, and their translation from the shadows to the images and to the light, and the ascent from the underground den to the sun, while in his presence they are vainly trying to look on animals and plants and the light of the sun, but are able to perceive even with their weak eyes the images^ in the water [which are divine], and are the shadows of true existence (not shadows of images cast by a light of fire, which compared with the sun is only an image) — this power of elevating the highest principle in the soul to the contemplation of that which is best in existence, with which we may compare the raising of that ' Omitting Ivravda 6e TTpd(; (pavrdofiara. The worci dela is bracketed by Stallbaum.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

Want of reasoning power in mathematicians.

Dialectic proceeds by reason only, without any help of sense.

The gradual acquirement of dialectic by the pursuit of the arts anticipated in the allegory' of the den.

236

Dialectic alone ascends to a first principle.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

The nature of dialectic can only be revealed to those who have been students of the preliminary sciences,

faculty which is the very light of the body to the sight of that which is brightest in the material and visible world — this power is given, as I was saying, by all that study and pursuit of the arts which has been described. I agree in what you are saying, he replied, which may be hard to believe, yet, from another point of view, is harder still to deny.

This however is not a theme to be treated of in passing only, but will have to be discussed again and again. And so, whether our conclusion be true or false, let us assume all this, and proceed at once from the prelude or preamble to the chief strain ^, and describe that in like manner.

Say, then, what is the nature and what are the divisions of dialectic, and what are the paths which lead thither ; for these paths will also lead to our final rest. Dear Glaucon, I said, you will not be able to follow me 533 here, though I would do my best, and you should behold not an image only but the absolute truth, according to my notion.

Whether what I told you would or would not have been a reality I cannot venture to say ; but you would have seen something like reality ; of that I am confident. Doubtless, he replied. But I must also remind you, that the power of dialectic alone can reveal this, and only to one who is a disciple of the previous sciences. Of that assertion you may be as confident as of the last.

And assuredly no one will argue that there is any other method of comprehending by any regular process all true existence or of ascertaining what each thing is in its own nature ; for the arts in general are concerned with the desires or opinions of men, or are cultivated with a view to production and construction, or for the preservation of such productions and constructions ; and as to the mathematical sciences which, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being — geometry and the like — they only dream about being, but never can they behold the waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which they use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them. For when a man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion

* and intermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows Republic iii, not what, how can he imagine that such a fabric of con- Socrates, vention can ever become science? Impossible, he said.

Then dialectic, and dialectic alone, goes directly to the first principle and is the only science which does away with hypotheses in order to make her ground secure ; the eye of the soul, which is literally buried in an outlandish slough, is by her gentle aid lifted upwards ; and she uses as handmaids and helpers in the work of conversion, the sciences which we have been discussing.

Custom terms them sciences, but they ought to have some other name, implying greater clearness than opinion and less clearness than science : and this, in our previous sketch, was called understanding. But why should we dispute about names when we have realities of such importance to consider? Why indeed, he said, when any name will do which expresses the thought of the mind with clearness?

At any rate, we are satisfied, as before, to have four Two divisions divisions; two for intellect and two for opinion, and to call °*^ ''^^ '"'"'^' ^ ' intellect and the first division science, the second understanding, the opinion, each third belief, and the fourth perception of shadows, opinion ^^^'"g'^.^o ' r tr 1 tr subdivisions.

534 being concerned with becoming, and intellect with being ; and so to make a proportion : — As being is to becoming, so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understanding to the perception of shadows. But let us defer the further correlation and subdivision of the subjects of opinion and of intellect, for it will be a long enquiry, many times longer than this has been.

As far as I understand, he said, I agree. And do you also agree, I said, in describing the dialectician as one who attains a conception of the essence of each thing? And he who does not possess and is therefore unable to impart this conception, in whatever degree he fails, may in that degree also be said to fail in intelligence? Will you admit so much? Yes, he said ; how can I deny it?

J And you would say the same of the conception of the good? * Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the

238

Dialectic the coping-stone.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. No truth which does not rest on the idea of good

ought to have a high place.

The natural gifts which are required in the dialectician ; a towardly understanding; a good memory ;

idea of good, and unless he can run the gauntlet of all objections, and is ready to disprove them, not by appeals to opinion, but to absolute truth, never faltering at any step of the argument — unless he can do all this, you would say that he knows neither the idea of good nor any other good ; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all, which is given by opinion and not by science; — dreaming and slumbering in this life, before he is well awake here, he arrives at the world below, and has his final quietus.

In all that I should most certainly agree with you. And surely you would not have the children of your ideal State, whom you are nurturing and educating — if the ideal ever becomes a reahty — you would not allow the future rulers to be like posts ^, having no reason in them, and yet to be set in authority over the highest matters. Certainly not.

Then you will make a law that they shall have such an education as will enable them to attain the greatest skill in asking and answering questions? Yes, he said, you and I together will make it. Dialectic, then, as you will agree, is the coping-stone of the sciences, and is set over them ; no other science can be placed higher — the nature of knowledge can no further go? I agree, he said.

But to whom we are to assign these studies, and in what 535 way they are to be assigned, are questions which remain to be considered. Yes, clearly. You remember, I said, how the rulers were chosen before? Certainly, he said.

The same natures must still be chosen, and the preference again given to the surest and the bravest, and, if possible, to the fairest ; and, having noble and generous tempers, they should also have the natural gifts which will facilitate their education. And what are these? Such gifts as keenness and ready powers of acquisition ; for the mind more often faints from the severity of study

The natural and acquired qualities of the dialectician. 239 than from the severity of gymnastics : the toil is more en- Republic 1 11. tirely the mind's own, and is not shared with the body. Socrates, Very true, he replied. Glaucon.

Further, he of whom we are in search should have a good strength of character; memory, and be an unwearied solid man who is a lover of labour in any line ; or he will never be able to endure the great amount of bodily exercise and to go through all the intellectual discipline and study which we require of him. Certainly, he said ; he must have natural gifts.

The mistake at present is, that those who study philosophy have no vocation, and this, as I was before saying, is the reason why she has fallen into disrepute : her true sons should take her by the hand and not bastards. What do you mean?

In the first place, her votary should not have a lame or industry; halting industry — I mean, that he should not be half industrious and half idle : as, for example, when a man is a lover of gymnastic and hunting, and all other bodily exercises, but a hater rather than a lover of the labour of learning or hstening or enquiring. Or the occupation to which he devotes himself may be of an opposite kind, and he may have the other sort of lameness.

Certainly, he said. And as to truth, I said, is not a soul equally to be deemed love of truth; halt and lame which hates voluntary falsehood and is extremely indignant at herself and others when they tell lies, but is patient of involuntary falsehood, and does not mind wallowing like a swinish beast in the mire of ignorance, and has no shame at being detected? To be sure.

And, again, in respect of temperance, courage, magnifi- the moral cence, and every other virtue, should we not carefully ^"^^"^^• distinguish between the true son and the bastard? for where there is no discernment of such qualities states and individuals unconsciously err; and the state makes a ruler, and the individual a friend, of one who, being defective in some part of virtue, is in a figure lame or a bastard. That is very true, he said. All these things, then, will have to be carefully considered by us ; and if only those whom we introduce to this vast

240 The training of the dialectician. Republic VII. system of education and training are sound in body and mind, Socrates, justicc herself will have nothing to say against us, and we Glaucon. shall be the saviours of the constitution and of the State ; but, if our pupils are men of another stamp, the reverse will happen, and we shall pour a still greater flood of ridicule on philosophy than she has to endure at present.

That would not be creditable. Socrates plays Certainly not, I said ; and yet perhaps, in thus turning himseuTnd J^^^ ^^^^ eamest I am equally ridiculous. his subject. In what rcspect? I had forgotten, I said, that we were not serious, and spoke with too much excitement.

For when I saw philosophy so undeservedly trampled under foot of men I could not help feeling a sort of indignation at the authors of her disgrace : and my anger made me too vehement. For the study Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so. of dialectic the -g^^ j .^j^^ ^^ ^^ Speaker, felt that I was. And now let young must ' ^ _ be selected. me remind you that, although in our former selection we chose old men, we must not do so in this.

Solon was under a delusion when he said that a man when he grows old may learn many things — for he can no more learn much than he can run much ; youth is the time for any extraordinary toil. Of course.

The preiimi- And, therefore, calculation and geometry and all the other "h'^id b^'^^ elements of instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, commenced in should be presented to the mind in childhood ; not, however, childhood, but yj^(^ej. jji^y notlou of forcing our system of education. never forced. ^ o j Why not? Because a freeman ought not to be a slave in the acquisition of knowledge of any kind.

Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to the body ; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind. Very true. Then, my good friend, I said, do not use compulsion, but let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be 537 better able to find out the natural bent. That is a very rational notion, he said. Do you remember that the children, too, were to be taken

to see the battle on horseback ; and that if there were no danger they were to be brought close up and, like young hounds, have a tasie of blood given them? Yes, I remember. The same practice may be followed, I said, in all these things — labours, lessons, dangers — and he who is most at home in all of them ought to be enrolled in a select number. At what age?

At the age when the necessary gymnastics are over : the period whether of two or three years which passes in this sort of training is useless for any other purpose ; for sleep and exercise are unpropitious to learning ; and the trial of who is first in gymnastic exercises is one of the most important tests to which our youth are subjected. Certainly, he replied.

After that time those who are selected from the class of twenty years old will be promoted to higher honour, and the sciences which they learned without any order in their early education will now be brought together, and they will be able to see the natural relationship of them to one another and to true being. Yes, he said, that is the only kind of knowledge which takes lasting root.

Yes, I said ; and the capacity for such knowledge is the great criterion of dialectical talent : the comprehensive mind is always the dialectical. I agree with you, he said.

These, I said, are the points which you must consider ; and those who have most of this comprehension, and who are most steadfast in their learning, and in their military and other appointed duties, when they have arrived at the age of thirty will have to be chosen by you out of the select class, and elevated to higher honour ; and you will have to prove them by the help of dialectic, in order to learn which of them is able to give up the use of sight and the other senses, and in company with truth to attain absolute being : And here, my friend, great caution is required. Why great caution? Do you not remark, I said, how great is the evil which dialectic has introduced? VOL. III. — 31

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon.

The necessary' gymnastics must be completed first.

At twenty years of age the disciples will begin to be taught the correlation of the sciences.

At thirty the most promising will be placed in a select class.

The growth of scepticism

242

The danger of dialectical studies.

RepuhUc VII. Socrates, (Jlaucon.

in the minds of the young ilUistrated by the case of a supposititious son,

who ceases to honour his father when he discovers that he is not his father.

What evil? he said. The students of the art are filled with lawlessness. Quite true, he said. Do you think that there is anything so very unnatural or inexcusable in their case? or will you make allowance for them? In what way make allowance? I want you, I said, by way of parallel, to imagine a supposititious son who is brought up in great wealth ; he is one of a great and numerous family, and has many flatterers.

When he grows up to manhood, he learns that his alleged are not his real parents ; but who the real are he is unable to discover. Can you guess how he will be likely to behave towards his flatterers and his supposed parents, first of all during the period when he is ignorant of the false relation, and then again when he knows? Or shall I guess for you? If you please.

Then I should say, that while he is ignorant of the truth he will be likely to honour his father and his mother and his supposed relations more than the flatterers ; he will be less inclined to neglect them when in need, or to do or say anything against them ; and he will be less wilhng to disobey them in any important matter.

He will. . , ' But when he has made the discovery, I should imagine that he would diminish his honour and regard for them, and would become more devoted to the flatterers ; their influence over him would greatly increase ; he would now Hve after their ways, and openly associate with them, and, unless he were of an unusually good disposition, he would trouble himself no more about his supposed parents or other relations.

Well, all that is very probable. But how is the image applicable to the disciples of philosophy? In this way : you know that there are certain principles about justice and honour, which were taught us in childhood, and under their parental authority we have been brought up, obeying and honouring them. That is true. There are also opposite maxims and habits of pleasure

They undermine received opijiions and beliefs. 243 which flatter and attract the soul, but do not influence those Republic vii. of us who have any sense of right, and they continue to obey Socrates, and honour the maxims of their fathers. Glaucon. True.

Now, when a man is in this state, and the questioning Somen who spirit asks what is fair or honourable, and he answers as the ^^^!" *° , ^ ' analyse the legislator has taught him, and then arguments many and first principles diverse refute his words, until he is driven into believing ° n^o^aity ' " cease to rcthat nothing is honourable any more than dishonourable, or spectthem. just and good any more than the reverse, and so of all the notions which he most valued, do you think that he will still honour and obey them as before?

Impossible. And when he ceases to think them honourable and natural 539 as heretofore, and he fails to discover the true, can he be expected to pursue any life other than that which flatters his desires ? He cannot. And from being a keeper of the law he is converted into a breaker of it? Unquestionably. Now all this is very natural in students of philosophy such as I have described, and also, as I was just now saying, most excusable.

Yes, he said ; and, I may add, pitiable. Therefore, that your feelings may not be moved to pity about our citizens who are now thirty years of age, every care must be taken in introducing them to dialectic. Certainly.

There is a danger lest they should taste the dear delight Young men too early; for youngsters, as you may have observed, when ^''^j"""^^*"^ they first get the taste in their mouths, argue for amusement, to pieces and and are always contradicting and refuting others in imitation ^j^"^'^'''"C -' 00 disgrace upon of those who refute them ; like puppy-dogs, they rejoice in themselves pulling and tearing at all who come near them. ^hfiosr'h Yes, he said, there is nothing which they like better.

And when they have made many conquests and received defeats at the hands of many, they violently and speedily get into a way of not believing anything which they believed before, and hence, not only they, but philosophy and all that

244

The different pursuits of men at different ages.

Republic VII. Socrates, Glaucon. The dialectician and the eristic.

The study of philosophy to continue for five years; 30-35-

During fifteen years, 35-50, they are to hold office.

At the end of that time they are to live chiefly in the contemplation of the good, but occasionally to return to politics.

relates to it is apt to have a bad name with the rest of the world. Too true, he said. But when a man begins to get older, he will no longer be guilty of such insanity ; he will imitate the dialectician who is seeking for truth, and not the eristic, who is contradicting for the sake of amusement ; and the greater moderation of his character will increase instead of diminishing the honour of the pursuit. Very true, he said.

And did we not make special provision for this, when we said that the disciples of philosophy were to be orderly and steadfast, not, as now, any chance aspirant or intruder? Very true. Suppose, I said, the study of philosophy to take the place of gymnastics and to be continued dihgently and earnestly and exclusively for twice the number of years which were passed in bodily exercise — will that be enough? Would you say six or four years? he asked.

Say five years, I replied ; at the end of the time they must be sent down again into the den and compelled to hold any military or other office which young men are qualified to hold : in this way they will get their experience of life, and there will be an opportunity of trying whether, when they are drawn all manner of ways by temptation, they will stand firm or flinch. And how long is this stage of their lives to last?

Fifteen years, I answered ; and when they have reached fifty years of age, then let those who still survive and have distinguished themselves in every action of their lives and in every branch of knowledge come at last to their consummation : the time has now arrived at which they must raise the eye of the soul to the universal light which lightens all things, and behold the absolute good ; for that is the pattern according to which they are to order the State and the lives of individuals, and the remainder of their own lives also ; making philosophy their chief pursuit, but, when their turn comes, toiling also at politics and ruling for the public good, not as though they were performing some heroic

The means by zvJiich our State may be realized.

245 action, but simply as a matter of duty ; and when they have R'-pubik vii. brought up in each generation others hke themselves and Socrates, left them in their place to be governors of the State, then Glaucon. they will depart to the Islands of the Blest and dwell there ; and the city will give them public memorials and sacrifices and honour them, if the Pythian oracle consent, as demigods, but if not, as in any case blessed and divine.

You are a sculptor, Socrates, and have made statues of our governors faultless in beauty. Yes, I said, Glaucon, and of our governesses too ; for you must not suppose that what I have been saying appl-^s to men only and not to women as far as their na res can go. There you are right, he said, since we have m.' j them to share in all things like men.

Well, I said, and you would agree (would you not?) that what has been said about the State and the government is not a mere dream, and although difficult not impossible, but only possible in the way which has been supposed ; that is to say, when the true philosopher kings are born in a State, one or more of them, despising the honours of this present world which they deem mean and worthless, esteeming above all things right and the honour that springs from right, and regarding justice as the greatest and most necessary of all things, whose ministers they are, and whose principles will be exalted by them when they set in order their own city?

How will they proceed?

They will begin by sending out into the country all the Praticai inhabitants of the city who are more than ten years old, and '"^^^^''^^ for •' _ •' the speedy will take possession of their children, who will be unaffected foundation of by the habits of their parents ; these they will train in their ^^^ ^'^'^• own habits and laws, I mean in the laws which we have given them : and in this way the State and constitution of which we were speaking will soonest and most easily attain happiness, and the nation which has such a constitution will gain most.

Yes, that will be the best way. And I think, Socrates, that you have very well described how, if ever, such a constitution might come into being.

246 The end. Republic VII. Enough then of the perfect State, and of the man who Socrates, bears its image — there is no difficulty in seeing how we shall Glaucon. describe him. There is no difficulty, he replied ; and I agree with you in thinking that nothing more need be said.

BOOK VIII.

steph. And so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in ReprtbUc

I'lii.

Recapitulation of Book v.

543 the perfect State wives and children are to be in common ; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are Sockates, ^ ^ Glaucon. also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings? That, replied Glaucon, has been acknowledged. Yes, I said ; and we have further acknowledged that the governors, when appointed themselves, will take their soldiers and place them in houses such as we were describing, which are common to all, and contain nothing private, or individual ; and about their property, you remember what we agreed? Yes, I remember that no one was to have any of the ordinary possessions of mankind ; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians, receiving from the other citizens, in heu of annual payment, only their maintenance, and they were to take care of themselves and of the whole State. True, I said ; and now that this division of our task is concluded, let us find the point at which we digressed, that we may return into the old path. There is no difficulty in returning ; you implied, then as Return to the now, that you had finished the description of the State : you ^""^ °^ ^"""^ said that such a State was good, and that the man was good who answered to it, although, as now appears, you had more 544 excellent things to relate both of State and man. And you said further, that if this was the true form, then the others were false ; and of the false forms, you said, as I remember, that there were four principal ones, and that their defects, and the defects of the individuals corresponding to them, were worth examining. When we had seen all the individuals, and finally agreed as to who was the best and who was the worst

IV.

248

The four forms of government,

Republic VIII. Socrates, Glaucon.

of them, we were to consider whether the best was not also the happiest, and the worst the most miserable. I asked you what were the four forms of government of which you spoke, and then Polemarchus and Adeimantus put in their word ; and you began again, and have found your way to the point at which we have now arrived. Your recollection, I said, is most exact.

Then, like a wrestler, he replied, you must put yourself again in the same position ; and let me ask the same questions, and do you give me the same answer which you were about to give me then. Yes, if I can, I will, I said. I shall particularly wish to hear what were the four constitutions of which you were speaking.

That question, I said, is easily answered : the four governments of which I spoke, so far as they have distinct names, are, first, those of Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded ; what is termed oligarchy comes next ; this is not equally approved, and is a form of government which teems with evils : thirdly, democracy, which naturally follows oligarchy, although very different : and lastly comes tyranny, great and famous, which differs from them all, and is the fourth and worst disorder of a State.

I do not know, do you? of any other constitution which can be said to have a distinct character. There are lordships and principalities which are bought and sold, and some other intermediate forms of government. But these are nondescripts and may be found equally among Hellenes and among barbarians. Yes, he replied, we certainly hear of many curious forms of government which exist among them.

Do you know, I said, that governments vary as the dispositions of men vary, and that there must be as many of the one as there are of the other? For we cannot suppose that States are made of ' oak and rock,' and not out of the human natures which are in them, and which in a figure turn the scale and draw other things after them? Yes, he said, the States are as the men are ; they grow out of human characters. Then if the constitutions of States are five, the dispositions of individual minds will also be five?

a7id the four individuals who answer to them. 249 Certainly. Republic Him who answers to aristocracy, and whom we rightly ^^^^' 545 call just and good, we have already described. Socrates, We have. Then let us now proceed to describe the inferior sort of natures, being the contentious and ambitious, who answer to the Spartan pohty ; also the oligarchical, democratical, and tyrannical.

Let us place the most just by the side of the most unjust, and when we see them we shall be able to compare the relative happiness or unhappiness of him who leads a life of pure justice or pure injustice. The enquiry will then be completed. And we shall know whether we ought to pursue injustice, as Thrasymachus advises, or in accordance with the conclusions of the argument to prefer justice. Certainly, he replied, we must do as you say.

Shall we follow our old plan, which we adopted with a The State view to clearness, of taking the State first and then pro- ^"'^i^V"' ceeding to the individual, and begin with the government of honour? — I know of no name for such a government other than timocracy, or perhaps timarchy.

We will compare with this the like character in the individual ; and, after that, consider oligarchy and the oligarchical man ; and then again we will turn our attention to democracy and the democratical man ; and lastly, we will go and view the city of tyranny, and once more take a look into the tyrant's soul, and try to arrive at a satisfactory decision. That way of viewing and judging of the matter will be very suitable.

First, then, I said, let us enquire how timocracy (the How tigovernment of honour) arises out of aristocracy (the govern- ^riTeToutof ment of the best). Clearly, all political changes originate in aristocracy, divisions of the actual governing power ; a government which is united, however small, cannot be moved. Very true, he said.

In what way, then, will our city be moved, and in what manner will the two classes of auxiliaries and rulers disagree among themselves or with one another? Shall we, after the manner of Homer, pray the Muses to tell us 'how discord first arose ' ? Shall we imagine them in solemn

250

The number of the State.

Republic I 'III. Socrates, Glaucon.

The intelligence which is alloyed with sense will not know how to regulate births and deaths in accordance with the number which controls them.

mockery, to play and jest with us as if we were children, and to address us in a lofty tragic vein, making believe to be in earnest? How would they address us? After this manner : — A city which is thus constitutea can hardly be shaken ; but, seeing that everything which has a beginning has also an end, even a constitution such as yours will not last for ever, but will in time be dissolved.

And this is the dissolution: — In plants that grow in the earth, as well as in animals that move on the earth's surface, fertility and sterility of soul and body occur when the circumferences of the circles of each are completed, which in short-lived existences pass over a short space, and in long-lived ones over a long space.

But to the knowledge of human fecundity and sterility all the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain ; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not.

Now that which is of divine birth has a period which is contained in a perfect number \ but the period of human birth is comprehended in a number in which first increments by involution and evolution \or squared and cubed] obtaining three intervals and four terms of like and unlike, waxing and waning numbers, make all the terms commensurable and agreeable to one another^.

The base of these (3) with a third added (4) when combined with five (20) and raised to the third power furnishes two harmonies ; the first a square which is a hundred times as great (400 = 4 x 100) -^ and the other a figure having one side equal to the former, but oblong ^, consisting of a hundred numbers squared upon rational diameters of a square (i. e. omitting fractions), the side of which is five (7 x 7 == 49 x 100 r= 4900), each of them

,46

M. e. a cyclical number, such as 6, which is equal to the sum of its divisors I, 2, 3, so that when the circle or time represented by 6 is completed, the lesser times or rotations represented by i, 2, 3 are also completed. 2 Probably the numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 of which the three first = the sides of the Pythagorean triangle. The terms will then be 3^ 4^ 5^, which together = 6^ = 216. <* Or the first a square which is 100 x 100 = 10,000. The whole number will then be 17,500 = a square of 100, and an oblong of 100 by 75. ^ Reading TrpofjifjKT] 6i.

The first step in the descent.

251

being less by one (than the perfect square which includes Republic the fractions, sc. 50) or less by ^ two perfect squares of irrational diameters (of a square the side of which is five ^"*^'*'^o^^' =z 50 -|- 50= 100); and a hundred cubes of three (27 x 100 = 2700 + 4900 + 400 := 8000). Now this number represents a geometrical figure which has control over the good and evil of births.

For when your guardians are ignorant of the law of births, and unite bride and bridegroom out of season", the children will not be goodly or fortunate.

And though only the best of them will be appointed by their predecessors, still they will be unworthy to hold their fathers' places, and when they come into power as guardians, they will soon be found to fail in taking care of us, the Muses, first by undervaluing music ; which neglect will soon -extend to gymnastic ; . and hence the young men of your State will be less cultivated.

In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod's, are of gold and silver 547 and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequahty and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war.

This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising ; and this is their answer to us. Yes, and we may assume that they answer truly. Why, yes, I said, of course they answer truly ; how can the Muses speak falsely? And what do the Muses say next?

When discord arose, then the two races were drawn Discord will different ways : the iron and brass fell to acquiriner money ^^«" ^"s^ ■' i. o J 2j^(j indiviand land and houses and gold and silver ; but the gold and dual take the .silver races, not wanting money but having the true riches in p'aceofcom- , nion property. their own nature, inclined towards virtue and the ancient order of things.

There was a battle between them, and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses among individual owners ; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers, whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, and made of them subjects and servants ; and ' Or, ' consisting of two numbers squared upon irrational diameters,' &c. ^= 100. For other explanations of the passage see Introduction.

252

/, From the perfect state to timocracy.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Glaucon.

Timocracy will retain the military and reject the philosophical character of the perfect State.

The soldier class miserly and covetous.

they themselves were engaged in war and in keeping a watch against them. I beheve that you have rightly conceived the origin of the change. And the new government which thus arises will be of a form intermediate between oligarchy and aristocracy? Very true. Such will be the change, and after the change has been made, how will they proceed?

Clearly, the new State, being in a mean between oligarchy and the perfect State, will partly follow one and partly the other, and will also have some peculiarities. True, he said.

In the honour given to rulers, in the abstinence of the warrior class from agriculture, handicrafts, and trade in general, in the institution of common meals, and in the attention paid to gymnastics and mihtary training — in all these respects this State will resemble the former. True.

But in the fear of admitting philosophers to power, because they are no longer to be had simple and earnest, but are made up of mixed elements ; and in turning from them to passionate and less complex characters, who are by nature fitted for war rather than peace ; and in the value set by 548 them upon military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars — this State will be for the most part peculiar. Yes.

Yes, I said ; and men of this stamp will be covetous of money, like those who hve in oligarchies ; they will have a fierce secret longing after gold and silver, which they will hoard in dark places, having magazines and treasuries of their own for the deposit and concealment of them ; also castles which are just nests for their eggs, and in which they will spend large sums on their wives, or on any others whom they please.

That is most true, he said. And they are miserly because they have no means of openly acquiring the money which they prize ; they will spend that which is another man's on the gratification of

their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law, their father : they have been schooled not by gentle influences but by force, for they have neglected her who is the true Muse, the companion of reason and philosophy, and have honoured gymnastic more than music. Undoubtedly, he said, the form of government which you describe is a mixture of good and evil.

Why, there is a mixture, I said ; but one thing, and one thing only, is predominantly seen, — the spirit of contention and ambition ; and these are due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element. Assuredly, he said.

Such is the origin and such the character of this State, which has been described in outHne only ; the more perfect execution was not required, for a sketch is enough to show the type of the most perfectly just and most perfectly unjust ; and to go through all the States and all the characters of men, omitting none of them, would be an interminable labour. Very true, he replied.

Now what man answers to this form of government — how did he come into being, and what is he like? I think, said Adeimantus, that in the spirit of contention which characterises him, he is not unlike our friend Glaucon. Perhaps, I said, he may be hke him in that one point ; but there are other respects in which he is very different. In what respects?

He should have more of self-assertion and be less cultivated, and yet a friend of culture ; and he should be a good 549 listener, but no speaker.

Such a person is apt to be rough with slaves, unlike the educated man, who is too proud for that ; and he will also be courteous to freemen, and remarkably obedient to authority ; he is a lover- of power and a lover of honour ; claiming to be a ruler, not because he is eloquent, or on any ground of that sort, but because he is a soldier and has performed feats of arms ; he is also a lover of gymnastic exercises and of the chase. Yes, that is the type of character which answers to timocracy. Such an one will despise riches only when he is young ;

Republic VIII. Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus.

The spirit of ambition predominates in such States.

The timocratic man, uncultured, but fond of culture, ambitious, contentious, rough with slaves, and courteous to freemen ; a soldier, athlete, hunter; a despiser of riches while young, fond of them when he grows old.

254

The timocratic man.

Kepublic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The timocratic man often originates in a reaction against his father's character, which is encouraged by his mother.

and by the old servants of the household.

but as he gets older he will be more and more attracted to them, because he has a piece of the avaricious nature in him, and is not single-minded towards virtue, having lost his best guardian. Who was that? said Adeimantus. Philosophy, I said, tempered with music, who comes and takes up her abode in a man, and is the only saviour of his virtue throughout life. Good, he said.

Such, I said, is the timocratical youth, and he is like the timocratical State. Exactly. His origin is as follows: — He is often the young son of a brave father, who dwells in an ill-governed city, of which he declines the honours and offices, and will not go to law, or exert himself in any way, but is ready to waive his rights in order that he may escape trouble. And how does the son come into being?

The character of the son begins to develope when he hears his mother complaining that her husband has no place in the government, of which the consequence is that she has no precedence among other women.

Further, when she sees her husband not very eager about money, and instead of battling and railing in the law courts or assembly, taking whatever happens to him quietly ; and when she observes that his thoughts always centre in himself, while he treats her with very considerable indifference, she is annoyed, and says to her son that his father is only half a man and far too easy-going : adding all the other complaints about her own ill-treatment which women are so fond of rehearsing.

Yes, said Adeimantus, they give us plenty of them, and their complaints are so like themselves.

And you know, I said, that the old servants also, who are supposed to be attached to the family, from time to time talk privately in the same strain to the son ; and if they see any one who owes money to his father, or is wronging him in any way, and he fails to prosecute them, they tell the youth that when he grows up he must retaliate upon people of this sort, 550 and be more of a man than his father. He has only to walk abroad and he hears and sees the same sort of thing : those

who do their own business in the city are called simpletons, Republic and held in no esteem, while the busy-bodies are honoured and applauded. The result is that the young man, hearing ^dTim^ntus and seeing all these things — hearing, too, the words of his father, and having a nearer view of his way of life, and making comparisons of him and others — is drawn opposite ways : while his father is watering and nourishing the rational principle in his soul, the others are encouraging the passionate and appetitive ; and he being not originally of a bad nature, but having kept bad company, is at last brought by their joint influence to a middle point, and gives up the kingdom which is within him to the middle principle of contentiousness and passion, and becomes arrogant and ambitious. You seem to me to have described his origin perfectly. Then we have now, I said, the second form of government and the second type of character? We have. Next, let us look at another man who, as Aeschylus says, ' Is set over against another State ; ' * or rather, as our plan requires, begin with the State. By all means. I believe that oligarchy follows next in order. And what manner of government do you term oligarchy? A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived oi it. I understand, he rephed. Ought I not to begin by describing how the change from timocracy to oligarchy arises? Yes. Well, I said, no eyes are required in order to see how the one passes into the other. How? The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure ; for what do they or their wives care about the law? Yes, indeed. And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival

Oligarchy

arises out of increased accumulation and increased expenditure among the citizens.

256

The evils of oligarchy.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. As riches increase, virtue decreases : the one is honoured, the other despised ; the one cuhivated, the other neglected.

In an oUgarchy a money qualification is established.

A ruler is elected because he is rich : Who would elect a pilot on this principle ?

him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money. Likely enough. And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue ; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls. True. And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in 551 the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured. Clearly. And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected. That is obvious. And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money ; they honour and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonour the poor man. They do so. They ne?it proceed to make a law which fixes a sum of money as the qualification of citizenship ; the sum is higher in one place and lower in another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive ; and they allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work. Very true. And this, speaking generally, is the way in which oligarchy is established. Yes, he said ; but what are the characteristics of this form of government, and what are the defects of which we were speaking ^? First of all, I said, consider the nature of the qualification. Just think what would happen if pilots were to be chosen according to their property, and a poor man were refused permission to steer, even though he were a better pilot? You mean that they would shipwreck? Yes; and is not this true of the government of anything^? I should imagine so. * Cp. supra, 544 C. '^ Omitting i) rivog.

TJie evils of oligarchy.

257

Except a city? — or would you include a city? Nay, he said, the case of a city is the strongest of all, inasmuch as the rule of a city is the greatest and most difficult of all. This, then, will be the first great defect of oligarchy? Clearly. And here is another defect which is quite as bad. What defect?

The inevitable division : such a State is not one, but two States, the one of poor, the other of rich men ; and they are living on the same spot and always conspiring against one another. That, surely, is at least as bad. Another discreditable feature is, that, for a Hke reason, they are incapable of carrying on any war.

Either they arm the multitude, and then they are more afraid of them than of the enemy ; or, if they do not call them out in the hour of battle, they are oligarchs indeed, few to fight as they are few to rule. And at the same time their fondness for money makes them unwilling to pay taxes. How discreditable!

And, as we said before, under such a constitution the 552 same persons have too many caUings — they are husbandmen, tradesmen, warriors, all in one. Does that look well? Anything but well. There is another evil which is, perhaps, the greatest of all, and to which this State first begins to be liable. What evil?

A man may sell all that he has, and another may acquire his property ; yet after the sale he may dwell in the city of which he is no longer a part, being neither trader, nor artisan, nor horseman, nor hoplite, but only a poor, helpless creature. Yes, that is an evil which also first begins in this State. The evil is certainly not prevented there ; for oligarchies have both the extremes of great wealth and utter poverty. True.

But think again : In his wealthy days, while he was spending his money, was a man of this sort a whit more good to the State for the purposes of citizenship? Or VOL. III. — 32

Republic VIII. SOCRA lES, Adeimantus.

The extreme division of classes in such a State.

They dare not go to war.

The ruined man, who has no occupation, once a spendthrift, now a pauper, still exists in the State.

258

The Jlymg and walking drones, stmgers or stingless.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Where there are paupers, there are thieves

and other criminals.

did he only seem to be a member of the ruhng body, although in truth he was neither ruler nor subject, but just a spendthrift? As you say, he seemed to be a ruler, but was only a spendthrift. May we not say that this is the drone in the house who is like the drone in the honeycomb, and that the one is the plague of the city as the other is of the hive? Just so, Socrates.

And God has made the flying drones, Adeimantus, all without stings, whereas of the walking drones he has made some without stings but others have dreadful stings ; of the stingless class are those who in their old age end as paupers ; of the stingers come all the criminal class, as they are termed. Most true, he said.

Clearly then, whenever you see paupers in a State, somewhere in that neighbourhood there are hidden away thieves and cut-purses and robbers of temples, and all sorts of malefactors. Clearly. Well, I said, and in oligarchical States do you not find paupers ? Yes, he said ; nearly everybody is a pauper who is not a ruler.

And may we be so bold as to affirm that there are also many criminals to be found in them, rogues who have stings, and whom the authorities are careful to restrain by force? Certainly, we may be so bold. The existence of such persons is to be attributed to want of education, ill-training, and an evil constitution of the State? True. Such, then, is the form and such are the evils of oligarchy ; and there may be many other evils. Very likely.

Then oligarchy, or the form of government in which the 553 rulers are elected for their wealth, may now be dismissed. Let us next proceed to consider the nature and origin of the individual who answers to this State.

Fro7n the timocratical to the oligarchical man. 259 By all means. Republic Does not the timocratical man change into the oligarchical ^^^'' on thiswise? Socrates. Adeimantus.

How? ^, . ^ 1 he ruin of A time arrives when the representative of timocracy has the timoa son : at first he begins bv emulating his father and walking craticai man *^ - ^ , " gives birth to in his footsteps, but presently he sees him of a sudden the oUgarchu foundering against the State as upon a sunken reef, and he '^^^ and all that he has is lost ; he may have been a general or some other high officer who is brought to trial under a prejudice raised by informers, and either put to death, or exiled, or deprived of the privileges of a citizen, and all his property taken from him.

Nothing more likely. And the son has seen and known all this — he is a ruined His son begins man, and his fear has taught him to knock ambition and ''f<= ^ '■"'"«<J ' *-" man and takes passion headforemost from his bosom's throne ; humbled by to moneypoverty he takes to money-making and by mean and miserly ""^ '"^' savings and hard work gets a fortune together.

Is not such an one likely to seat the concupiscent and covetous element on the vacant throne and to suffer it to play the great king within him, girt with tiara and chain and scimitar? Most true, he replied.

And when he has made reason and spirit sit down on the ground obediently on either side of their sovereign, and taught them to know their place, he compels the one to think only of how lesser sums may be turned into larger ones, and will not allow the other to worship and admire anything but riches and rich men, or to be ambitious of anything so much as the acquisition of wealth and the means of acquiring it.

Of all changes, he said, there is none so speedy or so sure as the conversion of the ambitious youth into the avaricious one. And the avaricious, I said, is the oligarchical youth?

Yes, he said ; at any rate the individual out of whom he The oiigarchi. came is like the State out of which oligarchy came. cai man o J and State Let us then consider whether there is any likeness between resemble one «t,-^.^ another in them. , . their esti- Very good. mation of First, then, they resemble one another in the value which ^^^ they set upon wealth?

26o

The individual and the State again.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. in their toiling and saving ways, in their want of cultivation.

The oligarchical man keeps up a fair outside, but he has only an enforced virtue and will cheat when he can.

Certainly. Also in their penurious, laborious character ; the individual only satisfies his necessary appetites, and confines his expenditure to them ; his other desires he subdues, under the idea that they are unprofitable. True. He is a shabby fellow, who saves something out of everything and makes a purse for himself ; and this is the sort of man whom the vulgar applaud. Is he not a true image of the State which he represents? He appears to me to be so ; at any rate money is highly valued by him as well as by the State. You see that he is not a man of cultivation, I said. I imagine not, he said ; had he been educated he would never have made a blind god director of his chorus, or given him chief honour i. Excellent! I said. Yet consider: Must we not further admit that owing to this want of cultivation there will be found in him dronelike desires as of pauper and rogue, which are forcibly kept down by his general habit of life? True. Do you know where you will have to look if you want to discover his rogueries? Where must I look? You should see him where he has some great opportunity of acting dishonestly, as in the guardianship of an orphan. Aye. It will be clear enough then that in his ordinary dealings which give him a reputation for honesty he coerces his bad passions by an enforced virtue ; not making them see that they are wrong, or taming them by reason, but by necessity and fear constraining them, and because he trembles for his possessions. To be sure. Yes, indeed, my dear friend, but you will find that the natural desires of the drone commonly exist in him all the same whenever he has to spend what is not his own.

' Reading /cat ETiim fiakiGra. Ev, tjv d' hyu, according to Schneider's excellent emendation.

///. From oligarchy to democracy. 261 Yes, and they will be strong in him too. Republic The man, then, will be at war with himself ; he will be two ^^^' men, and not one ; but, in general, his better desires will be ^ocrates, ' . . Adeimantus. found to prevail over his inferior ones. True.

For these reasons such an one will be more respectable than most people ; yet the true virtue of a unanimous and harmonious soul will flee far away and never come near him. I should expect so.

555 And surely, the miser individually will be an ignoble com- His meanness petitor in a State for any prize of victory, or other object of '"* contest. ^ ^ *■ ■' ^ -^ he saves his honourable ambition ; he will not spend his money in the money and contest for glory; so afraid is he of awakening his expensive '^ses the pnze. appetites and inviting them to help and join in the struggle ; in true oligarchical fashion he fights with a small part only of his resources, and the result commonly is that he loses the prize and saves his money.

Very true. Can we any longer doubt, then, that the miser and moneymaker answers to the oligarchical State? There can be no doubt.

Next comes democracy ; of this the origin and nature have Democracy still to be considered by us ; and then we will enquire into the Y'^^^ °"* ^^ _ -^ _ . ^ the extravaways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgment, ganceand That, he said, is our method. indebtedness ot men of Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy family and into democracy arise?

Is it not on this wise? — The good at p°^'''°"' which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable? What then? The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin ; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance? To be sure.

There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent ; one or the other will be disregarded.

262

'Stio periculo'

Republic VIII. Socrates, aueimantus.

who remain in the city, and form a dangerous class ready to head a revolution.

Two remedies: (i) restrictions on the free use of property ; (2) contracts to he made at a man's own risk.

That is tolerably clear. And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary? Yes, often.

And still they remain in the city ; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship ; a third class are in both predicaments ; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution. That is true.

On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting — that is, their money — into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children : and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State. Yes, he said, there are plenty of them — that is certain.

The evil blazes up like a fire ; and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man's use of his own property, or by another remedy : What other?

One which is the next best, and has the advantage of compelhng the citizens to look to their characters: — Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk, and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State. Yes, they will be greatly lessened.

At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly ; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind ; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain. Very true. They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.

Yes, quite as indifferent. Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them.

And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another's way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors ; aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger — for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich — and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh — when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits'-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them?

And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another * Our warriors are not good for much '? Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.

And, as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within — in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also hkely to be illness, of which the occasion may be very slight, the one party introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies, and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself ; and may be at times distracted, even when there is no external cause.

Yes, surely. And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power ; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot. Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.

And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man. Clearly, he said.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. The subjects discover the weakness of their rulers.

A slight cause, internal or external, may produce revolution.

Such is the origin and nature of democracy

264

The characteristics of democracy.

Reptihlic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. Democracy allows a man to do as he likes, and therefore contains the greatest variety of characters and constitutions.

The law falls into abeyance.

In the first place, are they not free ; and is not the cityfull of freedom and frankness — a man may say and do what he hkes? 'Tis said so, he rephed. And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases? Clearly. Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures? There will. This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower ^ And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States. Yes. Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look for a government. Why? Because of the liberty which reigns there — they have a complete assortment of constitutions ; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him ; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State. He will be sure to have patterns enough. ' And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or to go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed — there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy — is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful? For the moment, yes.

558

Omitting ri [iriv) £<t>7}.

cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sen- ^°^jf,^,^^^' tenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world — the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares? Yes, he replied, many and many a one.

See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the All principles ' don't care ' about trifles, and the disregard which she shows '"lod'^tast^"'^ of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid down at the are trampled foundation of the city — as when we said that, except in the case JJen^o^rac' ^ of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study — how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be the people's friend.

Yes, she is of a noble spirit. These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equahty to equals and unequals alike. We know her well. Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being. Very good, he said.

Is not this the way — he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits? Exactly. And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures Which are which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being ^nVwhrrTe those which are called unnecessary? unnecessary Obviously.

P'^"^""""- Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures ? I should. ' Or, ' the philosophical temper of the condemned.'

266

The necessary and unnecessary desires and pleasures.

Republic I'lir. Socrates, Adeimantus. Necessary desires cannot be got rid of,

but may be indulged to excess. Illustration taken from eating and drinking.

Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightly called so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it. True. We are not wrong therefore in calling them necessary? We are not. And the desires of which a man may get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards — of which the presence, moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good — shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary ? Yes, certainly. Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them? Very good. Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments, in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of the necessary class? That is what I should suppose. The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways ; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life? Yes. But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good for health? Certainly. And the desire which goes beyond this, of more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary? Very true. * May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production? Certainly. And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holds good? True. And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave

559

From the oligarchical to the democratical man. 267 of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject Repuhik to the necessary only was miserly and oligarchical? ^''' Very true. Socrates. -' Adeimantus. Again, let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical : the following, as I suspect, is commonly the process. What is the process?

When a young man who has been brought up as we The young were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has °j!f!||^*^,'u, tasted drones' honey and has come to associate with fierce his wild .isand crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts ^°^'^*^^- of refinements and varieties of pleasure — then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical? Inevitably.

And as in the city like was helping like, and the change There are was effected by an alliance from without assisting one division ^ ^l^^^^^^ of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of nature, desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is akin and ahke again helping that which is akin and alike? Certainly.

And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself. It must be so.

And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished ; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man's soul and order is restored. Yes, he said, that sometimes happens. And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because he their father does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.

Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way. They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.

Very true. At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man's soul, which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who are dear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels. None better. False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place. They are certain to do so.

And so the young man returns into the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men ; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king's fastness ; and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter, nor if private advisers offer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them.

There is a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth ; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border. Yes, with a will.

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and 561 anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage.

And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures. Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough. After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary

ones ; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over — supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors — in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn ; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another ; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

Very true, he said. Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice ; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others — whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

Yes, he said ; that is the way with him.

Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour ; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute ; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin ; then he takes a turn at gymnastics ; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head ; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that.

His life has neither law nor order ; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom ; and so he goes on. Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality. Yes, I said ; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; — he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled.

And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him. Just so. Let him then be set over against democracy ; he may truly be called the democratic man.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. he also sometimes stops short in his career and gives way to pleasures good and bad indifferently.

He rejects all advice,

passing his life in the alternation from one extreme to another.

He is 'not one, but all mankind's epitome.'

270

/v. From democracy to tyranny.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. Tyranny and the tyrant.

The insatiable desire of wealth creates a demand for democracy, the insatiable desire of freedom creates a demand for tyranny.

Freedom in the end means anarchy.

Let that be his place, he said. Last of all comes the most beautiful of all, man and State alike, tyranny and the tyrant ; these we have now tc; consider. Quite true, he said. Say then, my friend, In what manner does tyranny arise? — that it has a democratic origin is evident. Clearly. And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy — I mean, after a sort ? How? The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth — am I not right? Yes. And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy? True. And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution? What good? Freedom, I repHed ; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State — and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell. Yes ; the saying is in everybody's mouth. I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny. How so? When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs. Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence. Yes, I said ; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught ; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are

The extreme of liberty.

271

like subjects : these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and pubhc. Now, in such a State, can hberty have any Hmit? Certainly not. By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them. How do you mean?

I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents ; and this is his freedom, and the metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the 63 stranger is quite as good as either. Yes, he said, that is the way.

And these are not the only evils, I said — there are several lesser ones : In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors ; young and old are all alike ; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed ; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety ; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

Quite true, he said. The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser ; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equaHty of the two sexes in relation to each other. Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?

That is what I am doing, I rephed ; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State : for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen ; and they will run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them : and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The inversion of all social relations.

Freedom among the animals.

272

Extremes pass into extremes.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus. No law, no authority.

The common evil of oligarchy and democracy is the class of idle spendthrifts.

Illustration.

When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing. And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become ; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten ; they will have no one over them. Yes, he said, I know it too well.

Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny. Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?

The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy ; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy — the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; 564 and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government. True.

The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery. Yes, the natural order. And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty? As we might expect.

That, however, was not, as I believe, your question — you rather desired to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in ohgarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both? Just so, he rephed. Well, I said, I meant to refer to the class of idle spendthrifts, of whom the more courageous are the leaders and the more timid the followers, the same whom we were comparing to drones, some stingless, and others having stings.

A very just comparison. These two classes are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the State

ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in ; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible. Yes, by all means, he said.

Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes ; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State. That is true. And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified. How so?

Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength ; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side ; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones. Very true, he said.

Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass. What is that? They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest. Naturally so. They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones. Why, he said, there is httle to be squeezed out of people who have little. And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.

That is pretty much the case, he said. The people are a third class, c(5nsisting of those who work with their own hands ; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy. True, he said ; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a Htde honey. VOL. III. T^T^

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus.

Altogether three classes in a democracy.

(i) The drones or spendthrifts who are more numerous and active than in the oligarchy.

(2) The orderly or wealthy class who are fed upon by the drones.

(3) The working class who also get a share.

274

The protector developes into a tyrant.

Republic VIII. Socrates, Adeimantus.

The well-todo have to defend themselves against the people.

The people have a protector who, when once he tastes blood, is converted into a tyrant.

And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people ; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves? Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share. And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can? What else can they do?

And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy? True.

And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality ; they do not WLsh to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them. That is exactly the truth. Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another. True.

The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. Yes, that is their way. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs ; when he first appears above ground he is a protector. Yes, that is quite clear. How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus. What tale?

The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it? O yes. And the protector of the people is like him ; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen ; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them,

TJic early days of his power. 275 making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue Republic and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizens ; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time hintincf at the ^ocrates, ' ^ ^ Adeimantus. abolition of debts and partition of lands : and after this, what 566 will be his destiny?

Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf — that is, a tyrant? Inevitably. This, I said, is he who begins to make a party against the rich? The same.

After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of After a time his enemies, a tyrant full grown. out'^bul''^" That is clear. comes back And if they are unable to expel him, or to get him ^ranf^°^" condemned to death by a pubhc accusation, they conspire to assassinate him. Yes, he said, that is their usual way.

Then comes the famous request for a body-guard, which is The bodythe device of all those who have got thus far in their s"ard. tyrannical career — 'Let not the people's friend,' as they say, * be lost to them. Exactly. The people readily assent ; all their fears are for him — they have none for themselves. Very true.

And when a man who is wealthy and is also accused of being an enemy of the people sees this, then, my friend, as the oracle said to Croesus, ' By pebbly Hermus' shore he flees and rests not, and is not ashamed to be a coward ^. ' And quite right too, said he, for if he were, he would never be ashamed again. But if he is caught he dies. Of course.

And he, the protector of whom we spoke, is to be seen, not The protector ' larding the plain ' with his bulk, but himself the overthrower f'^n^ing up , . . _ in the chariot of many, standing up in the chariot of State \^ith the reins in of state. his hand, no longer protector, but tyrant absolute. ' Herod, i. 55.

276 His increasing unpopularity. Republic No (loubt, he said. And now let us consider the happiness of the man, and Socrates, ^^^ q£ ^^ State in which a creature hke him is generated. Adeimantus. ^ o Yes, he said, let us consider that.

At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes everv one whom he meets; — he to be called a tyrant, who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one! Of course, he said.

He stirs up But whcn hc has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest im^poverishes ^^ treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is 567 his subjects always stirring up some war or other, in order that the by the imposi- i • i j tion of taxes. P^ople may require a leader. To be sure.

Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him? Clearly.

And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy ; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war. He must. Now he begins to grow unpopular. A necessary result.

Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done. Yes, that may be expected. He gets rid of And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them ; und^bddest ^^ cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is followers. good for anything. He cannot. And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy ;

Euripides and the tragedians. 277 happy man, he is the enemy of them all, and must seek Republic occasion against them whether he will or no, until he has ^^^' made a purgation of the State. Socrates, ^ ^ Adeimantus. Yes, he said, and a rare purgation. Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians His purgation make of the body ; for they take away the worse and leave °^ '^^ ^'^**^' the better part, but he does the reverse.

If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself. What a blessed alternative, I said: — to be compelled to dwell only witK the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at all! Yes, that is the alternative. And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require ? Certainly. And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them ?

They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if he pays them. By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort More drones. and from every land. Yes, he said, there are. But will he not desire to get them on the spot? How do you mean? He will rob the citizens of their slaves ; he will then set them free and enrol them in his body-guard. To be sure, he said ; and he will be able to trust them best of all.

What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be ; he He puts to 68 has put to death the others and has these for his trusted J^^*''/''" ^ Inends and friends. lives with the Yes, he said ; they are quite of his sort. slaves whom ' -^ ^ he has cnfran- Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has chised. called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him. Of course. Verily, then, tragedy is a wise thing and Euripides a great Euripides and tragedian. the tragedians Why so?

278 Republic VIII. Socrates, Adkimantus. praise tyranny, which is an excellent reason for expelling them from our State.

The tyrant seizes the treasures in the temples, and when these fail feeds upon the people.

The ways and means of the tyrant. Why, because he is the author of the pregnant saying, * Tyrants are wise by living with the wise ; ' and he clearly meant to say that they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions. Yes, he said, and he also praises tyranny as godlike ; and many other things of the same kind are said by him and by the other poets.

And therefore, I said, the tragic poets being wise men will forgive us and any others who live after our manner if we do not receive them into our State, because they are the eulogists of tyranny. Yes, he said, those who have the wit will doubtless forgive us. But they will continue to go to other cities and attract mobs, and hire voices fair and loud and persuasive, and draw the cities over to tyrannies and democracies. Very true.

Moreover, they are paid for this and receive honour — the greatest honour, as might be expected, from tyrants, and the next greatest from democracies ; but the higher they ascend our constitution hill, the more their reputation fails, and seems unable from shortness of breath to proceed further. True.

But we are wandering from the subject : Let us therefore return and enquire how the tyrant will maintain that fair and numerous and various and ever-changing army of his. If, he said, there are sacred treasures in the city, he will confiscate and spend them ; and in so far as the fortunes of attainted persons may suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which he would otherwise have to impose upon the people. And when these fail?

Why, clearly, he said, then he and his boon companions, whether male or female, will be maintained out of his father's estate. You mean to say that the people, from whom he has derived his being, will maintain him and his companions? Yes, he said ; they cannot help themselves. But what if the people fly into a passion, and aver that a

Liberty passes into the worst form of slavery. 279

VIII. OCR AT Adeimantus.

grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father, but Repubii 569 that the father should be supported by the son? The father did not brine him into beincr, or settle him in life, in order ^"^'''^'^^^' that when his son became a man he should himself be the iney rebel, servant of his own servants and should support him and and then he his rabble of slaves and companions ; but that his son should ^^^^^ ^"^ '^ own parent, protect him, and that by his help he might be emancipated i. e. the from the government of the rich and aristocratic, as they i^^°p'^ are termed. And so he bids him and his companions depart, just as any other father might drive out of the house a riotous son and his undesirable associates. By heaven, he said, then the parent will discover what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom ; and, when he wants to drive him out, he will find that he is weak and his son strong. Why, you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence? What! beat his father if he opposes him? Yes, he will, having first disarmed him. Then he is a parricide, and a cruel guardian of an aged parent ; and this is real tyranny, about which there can be no longer a mistake : as the saying is, the people who would escape the smoke which is the slavery of freemen, has fallen into the fire which is the tyranny of slaves. Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery. True, he said. Very well ; and may we not rightly say that we have suflftciently discussed the nature of tyranny, and the manner of the transition from democracy to tyranny? Yes, quite enough, he said.

BOOK IX.

Republic IX. Socrates, Adeimantus.

A digression having a purpose.

The wild beast latent in man peers forth in sleep.

The contrast of the temperate

Last of all comes the tyrannical man ; about whom we steph. have once more to ask, how is he formed out of the 57^ democratical? and how does he Hve, in happiness or in misery? Yes, he said, he is the only one remaining. There is, however, I said, a previous question which remains unanswered. What question? I do not think that we have adequately determined the nature and number of the appetites, and until this is accomplished the enquiry will always be confused. Well, he said, it is not too late to supply the omission. Very true, I said ; and observe the point which I want to understand : Certain of the unnecessary pleasures and appetites I conceive to be unlawful ; every one appears to have them, but in some persons they are controlled by the laws and by reason, and ^the better desires prevail over them — either they are wholly banished or they become few and weak ; while in the case of others they are stronger, and there are more of them. Which appetites do you mean? I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep ; then the wild beast within us, gorged with meat or drink, starts up and having shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfy his desires ; and there is no conceivable folly or crime — not excepting incest or any other unnatural union, or parricide, or the eating of forbidden food — which at such a time, when he has parted company with all shame and sense, a man may not be ready to commit. Most true, he said. But when a man's i)ulse is healthy and temperate, and when before going to sleep he has awakened his rational

The picture of the democratical man.

281 powers, and fed them on noble tlioughts and enquiries, Republic ix. collecting himself in meditation ; after having first indulged Socrates, his appetites neither too much nor too little, but just enough ^deimantus. to lav them to sleep, and prevent them and their enjoyments '"•'»" "'hose ^ , * , * _ ... passions are and pains from interfering with the higher principle — which „nder the he leaves in the solitude of pure abstraction, free to contem- control of reason. plate and aspire to the knowledge of the unknown, whether in past, present, or future : when again he has allayed the passionate element, if he has a quarrel against any one — I say, when, after pacifying the two irrational principles, he rouses up the third, which is reason, before he takes his rest, then, as you know, he attains truth most nearly, and is least likely to be the sport of fantastic and lawless visions.

I quite agree. In saying this I have been running into a digression ; but the point which I desire to note is that in all of us, even in good men, there is a lawless wild-beast nature, which peers out in sleep. Pray, consider whether I am right, and you agree with me. Yes, I agree. And now remember the character which we attributed Recapituto the democratic man.

He was supposed from his youth upwards to have been trained under a miserly parent, who encouraged the saving appetites in him, but discountenanced the unnecessary, which aim only at amusement and ornament ? lYue. And then he got into the company of a more refined, licentious sort of people, and taking to all their wanton ways rushed into the opposite extreme from an abhorrence of his father's meanness.

At last, being a better man than his corruptors, he was drawn in both directions until he halted midway and led a life, not of vulgar and slavish passion, but of what he deemed moderate indulgence in various pleasures. After this manner the democrat was generated out of the oligarch? Yes, he said ; that was our view of him, and is so still.

And now, I said, years will have passed away, and you must conceive this man, such as he is, to have a son, who is brought up in his father's principles. I can imagine him.

Then you must further imagine the same thing to happen to the son which has aheady happened to the father: — he is drawn into a perfectly lawless life, which by his seducers is termed perfect liberty ; and his father and friends take part with his moderate desires, and the opposite party assist the opposite ones.

As soon as these dire magicians and tyrant-makers find that they are losing their hold on him, they 573 contrive to implant in him a master passion, to be lord over his idle and spendthrift lusts — a sort of monstrous winged drone — that is the only image which will adequately describe him. Yes, he said, that is the only adequate image of him.

And when his other lusts, amid clouds of incense and perfumes and garlands and wines, and all the pleasures of a dissolute life, now let loose, come buzzing around him, nourishing to the utmost the sting of desire which they implant in his drone-like nature, then at last this lord of the soul, having Madness for the captain of his guard, breaks out into a frenzy ; and if he finds in himself any good opinions or appetites in process of formation 1, and there is in him any sense of shame remaining, to these better principles he puts an end, and casts them forth until he has purged away temperance and brought in madness to the full.

Yes, he said, that is the way in which the tyrannical man is generated. And is not this the reason why of old love has been called a tyrant? I should not wonder. Further, I said, has not a drunken man also the spirit of a tyrant? He has. And you know that a man who is deranged and not right in his mind, will fancy that he is able to rule, not only over men, but also over the gods? That he will.

And the tyrannical man in the true sense of the word comes into being when, either under the influence of nature, or habit, or both, he becomes drunken, lustful, passionate? O my friend, is not that so? ' Or, ' opinions or appetites such as are deemed to be good.'

The picture of the tyrannical man. 283 Assuredly. Republic IX. Such is the man and such is his origin. And next, how Socrates, does he Hve? Ade.mantus. Suppose, as people facetiously say, you were to tell me. I imagine; I said, at the next step in his progress, that there will be feasts and carousals and revellings and courtezans, and all that sort of thing; Love is the lord of the house within him, and orders all the concerns of his soul.

That is certain. Yes ; and every day and every night desires grow up many and formidable, and their demands are many. They are indeed, he said. His revenues, if he has any, are soon spent. True. Then comes debt and the cutting down of his property. Of course.

When he has nothing left, must not his desires, crowding His desires in the nest hke young ravens, be crying aloud for food; and ^reat^rand 574 he, goaded on by them, and especially by love himself, who his means is in a manner the captain of them, is in a frenzy, and would fain discover whom he can defraud or despoil of his property, in order that he may gratify them? Yes, that is sure to be the case.

He must have money, no matter how, if he is to escape horrid pains and pangs. He must. And as in himself there was a succession of pleasures, and He win rob the new got the better of the old and took away their rights, |jj^/her'"' ^"'^ so he being younger will claim to have more than his father and his mother, and if he has spent his own share of the property, he will take a slice of theirs. No doubt he will.

And if his parents will not give way, then he will try first of all to cheat and deceive them. Very true. And if he fails, then he will use force and plunder them. Yes, probably. And if the old man and woman fight for their own, what then, my friend? Will the creature feel any compunction at tyrannizing over them?

284

The early days of the tyrant.

Republic IX. Socrates, Adeimantus. He will prefer the love of a girl or a youth to his aged parents, and may even be induced to strike them.

He turns highwayman, robs temples, loses all his early principles, and becomes in waking reality the evil dream which he had in sleep.

He gathers followers about him.

Nay, he said, I should not feel at all comfortable about his parents. But, O heavens!

Adeimantus, on account of some newfangled love of a harlot, who is anything but a necessary connection, can yoii believe that he would strike the mother who is his ancient friend and necessary to his very existence, and would place her under the authority of the other, when she is brought under the same roof with her ; or that, under like circumstances, he would do the same to his withered old father, first and most indispensable of friends, for the sake of some newly-found blooming youth who is the reverse of indispensable?

Yes, indeed, he said ; I believe that he would. Truly, then, I said, a tyrannical son is a blessing to his father and mother. He is indeed, he replied. He first takes their property, and when that fails, and pleasures are beginning to swarm in the hive of his soul, then he breaks into a house, or steals the garments of some nightly wayfarer ; next he proceeds to clear a temple.

Meanwhile the old opinions which he had when a child, and which gave judgment about good and evil, are overthrown by those others which have just been emancipated, and are now the body-guard of love and share his empire. These in his democratic days, when he was still subject to the laws and to his father, were only let loose in the dreams of sleep.

But now that he is under the dominion of Love, he becomes always and in waking reality what he was then very rarely and in a dream only ; he will commit the foulest murder, or eat forbidden food, or be guilty of any other horrid act.

Love is his tyrant, and lives lordly in him and lawlessly, and being himself a king, leads him on, as a tyrant leads a State, to the performance of any reckless deed by which he can maintain himself and the rabble of his associates, whether those whom evil communications have brought in from without, or those whom he himself has allowed to break loose within him by reason of a similar evil nature in himself.

Have we not here a picture of his way of life? Yes, indeed, he said. And if there are only a few of them in the State, and the

The change ivhich comes over him. 285 rest of the people are well disposed, they go away and Republic ix. become the body-guard or mercenary soldiers of some other Socrates, tyrant who may probably want them for a war ; and if there ^deimantus. is no war, they stay at home and do many little pieces of mischief in the city. What sort of mischief?

For example, they are the thieves, burglars, cut-purses, foot-pads, robbers of temples, man-stealers of the community ; or if they are able to speak they turn informers, and bear false witness, and take bribes. A small catalogue of evils, even if the perpetrators of them are few in number.

Yes, I said ; but small and great are comparative terms, a private and all these things, in the misery and evil which they inflict bu^uttirharm upon a State, do not come within a thousand miles of the Jn comparison tyrant ; when this noxious class and their followers grow ° ' ^ tyrant, numerous and become conscious of their strength, assisted by the infatuation of the people, they choose from among themselves the one who has most of the tyrant in his own soul, and him they create their tyrant.

Yes, he said, and he will be the most fit to^be a tyrant. If the people yield, well and good ; but if they resist him, as he began by beating his own father and mother, so now, if he has the power, he beats them, and will keep his dear old fatherland or motherland, as the Cretans say, in subjection to his young retainers whom he has introduced to be their rulers and masters. This is the end of his passions and desires. Exactly.

When such men are only private individuals and before The behathey get power, this is their character ; they associate ^r^ntV ^ entirely with their own flatterers or ready tools ; or if they his early want anything from anybody, they in their turn are equally ^"pp^"'^^''^- ready to bow down before them : they profess every sort of affection for them ; but when they have gained their point they know them no more. Yes, truly.

They are always either the masters or servants and never He is always the friends of anybody ; the tyrant never tastes of true free- "' ^^ dom or friendship.

286

The distance betiveen king and tyrant.

Republic IX. Socrates, Adeimantus, Glaucon. master or servant, always treacherous, unjust, the waking reality of our dream, a tyrant by nature, a tyrant in fact. The wicked are also the most miserable.

Like man, like State.

The opposite of the king.

Certainly not. And may we not rightly call such men treacherous? No question. Also they are utterly unjust, if we were right in our notion of justice? Yes, he said, and we were perfectly right. Let us then sum up in a word, I said, the character of the worst man : he is the waking reality of what we dreamed. Most true. And this is he who being by nature most of a tyrant bears rule, and the longer he lives the more of a tyrant he becomes.

That is certain, said Glaucon, taking his turn to answer. And will not he who has been shown to be the wickedest, be also the most miserable? and he who has tyrannized longest and most, most continually and truly miserable ; although this may not be the opinion of men in general? Yes, he said, inevitably. And must not the tyrannical man be like the tyrannical State, and the democratical man hke the democratical State ; and the same of the others?

Certainly. And as State is to State in virtue and happiness, so is man in relation to man? To be sure. Then comparing our original city, which was under a king, and the city which is under a tyrant, how do they stand as to virtue ? They are the opposite extremes, he said, for one is the very best and the other is the very worst.

There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is which, and therefore I will at once enquire whether you would arrive at a similar decision about their relative happiness and misery.

And here we must not allow ourselves to be panic-stricken at the apparition of the tyrant, who is only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him ; but let us go as we ought into every corner of the city and look all about, and then we will give our opinion. A fair invitation, he replied ; and I see, as every one must, that a tyranny is the wretchfidest form of government, and the rule of a king the happiest.

And in estimating the men too, may I not fairly make a ;77 like request, that I should have a judge whose mind can enter into and see through human nature? he must not be like a child who looks at the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumes to the beholder, but let him be one who has a clear insight.

May I suppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by one who is able to judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him, and been present at his daily life and known him in his family relations, where he may be seen stripped of his tragedy attire, and again in the hour of public danger — he shall tell us about the happiness and misery of the tyrant when compared with other men? That again, he said, is a very fair proposal.

Shall 1 assume that we ourselves are able and experienced judges and have before now met with such a person? We shall then have some one who will answer our enquiries. By all means. Let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the individual and the State ; bearing this in mind, and glancing in turn from one to the other of them, will you tell me their respective conditions? What do you mean? he asked.

Beginning with the State, I replied, would you say that a city which is governed by a tyrant is free or enslaved? No city, he said, can be more completely enslaved. And yet, as you see, there are freemen as well as masters in such a State? Yes, he said, I see that there are — a few ; but the people, speaking generally, and the best of them are miserably degraded and enslaved.

Then if the man is like the State, I said, must not the same rule prevail? his soul is full of meanness and vulgarity — the best elements in him are enslaved ; and there is a small ruling part, which is also the worst and maddest. Inevitably. And would you say that the soul of such an one is the soul of a freeman, or of a slave? He has the soul of a slave, in my opinion.

Republic IX Socrates, Gl.AUCON.

The State is not free, but enslaved.

Like a slave, the tyrant is full of meanness, and the ruling part of him is madness.

288

Happiness a7td misery of just and unjust.

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon. The city which is subject to him is goaded by a gadfly ;

poor;

full of misery.

Also the tyrannical man is most miserable. Yet there is a still more miserable being, the tyrannical man who is a public tyrant.

And the State which is enslaved under a tyrant is utterly incapable of acting voluntarily? Utterly incapable. And also the soul which is under a tyrant (I am speaking of the soul taken as a whole) is least capable of doing what she desires ; there is a gadfly which goads her, and she is full of trouble and remorse? Certainly. And is the city which is under a tyrant rich or poor? Poor.

And the tyrannical soul must be always poor and insati- 578 able? True. And must not such a State and such a man be always full of fear? Yes, indeed. Is there any State in which you will find more of lamentation and sorrow and groaning and pain? Certainly not. And is there any man in whom you will find more of this sort of misery than in the tyrannical man, who is in a fury of passions and desires? Impossible.

Reflecting upon these and similar evils, you held the tyrannical State to be the most miserable of States? And I was right, he said. Certainly, I said. And when you see the same evils in the tyrannical man, what do you say of him? I say that he is by far the most miserable of all men. There, I said, I think that you are beginning to go wrong. What do you mean? I do not think that he has as yet reached the utmost extreme of misery.

Then who is more miserable? One of whom I am about to speak. Who is that? He who is of a tyrannical nature, and instead of leading a private life has been cursed with the further misfortune of being a public tyrant. From what has been said, I gather that you are right.

The tyrmit like the owner of slaves. 289 Yes, I replied, but in this high argument you sliould be a Republic ix. Httle more certain, and should not conjecture only ; for of all Socrates, questions, this respecting good and evil is the greatest. Glaucon. Very true, he said. Let me then offer you an illustration, which may, I think, throw a light upon this subject. What is your illustration?

The case of rich individuals in cities who possess many in cities there slaves : from them vou may form an idea of the tryant's ^"^^ '"^"^ ■^ ■' J great slavecondition, for they both have slaves ; the only difference is owners, and that he has more slaves. '^^f ^f"" '° protect one Yes, that is the difference. another. You know that they live securely and have nothing to apprehend from their servants? What should they fear? Nothing.

But do you observe the reason of this? Yes ; the reason is, that the whole city is leagued together for the protection of each individual. Very true, I said.

But imagine one of these owners, the But suppose a master say of some fifty slaves, together with his family and ^nd hiTsbves property and slaves, carried off by a god into the wilderness, carried off where there are no freemen to help him — will he not be in an j" ^ness what agony of fear lest he and his wife and children should be put win happen to death by his slaves? isthecoi^ Yes, he said, he will be in the utmost fear. ditionofthe The time has arrived when he will be compelled to flatter ^^ " divers of his slaves, and make many promises to them of freedom and other things, much against his will — he will have to cajole his own servants.

Yes, he said, that will be the only way of saving himself. And suppose the same god, who carried him away, to surround him with neighbours who will not suffer one man to be the master of another, and who, if they could catch the offender, would take his life? His case will be still worse, if you suppose him to be everywhere surrounded and watched by enemies. And is not this the sort of prison in which the tyrant will ^^ '^.

'''^ , * •' daintiest of be bound — he who being by nature such as we have described, all men and is full of all sorts of fears and lusts? His soul is- dainty and ^a^ '» '-•"dure •' the hardships greedy, and yet alone, of all men in the city, he is never of a prison. VOL. III. — 34

290

The real tyrant the real slave.

Republic IX. sockates, Glaucon.

Miserable in himself, he is still more miserable if he be in a public station.

He then leads a life worse than the worst.

in unhappiness.

and in wickedness.

The umpire decides that

allowed to go on a journey, or to see the things which other freemen desire to see, but he lives in his hole like a woman hidden in the house, and is jealous of any other citizen who goes into foreign parts and sees anything of interest. Very true, he said.

And amid evils such as these will not he who is ill- governed in his own person — the tyrannical man, I mean — whom you just now decided to be the most miserable of all — will not he be yet more miserable when, instead of leading a private life, he is constrained by fortune to be a public tyrant?

He has to be master of others when he is not master of himself : he is like a diseased or paralytic man who is compelled to pass his life, not in retirement, but fighting and combating with other men. Yes, he said, the similitude is most exact. Is not his case utterly miserable? and does not the actual tyrant lead a worse life than he whose Hfe you determined to be the worst? Certainly.

He who is the real tyrant, whatever men may think, is the real slave, and is obliged to practise the greatest adulation and servility, and to be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind.

He has desires which he is utterly unable to satisfy, and has more wants than any one, and is truly poor, if you know how to inspect the whole soul of him : all his life long he is beset with fear and is full of convulsions and distractions, even as the State which he resembles : and surely the resemblance holds? Very true, he said.

Moreover, as we were saying before, he grows worse 580 from having power: he becomes and is of necessity more jealous, more faithless, more unjust, more friendless, more impious, than he was at first ; he is the purveyor and cherisher of every sort of vice, and the consequence is that he is supremely miserable, and that he makes everybody else as miserable as himself. No man of any sense will dispute your words.

Come then, I said, and as the general umpire in theatrical contests proclaims the result, do you also decide who in your opinion is first in the scale of happiness, and who second,

and in what order the others follow : there are five of them in all — they are the royal, timocratical, oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical. The decision will be easily given, he replied ; they shall be choruses coming on the stage, and I must judge them in the order in which they enter, by the criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and misery.

Need we hire a herald, or shall I announce, that the son of Ariston [the best] has decided that the best and justest is also the happiest, and that this is he who is the most royal man and king over himself; and that the worst and most unjust man is also the most miserable, and that this is he who being the greatest tyrant of himself is also the greatest tyrant of his State? Make the proclamation yourself, he said.

And shall I add, ' whether seen or unseen by gods and men ' ? Let the words be added. Then this, I said, will be our first proof ; and there is another, which may also have some weight. What is that? The second proof is derived from the nature of the soul : seeing that the individual soul, hke the State, has been divided by us into three principles, the division may, I think, furnish a new demonstration. Of what nature?

It seems to me that to these three principles three pleasures correspond ; also three desires and governing powers. How do you mean? he said.

There is one principle with which, as we were saying, a man learns, another with which he is angry ; the third, having many forms, has no special name, but is denoted by the general term appetitive, from the, extra ordinary strength and vehemence of the desires of eating and drinking and the other sensual appetites which are the main elements of it ; also money-loving, because such desires are generally satisfied by the help of money.

That is true, he said. If we were to say that the loves and pleasures of this third part were concerned with gain, we should then be

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon.

the best is the happiest and the worst is the most miserable. This is the proclamation of the son of Ariston.

Proof, derived from the three principles of the soul.

(i) The appetitive ;

292

The three classes of men and three kinds of pleasure.

Republic IX. Socrates, G1.AUCON.

(2) The ambitious:

(3) The principle ot knowledge and truth.

F^ach will depreciate the others, hut only the philosopher has the power to judge,

able to fall back on a single notion ; and might truly and intelligibly describe this part of the soul as loving gain or money. I agree with you. Again, is not the passionate element wholly set on ruling and conquering and getting fame? True. Suppose we call it the contentious or ambitious — would the term be suitable? Extremely suitable.

On the other hand, every one sees that the principle of knowledge is wholly directed to the truth, and cares less than, either of the others for gain or fame. Far less. ' Lover of wisdom,' ' lover of knowledge,' are titles which we may" fitly apply to that part of the soul? Certainly. One principle prevails in the souls of one class of men, another in others, as may happen? Yes.

Then we may begin by assuming that there are three classes of men — lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, lovers of gain? Exactly. And there are three kinds of pleasure, which are their several objects? Very true.

Now, if you examine the three classes of men, and ask of them in turn which of their lives is pleasantest, each will be found praising his own and depreciating that of others : the money-maker will contrast the vanity of honour or of learning if they bring no money with the solid advantages of gold and silver? , True, he said. And the lover of honour — what will be his opinion?

Will he not think that the pleasure of riches is vulgar, while the pleasure of learning, if it brings no distinction, is all smoke and nonsense to him? Very true.

The pJiilosopJier 'judges all, and is judged of none' 293 And are we to suppose \ I said, that the philosopher sets RepubUcix. any value on other pleasures in comparison with the plea- Socrates, sure of knowing the truth, and in that pursuit abiding, ever ^^-^^^^^ leamincf, not so far indeed from the heaven of pleasure? because he ° •^ alone has ex- Does he not call the other pleasures necessary, under the perienceof idea that if there were no necessity for them, he would '^e highest •' pleasures and rather not have them? is also ac- There can be no doubt of that, he replied. quainted with ^ ^ the lower.

Since, then, the pleasures of each class and the life of each are in dispute, and the question is not which life is more or less honourable, or better or worse, but which is the more pleasant or painless — how shall we know who speaks truly? I cannot myself tell, he said. Well, but what ought to be the criterion? Is any better than experience and wisdom and reason? There cannot be a better, he said. Then, I said, reflect.

Of the three individuals, which has the greatest experience of all the pleasures which we enumerated? Has the lover of gain, in learning the nature of essential truth, greater experience of the pleasure of knowledge than the philosopher has of the pleasure of gain?

The philosopher, he replied, has greatly the advantage ; for he has of necessity always known the taste of the other pleasures from his childhood upwards : but the lover of gain in all his experience has not of necessity tasted — or, I should rather say, even had he desired, could hardly have tasted — the sweetness of learning and knowing truth. Then the lover of wisdom has a great advantage over the lover of gain, for he has a double experience?

Yes, very great. Again, has he greater experience of the pleasures of honour, or the lover of honour of the pleasures of wisdom?

Nay, he said, all three are honoured in proportion as they attain their object ; for the rich man and the brave man and the wise man ahke have their crowd of admirers, and as they all receive honour they all have experience of the pleasures of honour ; but the delight which is to be found ' Reading with Grasere and Hermann ri oicjfieOa, and omitting ovdh', which is not found in the best MSS.

294

The higher pleasure approved by the higher faculty.

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon.

The philosopher alone having both judgment and experience.

the pleasures which he approves are the true pleasures : he places (i) the love of wrisdom, (2) the love of honour, (3) and lowest the love ol gain.

in the knowledge of true being is known to the philosopher only. His experience, then, will enable him to judge better than any one? Far better. And he is the only one who has wisdom as well as experience? Certainly. Further, the very faculty which is the instrument of judgment is not possessed by the covetous or ambitious man, but only by the philosopher? What faculty? Reason, with whom, as we were saying, the decision ought to rest. Yes. And reasoning is peculiarly his instrument? Certainly. If wealth and gain were the criterion, then the praise or blame of the lover of gain would surely be the most trustworthy ? Assuredly. Or if honour or victory or courage, in that case the judgment of the ambitious or pugnacious would be the truest ? Clearly. But since experience and wisdom and reason are the judges — The only inference possible, he replied, is that pleasures which are approved by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest. And so we arrive at the result, that the pleasure of the intelligent part of the soul is the pleasantest of the three, 583 and that he of us in whom this is the ruling principle has the pleasantest life. Unquestionably, he said, the wise man speaks with authority when he approves of his own life. And what does the judge affirm to be the hfe which is next, and the pleasure which is next? Clearly that of the soldier and lover of honour ; who is nearer to himself than the money-maker. Last comes the lover of gain?

The third trial. 295 Very true, he said. Republic ix. Twice in succession, then, has the just man overthrown the Socrates, unjust in this conflict ; and now comes the third trial, which ^^^"^o"- is dedicated to Olympian Zeus the savioiu- : a sage whispers ^ '^'^ p'*^*" •' ... sure IS not in my ear that no pleasure except that of the wise is quite relative but true and pure — all others are a shadow only ; and surely ^^^^o^"'^ this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls? Yes, the greatest; but will you explain yourself? I will work out the subject and you shall answer my questions. Proceed. Say, then, is not pleasure opposed to pain? True. And there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor pain? There is. A state which is intermediate, and a sort of repose of the soul about either — that is what you mean? Yes. You remember what people say when they are sick? What do they say? . That after all nothing is pleasanter than health. But then they never knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill. Yes, I know, he said. And when persons are suffering from acute pain, you must The states have heard them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to '"'ermediate ■' ox between get rid of their pain? pleasure and I have. P^^'" ^7 , termed plea- And there are many other cases of suffering in which the sures or pains mere rest and cessation of pain, and not any positive enjoy- °"'^ '" y^'^' r •> J f J J t,ori to their ment, is extolled by them as the greatest pleasure? opposites. Yes, he said ; at the time they are pleased and well content to be at rest. Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will be painful? Doubtless, he said. Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be pain? So it would seem.

296

The greater or less reality of pleasure.

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon.

Pleasure and pain are said to be states of rest, but they are really motions.

All pleasures are not merely cessations of pains, or pains of pleasures ; e. g. the pleasures of smell are not.

But can that which is neither become both? I should say not. And both pleasure and pain are motions of the soul, are they not? Yes. But that which is neither was just now shown to be rest 584 and not motion, and in a mean between them? Yes. How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is pleasure, or that the absence of pleasure is pain? Impossible.

This then is an appearance only and not a reality ; that is to say, the rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful, and painful in comparison of what is pleasant ; but all these representations, when tried by the test of true pleasure, are not real but a sort of imposition? That is the inference.

Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains and you will no longer suppose, as you perhaps may at present, that pleasure is only the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure. ♦ What are they, he said, and where shall I find them? There are many of them : take as an example the pleasures of smell, which are very great and have no antecedent pains ; they come in a moment, and when they depart leave no pain behind them.

Most true, he said. Let us not, then, be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure. No. Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the soul through the body are generally of this sort — they are reliefs of pain. That is true. And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like nature? Yes. Shall I give you an illustration of them? Let me hear.

The illusiofi of reiatwcness. 297 You would allow, I said, that there is in nature an upper Republic ix. and lower and middle region? Socrates, I should. ^^""°^- And if a person were to eo from the lower to the middle '""strations . . . .

0/ the unregion, would he not imagine that he is going up ; and he reality of who is standing in the middle and sees whence he has come, ""^'" p'^^' . sures. would imagine that he is already in the upper legion, if he has never seen the true upper world? To be sure, he said ; how can he think otherwise? But if he were taken back again he would imagine, and tnily imagine, that he was descending? No doubt.

All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle and lower regions? Yes.

Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth, as they have wrong ideas about many other things, should also have wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state ; so that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain and think the pain which they experience to be real, and in like manner, when 585 drawn away from pain to the neutral or intermediate state, they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety and pleasure ; they, not knowing pleasure, err in contrasting pain with the absence of pain, which is like contrasting black with grey instead of whit^ — can you wonder, I say, at this?

No, indeed ; 1 should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite. Look at the matter thus: — Hunger, thirst, and the like are inanitions of the bodily state? Yes. And ignorance and folly are inanitions of the soul? True. And lood and wisdom are the corresponding satisfactions of either? Certainly. And is the satisfaction derived from that which has less or The imeifrom that which has more existence the truer?

'*^*^^"^' "^°\^ real than the Clearly, from that which has more sensual. What cla.sses of things have a greater share of pure

existence in your judgment — those of which food and drink and condiments and all kinds of sustenance are examples, or the class which contains true opinion and knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue?

Put the question in this way: — Which has a more pure being — that which is concerned with the invariable, the immortal, and the true, and is of such a nature, and is found in such natures ; or that which is concerned with and found in the variable and mortal, and is itself variable and mortal? Far purer, he replied, is the being of that which is concerned with the invariable.

And does the essence of the invariable partake of knowledge in the same degree as of essence? Yes, of knowledge in the same degree. And of truth in the same degree? Yes. And, conversely, that which has less of truth will also have less of essence? Necessarily. Then, in general, those kinds of things which are in the service of the body have less of truth and essence than those which are in the service of the soul?

Far less, And has not the body itself less of truth and essence than the soul? Yes. What is filled with more real existence, and actually has a more real existence, is more really filled than that which is filled with less real existence and is less real? Of course.

And if there be a pleasure in being filled with that which is according to nature, that which is more really filled with more real being will more really and truly enjoy true pleasure ; whereas that which participates in less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied, and will participate in an illusory and less real ^pleasure? Unquestionably.

Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean , and in this region they move at

random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world ; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure.

Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed, and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron ; and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust.

For they fill themselves with that v/hich is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent. Verily, Socrates, said Glaucon, you describe the life of the many like an oracle. Their pleasures are mixed with pains — how can they be otherwise?

For they are mere shadows and pictures of the true, and are coloured by contrast, which exaggerates both light and shade, and so they implant in the minds of fools insane desires of themselves ; and they are fought about as Stesichorus says that the Greeks fought about the shadow of Helen at Troy in ignorance of the truth. Something of that sort must inevitably happen.

And must not the like happen with the spirited or passionate element of the soul? Will not the passionate man who carries his passion into action, be in the like case, whether he is envious and ambitious, or violent and contentious, or angry and discontented, if he be seeking to attain honour and victory and the satisfaction of his anger without reason or sense? Yes, he said, the same will happen with the spirited element aLso.

Then may we not confidently assert that the lovers of money and honour, when they seek their pleasures under the guidance and in the company of reason and knowledge, and pursue after and win the pleasures which wisdom shows them, will also have the truest pleasures in the highest degree which is attainable to them, inasmuch as they follow truth ; and they will have the pleasures which are natural to them, if that which is best for each one is also' most natural to him? Yes, certainly ; the best is the most natural.

Republic /.V. Socrates, Glaucon.

Both kinds of pleasures are attained in the highest degree when the desires which seek them are under the guidance of reason.

300

The pleasures of the king and the tyrant.

Republic IX Socrates, Gl.AUCON.

The measure of the interval which separates the king from the tyrant,

And when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle, and there is no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them their own business, and enjoy severally 587 the best and truest pleasures of which they are capable? Exactly. But when either of the two other principles prevails, it fails in attaining its own pleasure, and compels the rest to pursue after a pleasure which is a shadow only and which is not their own? True.

And the greater the interval which separates them from philosophy and rjsason, the more strange and illusive will be the pleasure? Yes. And is not that farthest from reason which is at the greatest distance from law and order? Clearly. And the lustful and tyrannical desires are, as we saw, at the greatest distance? Yes. And the royal and orderly desires are nearest? Yes.

Then the tyrant will hve at the greatest distance from true or natural pleasure, and the king at the least? Certainly. Put if so, the tyrant will live most unpleasantly, and the king most pleasantly? Inevitably. Would you know the measure of the interval which separates them? Will you tell me?

There appear to be three pleasures, one genuine and two spurious : now the transgression of the tyrant reaches a point beyond the spurious ; he has run away from the region of law and reason, and taken up his abode with certain slave pleasures which are his satellites, and the measure of his inferiority can only be expressed in a figure. How do you mean? I assume, I said, that the tyrant is in the third place from the oligarch ; the democrat was in the middle?

The interval by which they are separated. 301 Yes. Republic IX. And if there is truth in what has preceded, he will be Socrates, wedded to an image of pleasure which is thrice removed as ^'-'^^'^■°nto truth from the pleasiu'e of the oligarch? He will. And the oligarch is third from the royal ; since we count as one royal and aristocratical? Yes, he is third.

'I'hen the tyrant is removed from true pleasure by the expressed space of a number which is three times three ? ""''t'^ I^*: * symbol of Manifestly. a cube cor- The shadow then of tvrannical pleasure determined by the y^^Jf "'^'"s •^ -'to the numnumber of length will be a plane figure. ber 729, Certainly.

And if you raise the power and make the plane a solid, there is no difficulty in seeing how vast is the interval by which the tyrant is parted from the king. Yes ; the arithmetician will easily do the sum.

Or if some person begins at the other end and measures the interval by which the king is parted from the tyrant in truth of pleasure, he will find him, when the multiplication is completed, living 729 times more pleasantly, and the tyrant more painfully by this same interval. What a wonderful calculation! And how enormous is the 588 distance which separates the just from the unjust in regard to pleasure and pain!

Yet a true calculation, I said, and a number which nearly which is concerns human life, if human beings are concerned with nu^b^^'of days and nights and months and years ^ days and Yes, he said, human life is certainly concerned with them, ylar.^'"^ Then if the good and just man be thus superior in pleasure to the evil and unjust, his superiority will be infinitely greater in propriety of life and in beauty and virtue? Immeasurably greater.

Well, I said, and now having arrived at this stage of the Refutation argument, we may revert to the words which brought us ° n^^chus hither : Was not some one saying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputed to be just? Yes, that was said. ' 729 nearly equals the number of days and nights in the year.

302

The ideal image of the soid, comprehending

Rep7iblic IX. Socrates, Gl.AITCON.

The triple animal who has outwardly the image of a man.

Will any one say that we should strengthen the monster and the lion at the expense of the man ?

Now then, having determined the power and quahty of justice and injustice, let us have a httle conversation with him. What shall we say to him? Let us make an image of the soul, that he may have his own words presented before his eyes. Of what sort?

An ideal image of the soul, like the composite creations of ancient mythology, such as the Chimera or Scylla or Cerberus, and there are many others in which two or more different natures are said to grow into one. There are said to have been such unions. Then do you now model the form of a multitudinous, many-headed monster, having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts, tame and wild, which he is able to generate and metamorphose at will.

You suppose marvellous powers in the artist ; but, as language is more pliable than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a model as you propose. Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a third of a man, the second smaller than the first, and the third smaller than the second. That, he said, is an easier task ; and I have made them as you say. And now join them, and let the three grow into one.

That has been accomplished. Next fashion the outside of them into a single image, as of a man, so that he who is not able to look within, and sees only the outer hull, may believe the beast to be a single human creature. I have done so, he said.

And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature to be unjust, and unprofitable to be just, let us reply that, if he be right, it is profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities, but to starve and weaken the man, 589 who is consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two ; and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another — he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another.

Certainly, he said ; that is what the approver of injustice says. To him the supporter of justice makes answer that he should ever so speak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete mastery over the entire human creature.

He should watch over the manyheaded monster like a good husbandman, fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing ; he should be making the lion-heart his ally, and in common care of them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself. Yes, he said, that is quite what the maintainer of justice will say.

And so from every point of view, whether of pleasure, honour, or advantage, the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth, and the disapprover is wrong and false and ignorant? Yes, from every point of view. Come, now, and let us gently reason with the unjust, who is not intentionally in error. ' Sweet Sir,' we will say to him, 'what think you of things esteemed noble and ignoble?

Is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the god in man ; and the ignoble that which subjects the man to the beast? ' He can hardly avoid saying Yes — can he now ? Not if he has any regard for my opinion.

But, if he agree so far, we may ask him to answer another question : ' Then how would a man profit if he received gold and silver on the condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst? \\'ho can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum which he received?

And will any one say that he is not a miserable 590 caitiff who remorselessly sells his own divine being to that which is most godless and detestable? Eriphyle took the necklace as the price of her husband's life, but he is taking a bribe in order to compass a worse ruin. Yes, said Glaucon, far worse — I will answer for him. Has not the intemperate been censured of old, because in

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon.

For the noble principle subjects the beast to the man, the ignoble the man to the beast.

A man would not be the gainer if he sold his child : how much worse to sell his soul !

304

Shall we enslave the better to the worse,

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon. Proofs : — (i) Men are blamed for the predominance of the lower nature,

as well as for the meanness of their employments and character :

(2) It is admitted that every one should be the servant of a divine rule, or at any rate be kept under control by an external authority :

(3) The care taken of children shows that we seek to establish in them a higher principle.

him the huge multiform monster is allowed to be too much at large ? Clearly. And men are blamed for pride and bad temper when the lion and serpent element in them disproportionately grows and gains strength? Yes. And luxury and softness are blamed, because they relax and weaken this same creature, and make a coward of him? Very true.

And is not a man reproached for flattery and meanness who subordinates the spirited animal to the unruly monster, and, for the sake of money, of which he can never have enough, habituates him in the days of his youth to be trampled in the mire, and from being a lion to become a monkey? True, he said. And why are mean employments and manual arts a reproach?

Only because they imply a natural weakness of the higher principle ; the individual is unable to control the creatures within him, but has to court them, and his great study is how to flatter them. Such appears to be the reason.

And therefore, being desirous of placing him under a rule like that of the best, we say that he ought to be the servant of the best, in whom the Divine rules ; not, as Thrasymachus supposed, to the injury of the servant, but because every one had better be ruled by divine wisdom dweUing within him ; or, if this be impossible, then by an external authority, in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals.

True, he said.

And this is clearly seen to be the intention of the law, which is the ally of the whole city ; and is seen also in the authority which we exercise over children, and the refusal to let them be free until we have established in them a principle analogous to the constitution of a state, and by cultivation of 591 this higher element have set up in their hearts a guardian and ruler like our own, and when this is done they may go their ways. Yes, he said, the purpose of the law is manifest.

From what point of view, then, and on what ground can we say that a man is profited by injustice or intemperance or other baseness, which will make him a worse man, even though he acquire money or power by his wickedness? From no point of view at all. What shall he profit, if his injustice be undetected and unpunished?

He who is undetected only gets worse, whereas he who is detected and punished has the brutal part of his nature silenced and humanized ; the gentler element in him is liberated, and his whole soul is perfected and ennobled by the acquirement of justice and temperance and wisdom, more than the body ever is by receiving gifts of beauty, strength and health, in proportion as the soul is more honourable than the body. Certainly, he said.

To this nobler purpose the man of understanding will devote the energies of his life. And in the first place, he will honour studies which jmpress these qualities on his soul, and will disregard others? Clearly, he said.

In the next place, he will regulate his bodily habit and training, and so far will he be from yielding to brutal and irrational pleasures, that he will regard even .health as quite a secondary matter ; his first object will be not that he may be fair or strong or well, unless he is likely thereby to gain temperance, but he will always desire so to attemper the body as to preserve the harmony of the soul?

Certainly he will, if he has true music in him. And in the acquisition of wealth there is a principle of order and harmony which he will also observe ; he will not allow himself to be dazzled by the foolish applause of the world, and heap up riches to his own infinite harm? Certainly not, he said.

He will look at the city which is within him, and take heed that no disorder occur in it, such as might arise either from superfluity or from want ; and upon this principle he will regulate his property and gain or spend according to his means. Very true. And, for the same reason, he will gladly accept and enjoy VOL. III.— 35

Republic IX. sockates, Glaucon.

The wise man will employ his energies in freeing and harmonizing the nobler elements of his nature and in regulating his bodily habits.

His first aim not health but harmony

of soul.

He will not heap up riches,

3o6

*The city ivhich is in heaven.''

Republic IX. Socrates, Glaucon. and he will only accept such political honours as will not deteriorate his character.

He has a city of his own, and the ideal pattern of this will be the law of his life.

such honours as he deems likely to make him a better man ; 592 but those, whether private or public, which are likely to disorder his life, he will avoid? Then, if that is his motive, he will not be a statesman. By the dog of Egypt, he will! in the city which is his own he certainly will, though in the land of his birth perhaps not, unless he have a divine call. I understand ; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders, and which exists in idea only ; for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth? In heaven, I replied, there is laid up a pattern of it, methinks, which he who desires may behold, and beholding, may set his own house in order ^ But whether such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter ; for he will live after the manner of that city, having nothing to do with any other. I think so, he said.

' Or * take up his abode there.*

BOOK X.

steph. Of the many excellences which I perceive in the order of 595 our State, there is none which upon reflection pleases me better than the rule about poetry. To what do you refer? To the rejection of imitative poetry, which certainly ought not to be received ; as I see far more clearly now that the parts of the soul have been distinguished. What do you mean? Speaking in confidence, for I should not like to have my words repeated to the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe — but I do not mind saying to you, that all poetical imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them. Explain the purport of your remark. Well, I will tell you, although I have always from my earhest youth had an awe and love of Homer, which even now makes the words falter on my lips, for he is the great captain and teacher of the whole of that charming tragic company ; but a man is not to be reverenced more than the truth, and therefore I will speak out. Very good, he said. Listen to me then, or rather, answer me. Put your question. Can you tell me what imitation is? for I really do not know. A likely thing, then, that I should know. 596 Why not? for the duller eye may often see a thing sooner than the keener. Very true, he said ; but in your presence, even if I had any

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon.

Poetical imitations are ruinous to the mind of the hearer.

The nature of imitation.

3o8

(i) The idea of a bed ; (2) the actual bed ;

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon.

The idea is one, but the objects comprehended under it are many.

The universal creator an extraordinary person. But note also that everybody is a creator in a sense. For all things may be made by the reflection of them in a mirror.

faint notion, I could not muster courage to utter it. Will you enquire yourself? Well then, shall we begin the enquiry in our usual manner : Whenever a number of individuals have a common name, we assume them to have also a corresponding idea or form : — do you understand me? I do. Let us take any common instance ; there are beds and tables in the world — plenty of them, are there not ? Yes.

But there are only two ideas or forms of them — one the. idea of a bed, the other of a table. True. And the maker of either of them makes a bed or he makes a table for our use, in accordance with the idea — that is our way of speaking in this and similar instances — but no artificer makes the ideas themselves : how could he ? Impossible. And there is another artist, — I should like to know what you would say of him. Who is he?

One who is the maker of all the works of all other workmen. What an extraordinary man! Wait a little,, and there will be more reason for your saying so. For this is he who is able to make not only vessels of every kind, but plants and animals, himself and all other things — the earth and heaven, and the things which are in heaven or under the earth ; he makes the gods also. He must be a wizard and no mistake. Oh! you are incredulous, are you?

Do you mean that there is no such maker or creator, or that in one sense there might be a maker of all these things but in another not? Do you see that there is a way in which you could make them all yourself? What way?

An easy way enough ; or rather, there are many ways in which the feat might be quickly and easily accomplished, none quicker than that of turning a mirror round and round — you would soon enough make the sun and the heavens, and the earth and yourself, and other animals and plants, and

(3) tJic imitation of a bed. 309 all the other things of which we were just now speaking, in Republic x. the mirror. Socrates, Yes, he said ; but they would be appearances only. Glaucon. Very good, I said, you are coming to the point now. And ^"* '^'^ ''^ ^" the painter too is, as I conceive, just such another — a creator only: and the of appearances, is he not? painter too is ^ ^ a" maker of (jl course. appearances. But then I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue. And yet there is a sense in which the painter also creates a bed? Yes, he said, but not a real bed. And what of the maker of the bed? were you not saying that he too makes, not the idea which, according to our view, is the essence of the bed, but only a particular bed? Yes, I did. Then if he does not make that which exists he cannot make true existence, but only some semblance of existence ; and if any one were to say that the work of the maker of the bed, or of any other workman, has real existence, he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth. At any rate, he replied, philosophers would say that he was not speaking the truth. No wonder, then, that his work too is an indistinct expression of truth. No wonder. Suppose now that by the light of the examples just offered we enquire who this imitator is? If you please. Well then, here are three beds: one existing in nature, Threebeds which is made by God, as I think that we may say — for ^"'J three •^ ■' •' makers of no one else can be the maker? beds. No. There is another which is the work of the carpenter? Yes. And the work of the painter is a third? Yes. Beds, then, are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintend them : God, the maker of the bed, and the painter? Yes, there are three of them.

3IO

God^ the carpenter^

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon. (i) The creator. God could only make - one bed ; if he made two, a third would still appear behind them.

(2) The human maker.

(3) The imitator, i.e. the painter or poet,

God, whether from choice or from necessity, made one bed in nature and one only ; two or more such ideal beds neither ever have been nor ever will be made by God. Why is that? Because even if He had made but two, a third would still appear behind them which both of them would have for their idea, and that would be the ideal bed and not the two others. Very true, he said.

God knew this, and He desired to be the real maker of a real bed, not a particular maker of a particular bed, and therefore He created a bed which is essentially and by nature one only. So we believe. Shall we, then, speak of Him as the natural author or maker of the bed? Yes, he replied ; inasmuch as by the natural process of creation He is the author of this and of all other things.

And what shall we say of the carpenter — is not he also the maker of the bed? Yes. But would you call the painter a creator and maker? Certainly not. Yet if he is not the maker, what is he in relation to the bed? I think, he said, that we may fairly designate him as the imitator of that which the others make. Good, I said ; then you call him who is third in the descent from nature an imitator? Certainly, he said.

And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the truth? That appears to be so. Then about the imitator we are agreed. And what about the painter? — I would like to know whether he may be 598 thought to imitate that which originally exists in nature, or only the creations of artists? The latter. As they are or as they appear? you have still to determine this.

tJie painter or poet. 3 1 1 What do you mean? Republic x. I mean, that you may look at a bed from different points of Socrates, view, obliquely or directly or from any other point of view, ^'''^^'^<^'^ and the bed will appear different, but there is no difference whose an is ^ * . one of imitain reality.

And the same of all things. tion or ap- Yes, he said, the difference is only apparent. pearanceand , , , a 'ong way Now let me ask you another question : Which is the art of removed from painting designed to be — an imitation of things as they are, '^*^ ^''"^^' or as they appear — of appearance or of reality ? Of appearance.

Then the imitator, I said, is a long way off the truth, and Any one who can do all things because he lightly touches on a small part ti^ng^does of them, and that part an image.

For example : A painter only a very will paint a cobbler, carpenter, or any other artist, though he ^^^^ ^^^^ ^ knows nothing of their arts ; and, if he is a good artist, he may deceive children or simple persons, when he shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance, and they will fancy that they are' looking at a real carpenter. Certainly.

And whenever any one informs us that he has found a man Any one who who knows all the arts, and all things else that anybody ^no'^"^^*" knows, and every single thing with a higher degree of ac- things is igcuracy than any other man — whoever tells us this, I think "r'^^nauire^of that we can only imagine him to be a simple creature who is knowledge, likely to have been deceiv^ed by some wizard or "actor whom he met, and whom he thought all-knowing, because he himself was unable to analyse the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation.

Most true. And so, when we hear persons saying that the tragedians. And he who and Homer, who is at their head, know all the arts and all ^""^'^^f ' ' such unithings human, virtue as well as vice, and divine things too, versaiknowfor that the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows ^ ^^ ^° * ^

poets IS

his subject, and that he who has not this knowledge can similarly

never be a poet, we ought to consider whether here also there may not be a similar illusion. Perhaps they may have come across imitators and been deceived by them ; they may not have remembered when they saw their works that 599 these were but imitations thrice removed from the truth, and could easily be made without any knowledge of the truth,

deceived.

312

A question to be asked of Homer :

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon.

He who could make the original would not make the image.

If Homer had been a legislator, or general, or inventor,

because they are appearances only and not realities? Or, after all, they may be in the right, and poets do really know the things about which they seem to the many to speak so well? The question, he said, should by all means be considered. Now do you suppose that if a person were able to make the original as well as the image, he would seriously devote himself to the image-making branch?

Would he allow imitation to be the ruling principle of his hfe, as if he had nothing higher in him? I should say not. The real artist, who knew what he was imitating, would be interested in realities and not in imitations ; and would desire to leave as memorials of himself works many and fair ; and, instead of being the author of encomiums, he would prefer to be the theme of them.

Yes, he said, that would be to him a source of much greater honour and profit.

Then, I said, we must put a question to Homer; not about medicine, or any of the arts to which his poems only incidentally refer: we are not going to ask him, or any other poet, whether he has cured patients like Asclepius, or left behind him a school of medicine such as the Asclepiads were, or whether he only talks about medicine and other arts at second-hand ; but we have a right to know respecting military tactics, politics, education, which are the chiefest and noblest subjects of his poems, and we may fairly ask him about them.

' Friend Homer,' then we say to him, ' if you are only in the second remove from truth in what you say of virtue, and not in the third — not an image maker or imitator — and if you are able to discern what pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life, tell us what State was ever better governed by your help?

The good order of Lacedaemon is due to I.ycurgus, and many other cities great and small have been similarly benefited by others ; but who says that you have been a good legislator to them and have done them any good? Italy and Sicily boast of Charondas, and there is Solon who is renowned among us ; but what city has anything to say about you? ' Is there any city which he might name? I think not, said Glaucon ; not even the Homerids themselves pretend that he was a legislator.

JV/iat good have you ever done ? 313 Well, but is there any war on record which was carried on Republic x. successfully by him, or aided by his counsels, when he was Socrates, alive? ^''^^^"'^• There is not. Or is there any invention ^ of his, applicable to the arts or to human life, such as Thales the Milesian or Anacharsis the Scythian, and other ingenious men have conceived, which is attributed to him? There is absolutely nothing of the kind.

But, if Homer never did any public service, was he privately a guide or teacher of any? Had he in his lifetime friends who loved to associate with him, and who handed down to posterity an Homeric way of life, such as was established by Pythagoras who was so greatly beloved for his wisdom, and whose followers are to this day quite celebrated for the order which was named after him? Nothing of the kind is recorded of him.

For surely, Socrates, Creophylus, the companion of Homer, that child of flesh, whose name always makes us laugh, might be more justly ridiculed for his stupidity, if, as is said, Homer was greatly neglected by him and others in his own day when he was ahve? Yes, I replied, that is the tradition.

But can you imagine, or had done Glaucon, that if Homer had really been able to educate and ^"y^hmgeise _ •' for the imimprove mankind — if he had possessed knowledge and not provement been a mere imitator — can you imagine, I say, that he would ^1 wmUd^not not have had many followers, and been honoured and loved have been by them?

Protagoras of Abdera, and Prodicus of Ceos, and a host of others, have only to whisper to their contemporaries : ' You will never be able to manage either your own house or your own State until you appoint us to be your ministers of education ' — and this ingenious device of theirs has such an effect in making men love them that their companions all but carry them about on their shoulders.

And is it conceivable that the contemporaries of Homer, or again of Hesiod, would have allowed either of them to go about as rhapsodists, if they had really been able to make mankind virtuous? Would they not have been as unwilling to part with them as with gold, and have compelled them to stay ' Omitting t\q.

at home with them? Or, if the master would not stay, then the disciples would have followed him about everywhere, until they had got education enough? Yes, Socrates, that, I think, is quite true. Then must we not infer that all these poetical individuals, beginning with Homer, are only imitators ; they copy images of virtue and the Hke, but the truth they never reach?

The poet is like a painter who, as we have already observed, will make a hkeness of a cobbler though he understands nothing of cobbling ; and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does, and judge only by colours and figures. Quite so.

« In Uke manner the poet with his words and phrases ^ may be said to lay on the colours of the several arts, himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them ; and other people, who are as ignorant as he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaks of cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else, in metre and harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well — such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have.

And I think that you must have observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales of poets make when stripped of the colours which music puts upon them, and recited in simple prose. Yes, he said. They are hke faces which were never really beautiful, but only blooming ; and now the bloom of youth has passed away from them? Exactly.

Here is another point : The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence ; he knows appearances only. Am I not right? Yes. Then let us have a clear understanding, and not be satisfied with half an explanation. Proceed. Of the painter we say that he will paint reins, and he will paint a bit? Yes. ' Or, ' with his nouns and verbs.*

They are not even judges of theij' own works.

315

And the worker in leather and brass will make them? Certainly. But does the painter know the right form of the bit and reins? Nay, hardly even the workers in brass and leather who make them ; only the horseman who knows how to use them — he knows their right form. Most true. And may we not say the same of all things? What? That there are three arts which are concerned with all things : one which uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them? Yes. And the excellence or beauty or truth of every structure, animate or inanimate, and of every action of man, is relative to the use for which nature or the artist has intended them. True. Then the user of them must have the greatest experience of them, and he must indicate to the maker the good or bad qualities which develope themselves in use ; for example, the flute-player will tell the flute-maker which of his flutes is satisfactory to the performer ; he will tell him how he ought to make them, and the other will attend to his instructions? Of course. The one knows and therefore speaks with authority about the goodness and badness of flutes, while the other, confiding in him, will do what he is told by him? True. The instrument is the same, but about the excellence or badness of it the maker will only attain to a correct belief ; and this he will gain from him who knows, by talking to him and 602 being compelled to hear what he has to say, whereas the user will have knowledge? True. But will the imitator have either? Will he know from use whether or no his drawing is correct or beautiful? or will he have right opinion from being compelled to associate with another who knows and gives him instructions about what he should draw?

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon. The maker has more knowledge than the imitator, but less than the user.

Three arts, using, making, imitating.

Goodness of things relative to use ; hence the maker of them is instructed by the user.

The maker has belief and not knowledge, the imitator neither.

3i6

The imitative y the lower faculty of the soul .

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon.

Imitation has been proved to be thrice removed from the truth.

Neither. Then he will no more have true opinion than he will have knowledge about the goodness or badness of his imitations? I suppose not. The imitative artist will be in a brilhant state of intelligence about his own creations? Nay, very much the reverse. And still he will go on imitating without knowing what makes a thing good or bad, and may be expected therefore to imitate only that which appears to be good to the ignorant multitude? Just so. Thus far then we are pretty well agreed that the imitator has no knowledge worth mentioning of what he imitates. Imitation is only a kind of play or sport, and the tragic poets, whether they write in Iambic or in Heroic verse, are imitators in the highest degree? Very* true. And now tell me, I conjure you, has not imitation been shown by us to be concerned with that which is thrice removed from the truth? Certainly. And what is the faculty in man to which imitation is addressed? What do you mean? I will explain : The body which is large when seen near, appears small when seen at a distance? True. And the same objects appear straight when looked at out of the water, and crooked when in the water; and the concave becomes convex, owing to the illusion about colours to which the sight is liable. Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within us ; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and .shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic. True. And the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding — there

the art of nieasnriiig, the higher.

317

is the beauty of them — and the apparent greater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery over us, but give way before calculation and measure and weight? Most true. And this, surely, must be the work of the calculating and rational principle in the soul? To be sure. And when this principle measures and certifies that some things are equal, or that some are greater or less than others, there occurs an apparent contradiction? True. But were we not saying that such a contradiction is impos- 603 sible — the same faculty cannot have contrary opinions at the same time about the same thing? Very true. Then that part of the soul which has an opinion contrary to measure is not the same with that which has an opinion in accordance with measure? True. And the better part of the soul is hkely to be that which trusts to measure and calculation? Certainly. And that which is opposed to them is one of the inferior principles of the soul? No doubt. This was the conclusion at which I was seeking to arrive when I said that painting or drawing, and imitation in general, when doing their own proper work, are far removed from truth, and the companions and friends and associates of a principle within us which is equally removed from reason, and that they have no true or healthy aim. Exactly. The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior, and has inferior offspring. Very true. And is this confined to the sight only, or does it extend to the hearing also, relating in fact to what we term poetry? Probably the same would be true of poetry. Do not rely, I said, on a probability derived from the analogy of painting ; but let us examine further and see

Republic A'. Socrates, Glaucon. The art of measuring given to man that he may correct the variety of appearances.

whether the faculty with which poetical imitation is concerned is good or bad. By all means. We may state the question thus: — Imitation imitates the actions of men, whether voluntary or involuntary, on which, as they imagine, a good or bad result has ensued, and they rejoice or sorrow accordingly. Is there anything more? No, there is nothing else.

But in all this variety of circumstances is the man at unity with himself — or rather, as in the instance of sight there was confusion and opposition in his opinions about the same things, so here also is there not strife and inconsistency in his life?

Though I need hardly raise the question again, for I remember that all this has been already admitted ; and the soul has been acknowledged by us to be full of these and ten thousand similar oppositions occurring at the same moment? And we were right, he said. Yes, I said, thus far we were right; but there was an omission which must now be supplied. What was the omission?

Were we not saying that a good man, who has the misfortune to lose his son or anything else which is most dear to him, will bear the loss with more equanimity than another? Yes. But will he have no sorrow, or shall we say that although he cannot help sorrowing, he will moderate his sorrow? The latter, he said, is the truer statement.

Tell me : will he be more hkely to struggle and hold out 604 against his sorrow when he is seen by his equals, or when he is alone? It will make a great difference whether he is seen or not. When he is by himself he will not mind saying or doing . many things which he would be ashamed of any one hearing or seeing him do? True.

There is a principle of law and reason in him which bids him resist, as well as a feeling of his misfortune which is forcing him to indulge his sorrow?

True. But when a man is drawn in two opposite directions, to and from the same object, this, as we affirm, necessarily implies two distinct principles in him? Certainly. One of them is ready to follow the guidance of the law? How do you mean?

The law would say that to be patient under suffering is best, and that we should not give way to impatience, as there is no knowing whether such things are good or evil ; and nothing is gained by impatience ; also, because no human thing is of serious importance, and grief stands in the way of that which at the moment is most required. What is most required? he asked.

That we should take counsel about what has happened, and when the dice have been thrown order our affairs in the way which reason deems best ; not, like children who have had a fall, keeping hold of the part struck and wasting time in setting up a howl, but always accustoming the soul forthwith to apply a remedy, raising up that which is sickly and fallen, banishing the cry of sorrow by the healing art.

Yes, he said, that is the true way of meeting the attacks of fortune. Yes, I said ; and the higher principle is ready to follow this suggestion of reason? Clearly. And the other principle, which inclines us to recollection of our troubles and to lamentation, and can never have enough of them, we may call irrational, useless, and cowardly? Indeed, we may.

And does not the latter — I mean the rebellious principle — furYiish a great variety of materials for imitation? Whereas the wise and calm temperament, being always nearly equable, is not easy to imitate or to appreciate when imitated, especially at a public festival when a promiscuous crowd is assembled in a theatre. For the feeling represented is one to which they are strangers. Certainly. Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not

Republic .\ Socrates, Glaucon.

they are at variance with the exhortations of philosophy;

they recall trouble and

320

The poiver of sympathy.

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon. they minister in an inferior manner to an inferior principle in the soul.

How can we be right in sympathizing with the sorrows of poetry when we would fain restrain those of real life?

by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul ; but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily imitated? Clearly.

And now we may fairly take him and place him by the side of the painter, for he is like him in two ways : first, inasmuch as his creations have an inferior degree of truth — in this, I say, he is like him ; and he is also like him in being concerned with an inferior part of the soul ; and therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered State, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason.

As in a city when the evil are permitted to have authority and the good are put out of the way, so in the soul of man, as we maintain, the imitative poet implants an evil constitution, for he indulges the irrational nature which has no discernment of greater and less, but thinks the same thing at one time great and at another small — he is a manufacturer of images and is very far removed from the truth ^.

Exactly, But we have not yet brought forward the heaviest count in our accusation: — the power which poetry has of harming even the good (and there are very few who are not harmed), is surely an awful thing ? Yes, certainly, if the effect is what you say.

Hear and judge : The best of us, as I conceive, when we listen to a passage of Homer, or one of the tragedians, in which he represents some pitiful hero who is drawling out his sorrows in a long oration, or weeping, and smiting his breast — the best of us, you know, dehght in giving way to sympathy, and are in raptures at the excellence of the poet who stirs our feelings most. Yes, of course I know.

But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we pride ourselves on the opposite quality — we would fain be quiet and patient ; this is the manly part, and the other which delighted us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman. Very true, he said. ^ Reading eWw/ioTTo^owra . . . a^zGiiiTa.

Now can we be right in praising and admiring another who is doing that which any one of us would abominate and be ashamed of in his own person? No, he said, that is certainly not reasonable. Nay, I said, quite reasonable from one point of view. What point of view?

If you consider, I said, that when in misfortune we feel a natural hunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation, and that this feeling which is kept under control in our own calamities is satisfied and delighted by the poets ; — the better nature in each of us, not having been sufficiently trained by reason or habit, allows the sympathetic element to break loose because the sorrow is another's ; and the spectator fancies that there can be no disgrace to himself in praising and pitying any one who comes telling him what a good man he is, and making a fuss about his troubles ; he thinks that the pleasure is a gain, and why should he be supercilious and lose this and the poem too?

P"ew persons ever reflect, as I should imagine, that from the evil of other men something of evil is communicated to themselves. And so the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sight of the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own. How very true! And does not the same hold also of the ridiculous?

There are jests which you would be ashamed to make yourself, and yet on the comic stage, or indeed in private, when you hear them, you are greatly amused by them, and are not at all disgusted at their unseemliness; — the case of pity is repeated;— there is a principle in human nature which is disposed to raise a laugh, and this which you once restrained by reason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is now let out again ; and having stimulated the risible faculty at the theatre, you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home.

Quite true, he said. And the same may be said of lu.st and anger and all the other affections, of desire and pain and plea.sure, which are held to be inseparable from every action — in all of them VOL. III. — 36

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon.

We fail to observe that a sentimental pity soon creates a real weakness.

In like manner the love of comedymay turn a man into a buffoon.

322

The old quarrel betiveen philosophy and poetry.

Republic X, Socrates, Glaucon.

We are lovers of Homer, but we must expel him from our State.

Apology to the poets.

poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up ; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue. I cannot deny it.

Therefore, Glaucon, I said, whenever you meet with any of the eulogists of Homer declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas, and that he is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things, and that you should take him up again and again and get to know him and 607 regulate your whole life according to him, we may love and honour those who say these things — they are excellent people, as far as their lights extend ; and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers ; but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our State.

For if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter, either in epic or lyric verse, not law and the reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State. That is most true, he said.

And now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let this our defence serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in sending away out of our State an art having the tendencies which we have described ; for reason constrained us.

But that she may not impute to us any harshness or want • of politeness, let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry ; of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of ' the yelping hound howling at her lord,' or of one ' mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and ' the mob of sages circumventing Zeus,' and the ' subtle thinkers who are beggars after all ' ; and there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them.

Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation, that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted to receive her — we are very conscious of her charms ; but we may not on that account betray the truth.

*What ivili it profit a maiif 323 I dare say, Glaucon, that you are as much charmed by her RepubUc.x. as I am, especially when she appears m Homer? Socrates, Yes, indeed, I am greatly charmed. Glaucon. Shall I propose, then, that she be allowed to return from exile, but upon this condition only — that she make a defence of herself in lyrical or some other metre? Certainly.

And we may further grant to those of her defenders who are lovers of poetry and yet not poets the permission to speak in prose on her behalf : let them show not only that she is pleasant but also useful to States and to human Hfe, and we will listen in a kindly spirit ; for if this can be proved we shall surely be the gainers — I mean, if there is a use in poetry as well as a delight? Certainly, he said, we shall be the gainers.

If her defence fails, then, my dear friend, like other persons who are enamoured of something, but put a restraint upon themselves when they think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too must we after the manner of lovers give her up, though not without a struggle.

We Poetry is at- ^ too are inspired by that love of poetry which the education no^^/rle 608 of noble States has implanted in us, and therefore we would have her appear at her best and truest ; but so long as she is unable to make good her defence, this argument of ours shall be a charm to us, which we will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains ; that we may not fall away into the childish love of her which captivates the many.

At all events we are well aware ^ that poetry being such as we have described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth ; and he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the city which is within him, should be on his guard against her seductions and make our words his law. Yes, he said, I quite agree with you.

Yes, I said, my dear Glaucon, for great is the issue at stake, greater than appears, whether a man is to be good or bad. And what will any one be profited if under the influence of honour or money or power, aye, or under the excitement of poetry, he neglect justice and virtue? ' Or, if we accept Madvig's ingenious but unnecessary emendation (iffdueda, ' At all events we will sing, that ' &c.

324

The immortality of the soul.

Republic X. sockates, Glaucon.

'I'he rewards of virtue extend not only to this little space of human life hut to the whole of existence.

Kverything has a good and an evil, and if not destroyed by its own evil, will not be destroyed hy that of another.

Yes, he said ; I have been convinced l)y the argument, as I believe that any one else would have been. And yet no mention has been made of the greatest prizes and rewards which await virtue. What, are there any greater still? If there are, they must be of an inconceivable greatness. Why, I said, what was ever great in a short time? The whole period of three score years and ten is surely but a little thing in comparison with eternity?

Say rather ' nothing,' he replied. And should an immortal being seriously think of this little space rather than of the whole? Of the whole, certainly. But why do you ask? Are you not aware, I said, that the soul of man is immortal and imperishable? He looked at me in astonishment, and said : No, by heaven : And are you really prepared to maintain this? Yes, I said, I ought to be, and you too — there is no difficulty in proving it.

I see a great difficulty ; but I should like to hear you state this argument of which you make so light. Listen then. I am attending. There is a thing which you call good and another which you call evil? Yes, he replied. Would you agree with me in thinking that the corrupting and destroying element is the evil, and the saving and improving element the good? Yes.

609 And you admit that everything has a good and also an evil ; as ophthalmia is the evil of the eyes and disease of the whole body ; as mildew is of corn, and rot of timber, or rust of copper and iron : in everything, or in almost everything, there is an inherent evil and disease? Yes, he said. And anything which is infected by any of these evils is made evil, and at last wholly dissolves and dies? True. The vice and evil which is inherent in each is the destruction

TJie proof of immortality. 325 of each ; and if this does not destroy them there is nothing Republic x. else that will ; for good certainly will not destroy them, Socrates, nor again, that which is neither good nor evil. Glaucon. Certainly not. If, then, we find any nature which having this inherent corruption cannot be dissolved or destroyed, we may be certain that of such a nature there is no destruction? That may be assumed.

Well, I said, and is there no evil which corrupts the soul? Yes, he said, there are all the evils which we were just now passing in review : unrighteousness, intemperance, cowardice, ignorance.

But does any of these dissolve or destroy her? — and here Therefore, if do not let us fall into the error of supposing that the unjust ^o^t ^e 'dc^'^" and foolish man, when he is detected, perishes through his stroyed by own injustice, which is an evil of the soul.

Take the analoerv "J'^'^^ ^/' ', •' ' O-/ she certainly of the body : The evil of the body is a disease which wastes win not be and reduces and annihilates the body ; and all the things b^^^'j^^sicai of which we were just now speaking come to annihilation evil, through their own corruption attaching to them and inhering in them and so destroying them. Is not this true? Yes. Consider the soul in like manner.

Does the injustice or other evil which exists in the soul waste and consume her? do they by attaching to the soul and inhering in her at last bring her to death, and so separate her from the body? Certainly not. And yet, I said, it is unreasonable to suppose that anything can perish from without through affection of external evil which could not be destroyed from within by a corruption of its own? It is, he replied.

Consider, I said, Glaucon, that even the badness of food, whether staleness, decomposition, or any other bad quality, when confined to the actual food, is not supposed to destroy the body ; although, if the badness of food communicates corruption to the body, then we should say that the body 610 has been destroyed by a corruption of itself, which is disease, brought on by this ; but that the body, being one thing, can be destroyed by the badness of food, which

is another, and which does not engender any natural infection— this we shall absolutely deny? Very true. And, on the same principle, unless some bodily evil can produce an evil of the soul, we must not suppose that the soul, which is one thing, can be dissolved by any merely external evil which belongs to another? Yes, he said, there is reason in that.

Either, then, let us refute this conclusion, or, while it remains unrefuted, let us never say that fever, or any other disease, or the knife put to the throat, or even the cutting up of the whole body into the minutest pieces, can destroy the soul, until she herself is proved to become more unholy or unrighteous in consequence of these things being done to the body ; but that the soul, or anything else if not destroyed by an internal evil, can be destroyed by an external one, is not to be affirmed by any man.

And surely, he replied, no one will ever prove that the souls of men become more unjust in consequence of death.

But if some one who would rather not admit the immortality of the soul boldly denies this, and says that the dying do really become more evil and unrighteous, then, if the speaker is right, I suppose that injustice, like disease, must be assumed to be fatal to the unjust, and that those who take this disorder die by the natural inherent power of destruction which evil has, and which kills them sooner or later, but in quite another way from that in which, at present, the wicked receive death at the hands of others as the penalty of their deeds?

Nay, he said, in that case injustice, if fatal to the unjust, will not be so very terrible to him, for he will be delivered from evil. But I rather suspect the opposite to be the truth, and that injustice which, if it have the power, will murder others, keeps the murderer alive — aye, and well awake too ; so far removed is her dwelling-place from being a house of death.

True, I said ; if the inherent natural vice or evil of the soul is unable to kill or destroy her, hardly will that which is appointed to be the destruction of some other body, destroy a soul or anything else except that of which it was appointed to be the destruction.

The soul indestructible mid therefore immortal. 327 Yes, that can hardly be. Republic x. But the soul which cannot be destroyed by an evil, whether Sockates, 611 inherent or external, must exist for ever, and if existing for Glalcon. ever, must be immortal? Certainly.

That is the conclusion, 1 said; and, if a true conclusion, ifthesouiis then the souls must always be the same, for if none be '"^^^"■"^t'*^'*-'- -_ ' the number destroyed they will not diminish in number. Neither will o< souls can they increase, for the increase of the immortal natures must "^^f |"f^^^*'' •' ' or diminish. come from something mortal, and all things would thus end in immortality. Very true.

But this we cannot believe — reason will not allow us — any more than we can believe the soul, in her truest nature, to be full of variety and difference and dissimilarity. What do you mean? he said. The soul, I said, being, as is now proven, immortal, must be the fairest of compositions and cannot be compounded of many elements? Certainly not. Her immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument.

The soul, if and there are many other proofs ; but to see her as she really g^e^'trri is, not as we now behold her, marred by communion with should be the body and other miseries, you must contemplate her with the'L^cidems the eye of reason, in her original purity ; and then her of earth, beauty will be revealed, and justice and injustice and all the things which we have described will be manifested more clearly.

Thus far, we have spoken the truth concerning her as she appears at present, but we must remember also that we have seen her only in a condition which may be compared to that of the sea-god Glaucus, whose original image can hardly be discerned because his natural members are broken off and crushed and damaged by the waves in all sorts of ways, and incrustations have grown over them of seaweed and shells and stones, so that he is more like some monster than he is to his own natural form.

And the soul which we behold is in a similar condition, disfigured by ten thousand ills. But not there, Crlaucon, not there must we look. Where then? At her love of wisdom. Let us see whom she affects, and

;28

Justice, having been shown to be best,

Republic X. Socrates, Glaucon. Her true conversation is with the eternal.

Having put aside for argument's sake the rewards of virtue, we may now claim to have them restored.

what society and converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortal and eternal and divine ; also how different she would become if wholly following this superior principle, and borne by a divine impulse out of the ocean in which she now is, and disengaged from the stones and shells and things of earth and rock which in wild variety spring up around her because she feeds upon earth, and is overgrown 6 1 2 by the good things of this hfe as they are termed : then you would see her as she is, and know whether she have one shape only or many, or what her nature is.

Of her affections and of the forms which she takes in this present life I think that we have now said enough. True, he replied. And thus, I said, we have fulfilled the conditions of the argument ^ ; we have not introduced the rewards and glories of justice, which, as you were saying, are to be found in Homer and Hesiod ; but justice in her own nature has been shown to be best for the soul in her own nature.

Let a man do what is just, whether he have the ring of Gyges or not, and even if in addition to the ring of Gyges he put on the helmet of Hades. Very true. And now, Glaucon, there will be no harm in further enumerating how many and how great are the rewards which justice and the other virtues procure to the soul from gods and men, both in life and after death. Certainly not, he said. Will you repay me, then, what you borrowed in the argument?

What did I borrow? The assumption that the just man should appear unjust and the unjust just : for you were of opinion that even if the true state of the case could not possibly escape the eyes of gods and men, still this admission ought to be made for the sake of the argument, in order that pure justice might be weighed against pure injustice. Do you remember? I should be much to blame if I had forgotten.

Then, as the cause is decided, I demand on behalf of justice that the estimation in which she is held by gods and ^ Reading aTrelvadfieda.

men and which we acknowledge to be her due should now be restored to her by us ^ ; since she has been shown to confer reality, and not to deceive those who truly possess her, let what has been taken from her be given back, that so she may win that palm of appearance which is hers also, and which she gives to her own. The demand, he said, is just.

In the first place, I said — and this is the first thing which you will have to give back — the nature both of the just and unjust is truly known to the gods. Granted. And if they are both known to them, one must be the friend and the other the enemy of the gods, as we admitted from the beginning? True.

And the friend of the gods may be supposed to receive from them all things at their best, excepting only such evil as is the necessary consequence of former sins? Certainly.

Then this must be our notion of the just man, that even when he is in poverty or sickness, or any other seeming misfortune, all things will in the end work together for good to him in life and death : for the gods have a care of any one whose desire is to become just and to be like God, as far as man can attain the divine likeness, by the pursuit of virtue? Yes, he said ; if he is like God he will surely not be neglected by him.

And of the unjust may not the opposite be supposed? Certainly. Such, then, are the palms of victory which the gods give the just? That is my conviction. And what do they receive of men?

Look at things as they really are, and you will see that the clever unjust are in the case of runners, who run well from the starting-place to the goal but not back again from the goal : they go off at a great pace, but in the end only look foolish, slinking away with their ears draggling on their shoulders, and without a crown ; but the true runner comes to the finish and receives the ' Reading riuijiv.

Republic X. socraies, Glaucon.

The just man is the friend of the gods, and all things work together for his good.

The unjust is the opposite.

He may be compared to a runner who is only good at the start.

6y

and yet greater rewards in a life to come.

Socrates, Glaucon.

Recapitulation of things unfit for ears polite which had been described by Glaucon in Book II.

The vision of Er.

prize and is crowned. And this is the way with the just ; he who endures to the end of every action and occasion of his entire life has a good report and carries off the prize which men have to bestow. True. And now you must allow me to repeat of the just the blessings which you were attributing to the fortunate unjust.

I shall say of them, what you were saying of the others, that as they grow older, they become rulers in their own city if they care to be ; they marry whom they like and give in marriage to whom they will ; all that you said of the others I now say of these.

And, on the other hand, of the unjust I say that the greater number, even though they escape in their youth, are found out at last and look foolish at the end of their course, and when they come to be old and miserable are flouted alike by stranger and citizen ; they are beaten and then come those things unfit for ears polite, as you truly term them ; they will be racked and have their eyes burned out, as you were saying.

And you may suppose that I have repeated the remainder of your tale of horrors. But will you let me assume, without reciting them, that these things are true? Certainly, he said, what you say is true. These, then, are the prizes and rewards and gifts which are 614 bestowed upon the just by gods and men in this present life, in addition to the other good things which justice of herself provides. Yes, he said ; and they are fair and lasting.

And yet, I said, all these are as nothing either in number or greatness in comparison with those other recompenses which await both just and unjust after death. And you ought to hear them, and then both just and unjust will have received from us a full payment of the debt which the argument owes to them. Speak, he said ; there are few things which I would more gladly hear.

Well, I said, I will tell you a tale ; not one of the tales which Odysseus tells to the hero Alcinous, yet this too is a tale of a hero, Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in battle, and ten days afterwards, when the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of corruption, his body was found unaffected by decay, and

carried away home to be buried. And on the twelfth day, as he was lying on the funeral pile, he returned to life and told them what he had seen in the other world. He said that when his soul left the body he went on a journey with a great company, and that they came to a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth ; they were near together, and over against them were two other openings in the heaven above.

In the intermediate space there were judges seated, who commanded the just, after they had given judgment on them and had bound their sentences in front of them, to ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand ; and in hke manner the unjust were bidden by them to descend by the lower way on the left hand ; these also bore the symbols of their deeds, but fastened on their backs.

He drew near, and they told him that he was to be the messenger who would carry the report of the other world to men, and they bade him hear and see all that was to be heard and seen in that place.

Then he beheld and saw on one side the souls departing at either opening of heaven and earth when sentence had been given on them ; and at the two other openings other souls, some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel, some descending out of heaven clean and bright.

And arriving ever and anon they seemed to have come from a long journey, and they went forth with gladness into the meadow, where they encamped as at a festival ; and those who knew one another embraced and conversed, the souls which came from earth curiously enquiring about the things above, and the souls which came from heaven about the things beneath.

And they told one another of what had happened by the way, those from below weeping and sorrow- 1 5 ing at the remembrance of the things which they had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasted a thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenly delights and visions of inconceivable beauty.

The story, Glaucon, would take too long to tell; but the sum was this: — He said that for every wrong which they had done to any one they suffered tenfold ; or once in a hundred years — such being reckoned to be the length of man's hfe, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a thousand years. If, for example, there were any who had been

Republic X Socrates. The judg-

'J'he two openings in heaven and the two in earth through which passed those who were beginning and those who had completed their pilgrimage.

The meeting in the meadow.

The punishment tenfold the sin.

332

Purgatory and hell.

Republic X. Socrates.

' Unbaptized infants.'

Ardiaeus the tyrant.

Incurable sinners.

the cause of many deaths, or had betrayed or enslaved cities or armies, or been guilty of any other evil behaviour, for each and all of their offences they received punishment ten times over, and the rewards of beneficence and justice and holiness were in the same proportion. I need hardly repeat what he said concerning young children dying almost as soon as they were bom.

Of piety and impiety to gods and parents, and of murderers i, there were retributions other and greater far which he described. He mentioned that he was present when one of the spirits asked another, ' Where is Ardiaeus the Great?

' (Now this Ardiaeus lived a thousand years before the time of Er : he had been the tyrant of some city of Pamphylia, and had murdered his aged father and his elder brother, and was said to have committed many other abominable crimes.) The answer of the other spirit was : * He comes not hither and will never come. And this,' said he, ' was one of the dreadful sights which we ourselves witnessed.

We were at the mouth of the cavern, and, having completed all our experiences, were about to reascend, when of a sudden Ardiaeus appeared and several others, most of whom were tyrants ; and there were also besides the tyrants private individuals who had been great criminals: they were just, as they fancied, about to return into the upper world, but the mouth, instead of admitting them, gave a roar, whenever any of these incurable sinners or some one who had not been sufficiently punished tried to ascend ; and then wild men of fiery aspect, who were standing by and heard the sound, seized and carried them off ; and Ardiaeus and others 6 1 6 they bound head and foot and hand, and threw them down and flayed them with scourges, and dragged them along the road at the side, carding them on thorns like wool, and declaring to the passers-by what were their crimes, and thatthey were being taken away to be cast into hell.

And of all the many terrors which they had endured, he said that there was none like the terror which each of them felt at that moment, lest they should hear the voice ; and when there was silence, one by one they ascended with exceeding joy. These, said Er, were the penalties and retributions, and there were blessings as great. ' Reading avrdxei^pag- ' Reading Kal 6r^

Now when the spirits which were in the meadow had Republic x. tarried seven days, on the eighth they were obliged to socratks. proceed on their journey, and, on the fourth day after, he said that they came to a place where they could see from above a line of light, straight as a column, extending right through the whole heaven and through the earth, in colour resembling the rainbow, only brighter and purer ; another day's journey brought them to the place, and there, in the midst of the light, they saw the ends of the chains of heaven let down from above : for this light is the belt of heaven, and holds together the circle of the universe, like the undergirders of a trireme.

From these ends is extended the spindle of Necessity, on which all the revolutions turn. The shaft and hook of this spindle are made of steel, and the whorl is made partly of steel and also partly of other materials.

Now the whorl is in form like the whorl used on earth ; and The whorls the description of it implied that there is one large hollow '■*=P''«senting ^ ^ *-' the spheres of whorl which is quite scooped out, and into this is fitted another the heavenly lesser one, and another, and another, and foiu* others, making eight in all, like vessels wi;J||^ fit into one another ; the whorls show their edges on the upper side, and on their lower side all together form one continuous whorl.

This is pierced by the spindle, which is driven home through the centre of the eighth. The first and outermost whorl has the rim broadest, and the seven inner whorls are narrower, in the following proportions — the sixth is next to the first in size, the fourth next to the sixth ; then comes the eighth ; the seventh is fifth, the fifth is sixth, the third is seventh, last and eighth comes the second.

The largest [or fixed stars] is spangled, and the seventh [or sun] is brightest ; the eighth [or moon] [ 7 coloured by the reflected hght of the seventh ; the second and fifth [Saturn and Mercury] are in colour hke one another, and yellower than the preceding ; the third [Jupiter] has the whitest light; the fourth [Mars] is reddish; the sixth [Venus] is in whiteness second.

Now the whole spindle has the same motion ; but, as the whole revolves in one direction, the seven inner circles move slowly in the other, and of these the swiftest is the eighth ; next in swiftness are the seventh, sixth, and fifth, which move together ; third in swiftness appeared to move according to the law of this

334 'rJ^^ exhibition of the lots of human life. Republic X. reversed motion the fourth ; the third appeared fourth and the Socrates. second fifth. The spindle turns on the knees of Necessity ; and on the upper surface of each circle is a siren, who goes round with them, hymning a single tone or note.

The eight together form one harmony ; and round about, at equal intervals, there is another band, three in number, each sitting upon her throne : these are the Fates, daughters of Necessity, who are clothed in white robes and have chaplets upon their heads, Lachesis and Clotho and Atropos, who accompany with their voices the harmony of the sirens — Lachesis singing of the past, Clotho of the present, Atropos of the future ; Clotho from time to time assisting with a touch of her right hand the revolution of the outer circle of the whorl or spindle, and Atropos with her left hand touching and guiding the inner ones, and Lachesis laying hold of either in tiu^n, first with one hand and then with the other.

When Er and the spirits arrived, their duty was .-to go at once to Lachesis ; but first of all there came a prophet who arranged them in order; then l^took from the knees of Lachesis lots and samples of live^,' and having mounted a The pro- high pulpit, spokc as follows : ' Hear the word of Lachesis, oAhrfree ^^ daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a new cycle choice. of life and mortality.

Your genius will not be allotted to you, but you will choose your genius ; and let him who draws the first lot have the first choice, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny. Virtue is free, and as a man honours or dishonours her he will have more or less of her ; the responsibility is with the chooser — God is justified.

When the Interpreter had thus spoken he scattered lots indifferently among them all, and each of them took up the lot which fell near him, all but Er himself (he was not allowed), and each 6i8 as he took his lot perceived the number which he had obtained. Then the Interpreter placed on the ground before them the samples of lives ; and there were many more lives than the souls present, and they were of all sorts.

There were lives of every animal and of man in every condition. And there were tyrannies among them, some lasting out the tyrant's life, others which broke off in the middle and came to an end in poverty and exile and beggary ; and there were

The peril of choosing. 335 lives of famous men, some who were famous for their form Republic x. and beauty as well as for their strength and success in games, Socrates. or, again, for their birth and the qualities of their ancestors ; and some who were the reverse of famous for the opposite qualities.

And of women likewise ; there was not, however, any definite character in them, because the soul, when choosing a new life, must of necessity become different. But there was every other quality, and they all mingled with one, another, and also with elements of wealth and poverty, and disease and health ; and there were mean states also.

And here, my dear Glaucon, is the supreme peril of our human state ; and therefore the utmost care should be taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind The comof knowledge and seek and follow one thing only, if per- P^^"y°^ adventure he may be able to learn and may find some one stances, who will make him able to learn and discern between good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere the better life as he has opportunity.

He should consider the bearing of all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectively upon virtue ; he should know what the effect and their of beauty is when combined with poverty or wealth in a '■f'^"°" ^^ ■' '^ •' the human particular soul, and what are the good and evil conse- soul. quences of noble and humble birth, of private and public station, of strength and weakness, of cleverness and dullness, and of all the natural and acquired gifts of the soul, and the operation of them when conjoined ; he will then look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration of all these qualities he will be able to determine which is the better and which is the worse ; and so he will choose, giving the name of evil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good to the life which will make his soul more just ; all else he will disregard.

For we have seen and know that this is the best choice both in life and after death.

A man must take with him into the world below an adamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzled by the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, coming upon tyrannies and similar villanies, he do irremediable wrongs to others and suffer yet worse himself ; but let him know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible, not only in this life but

in all that which is to come. For this is the way of happiness. And according to the report of the messenger from the other world this was what the prophet said at the time : ' Even for the last comer, if he chooses wisely and will live diligently, there is appointed a happy and not undesirable existence. Let not him who chooses first be careless, and let not the last despair.

And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny ; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuahty, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children.

But when he had time to reflect, and saw what was in the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice, forgetting the proclamation of the prophet ; for, instead of throwing the blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and the gods, and everything rather than himself.

Now he was one of those who came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy.

And it was true of others who were similarly overtaken, that the ' greater number of them came from heaven and therefore they had never been schooled by trial, whereas the pilgrims who came from earth having themselves suffered and seen others suffer were not in a hurry to choose. And owing to this inexperience of theirs, and also because the lot was a chance, many of the souls exchanged a good destiny for an evil or an evil for a good.

For if a man had always on his arrival in this world dedicated himself from the first to sound philosophy, and had been moderately fortunate in the number of the lot, he might, as the messenger reported, be happy here, and also his journ'ey to another life and return to this, instead of being rough and underground, would be smooth and heavenly.

Most curious, he said, was the spectacle — sad and laughable and strange ; for the choice of the souls was in most cases based on their experience of a previous 620 life. There he saw the soul which had once been Orpheus choosing the life of a swan out of enmity to the race of women, hating to be born of a woman because they had

The end of the pilgrimage. 337 been his murderers ; he beheld also the soul of Thamyras Republic x. choosing the life of a nightingale ; birds, on the other hand, Socrates. like the swan and other musicians, wanting to be men. The soul which obtained the twentieth ^ lot chose the life of a lion, and this was the soul of Ajax the son of Telamon, who would not be a man, remembering the injustice which was done him in the judgment about the arms.

The next was Agamemnon, who took the life of an eagle, because, like Ajax, he hated human nature by reason of his sufferings.

About the middle came the lot of Atalanta ; she, seeing the great fame of an athlete, was unable to resist the temptation : and after her there followed the soul of Epeus the son of Panopeus passing into the nature of a woman cunning in the arts ; and far away among the last who chose, the soul of the jester Thersites was putting on the form of a monkey.

There came also the soul of Odysseus having yet to make a choice, and his lot happened to be the last of them all.

Now the recollection of former toils had disenchanted him of ambition, and he went about for a considerable time in search of the life of a private man who had no cares ; he had some difficulty in finding this, which was lying about and had been neglected by everybody else ; and when he saw it, he said that he would have done the same had his lot been first instead of last, and that he was dehghted to have it.

And not only did men pass into animals, but I must also mention that there were animals tame and wild who changed into one another and into corresponding human natures — the good into the gentle and the evil into the savage, in all sorts of combinations.

All the souls had now chosen their lives, and they went in the order of their choice to Lachesis, who sent with them the genius whom they had severally chosen, to be the guardian of their lives and the fulfiller of the choice : this genius led the souls first to Clotho, and drew them within the revolution of the spindle impelled by her hand, thus ratifying the destiny of each ; and then, when they were fastened to this, carried them to Atropos, who spun the threads and made 621 them irreversible, whence without turning round they passed beneath the throne of Necessity ; and when they had all passed, they marched on in a scorching heat to the plain of ' Reading eiicoaT^u. VOL. III. — 37

338 'What sort of persons ought we to be?' Republic X. P'orgetfulncss, which was a barren waste destitute of trees Socrates. and verdure ; and then towards evening they encamped by the river of Unmindfulness, whose water no vessel can hold ; of this they were all obhged to drink a certain quantity, and those who were not saved by wisdom drank more than was necessary ; and each one as he drank forgot all things. Now after they had gone to rest, about the middle of the night there was a thunderstorm and earthquake, and then in an instant they were driven upwards in all manner of ways to their birth, like stars shooting. He himself was hindered from drinking the water. But in what manner or by what means he returned to the body he could not say ; only, in the morning, awaking suddenly, he found himself lying on the pyre. And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken ; and we shall pass safely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my • counsel is, that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been describing.

TIMAEUS

INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS.

Of all the writings of Plato the Timaeus is the most obscure Timaeus. and repulsive to the modern reader, and has nevertheless had introducthe greatest influence over the ancient and mediaeval world.

'^'°^- The obscurity arises in the infancy of physical science, out of the confusion of theological, mathematical, and physiological notions, out of the desire to conceive the whole of nature without any adequate knowledge of the parts, and from a greater perception of similarities which lie on the surface than of differences which are hidden from view.

To bring sense under the control of reason ; to find some way through the mist or labyrinth of appearances, either the highway of mathematics, or more devious paths suggested by the analogy of man with the world, and of the world with man ; to see that all things have a cause and arc tending towards an end — this is the spirit of the ancient physical philosopher.

He has no notion of trying an experiment and is hardly capable of observing the curiosities of nature which are ' tumbling out at his feet,' or of interpreting even the most obvious of them. He is driven back from the nearer to the more distant, from particulars to generalities, from the earth to the stars. He lifts up his eyes to the heavens artd seeks to guide by their motions his erring footsteps.

But we neither appreciate the conditions of knowledge to which he was subjected, nor have the ideas which fastened upon his imagination the same hold upon us.

For he is hanging between matter and mind ; he is under the dominion at the same time both of sense and of abstractions; his impressions are taken almost at random from the outside of nature ; he sees the light, but not the objects which are revealed by the light; and he brings into juxtaposition things which to us

appear wide as the poles asunder, because he finds nothing between them. He passes abruptly from persons to ideas and numbers, and from ideas and numbers to persons, — from the heavens to man, from astronomy to physiology ; he confuses, or rather does not distinguish, subject and object, first and final causes, and is dreaming of geometrical figures lost in a flux of sense.

He contrasts the perfect movements of the heavenly bodies with the imperfect representation of them (Rep. vii. 519), and he does not always require strict accuracy even in applications of number and figure (Rep. ix. 587 D, E). His mind lingers around the forms of mythology, which he uses as symbols or translates into figures of speech.

He has no implements of observation, such as the telescope or microscope ; the great science of chemistry is a blank to him. It is only by an effort that the modern thinker can breathe the atmosphere of the ancient philosopher, or understand how, under such unequal conditions, he seems in many instances, by a sort of inspiration, to have anticipated the truth.

The influence which the Timaeus has exercised upon posterity is due partly to a misunderstanding. In the supposed depths of this dialogue the Neo-Platonists found hidden meanings and connections with the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and out of them they elicited doctrines quite at variance with the spirit of Plato.

Believing that he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, or had received his wisdom from Moses, they seemed to find in his writings the Christian Trinity, the Word, the Church, the creation of the world in a Jewish sense, as they really found the personality of God or of mind, and the immortality of the soul.

All religions and philosophies met and mingled in the schools of Alexandria, and the Neo-Platonists had a method of interpretation which could elicit any meaning out of any words. They were really incapable of distinguishing between the opinions of one philosopher and another — between Aristotle and Plato, or between the serious thoughts of Plato and his passing fancies.

They were absorbed in his theology and were under the dominion of his name, while that which was truly great and truly characteristic in him, his effort to realize and connect abstractions, was not understood by ' them at all. Yet the genius of Plato and Greek philosophy reacted upon the East, and a Greek element of thought and language

overlaid and partly reduced to order the chaos of Orientalism. Timaeus. And kindred spirits, like St. Augustine, even though they were acquainted with his writings only through the medium of a Latin translation, were profoundly affected by them, seeming to find 'God and his word everywhere insinuated ' in them (August. Confess, viii. c. 2).

There is no danger of the modern commentators on the Timaeus falling into the absurdities of the Neo-Platonists. In the present day we are well aware that an ancient philosopher is to be interpreted from himself and by the contemporary history of thought. We know that mysticism is not criticism.

The fancies of the Neo-PIatonists are only interesting to us because they exhibit a phase of the human mind which prevailed widely in the first centuries of the Christian era, and is not wholly extinct in our own day. But they have nothing to do with the interpretation of Plato, and in spirit they are opposed to him. They are the feeble expression of an age which has lost the power not only of creating great works, but of understanding them.

They are the spurious birth of a marriage between philosophy and tradition, between Hellas and the East — ei/cdf yewdv v66a Kal (j)av?xi (Rep. vi. 496 A). Whereas the so-called mysticism of Plato is purely Greek, arising out of his imperfect knowledge and high aspirations, and is the growth of an age in which philosophy is not wholly separated from poetry and mythology.

A greater danger with modern interpreters of Plato is the tendency to regard the Timaeus as the centre of his system. We do not know how Plato would have arranged his own dialogues, or whether the thought of arranging any of them, besides the two * Trilogies ' which he has expressly connected, was ever present to his mind.

But, if he had arranged them, there are many indications that this is not the place which he would have assigned to the Timaeus. We observe, first of all, that the dialogue is put into the mouth of a Pythagorean philosopher, and not of Socrates. And this is required by dramatic propriety; for the investigation of nature was expressly renounced by Socrates in the Phaedo (96 ff. ).

Nor does Plato himself attribute any importance to his guesses at science. He is not at all absorbed by them, as he is by the idea of good. He is modest and hesitating, and confesses that his words partake of the uncertainty of the

subject (Tim. 29 C). The dialogue is primarily concerned with the animal creation, including under this term the heavenly bodies, and with man only as one among the animals.

But we can hardly suppose that Plato would have preferred the study of nature to man, or that he would have deemed the formation of the world and the human frame to have the same interest which he ascribes to the mystery of being and not-being, or to the great political problems which he discusses in the Republic and the Laws.

There are no speculations on physics in the other dialogues of Plato, and he himself regards the consideration of them as a rational pastime only (cp. 59 D, &c.). He is beginning to feel the need of further divisions of knowledge ; and is becoming aware that besides dialectic, mathematics, and the arts, there is another field which has been hitherto unexplored by him.

But he has not as yet defined this intermediate territory which lies somewhere between medicine and mathematics, and he would have felt that there was as great an impiety in ranking theories of physics first in the order of knowledge, as in placing the body before the soul. It is true, however, that the Timaeus is by no means confined to speculations on physics.

The deeper foundations of the Platonic philosophy, such as the nature of God, the distinction of the sensible and intellectual, the great original conceptions of time and space, also appear in it. They are found principally in the first half of the dialogue.

The construction of the heavens is for the most part ideal; the cyclic year serves as the connection between the world of absolute being and of generation, just as the number of population in the Republic (Book viii. 546) is the expression or symbol of the transition from the ideal to the actual state.

In some passages we are uncertain whether we are reading a description of astronomical facts or contemplating processes of the human mind {'},'] C), or of that divine mind (cp. Phil. 22 D) which in Plato is hardly separable from it.

The characteristics of man are transferred to the world-animal, as for example when intelligence and knowledge are said to be perfected by the circle of the Same, and true opinion by the circle of the Other ; and conversely the motions of the world-animal reappear in man ; its amorphous . state continues in the child (44), and in both disorder and chaos are gradually succeeded by stability and order. It is not however

The eclecticism and syncretism of the dialogue. 345 to passages like these that Plato is referring when he speaks of Timaeus. the uncertainty of his subject, but rather to the composition of Introducbodies, to the relations of colours, the nature of diseases, and the like, about which he truly feels the lamentable ignorance prevailing in his own age.

We are led by Plato himself to regard the Timaeus, not as the centre or inmost shrine of the edifice, but as a detached building in a different style, framed, not after the Socratic, but after some Pythagorean model. As in the Cratylus and Parmenides, we are uncertain whether Plato is expressing his own opinions, or appropriating and perhaps improving the philosophical speculations of others.

In all three dialogues he is exerting his dramatic and imitative power ; in the Cratylus mingling a satirical and humorous purpose with true principles of language ; in the Parmenides overthrowing Megarianism by a sort of ultra-Megarianism, which discovers contradictions in the one as great as those which have been previously shown to exist in the ideas.

There is a similar uncertainty about the Timaeus ; in the first part he scales the heights of transcendentalism, in the latter part he treats in a bald and superficial manner of the functions and diseases of the human frame. He uses the thoughts and almost the words of Parmenides when he discourses of being and of essence, adopting from old religion into philosophy the conception of God, and from the Megarians the idea of good.

He agrees with Empedocles and the Atomists in attributing the greater differences of kinds to the figures of the elements and their movements into and out of one another. With Heracleitus, he acknowledges the perpetual flux; like Anaxagoras, he asserts the predominance of mind, although admitting an element of necessity which reason is incapable of subduing ; like the Pythagoreans he supposes the mystery of the world to be contained in number.

Many, if not all the elements of the Pre-Socratic philosophy are included in the Timaeus. It is a composite or eclectic work of imagination, in which Plato, without naming them, gathers up into a kind of system the various elements of philosophy which preceded him. If we allow for the difference of subject, and for some growth in Plato's own mind, the discrepancy between the Timaeus and the other dialogues will not appear to be great. It is probable that the relation of the ideas to God or of God to the world was differently

conceived by him at different times of his Hfe. In all his later dialogues we observe a tendency in him to personify mind or God, and he therefore naturally inclines to view creation as the work of design. The creator is like a human artist who frames in his mind a plan which he executes by the help of his servants.

Thus the language of philosophy which speaks of first and second causes is crossed by another sort of phraseology : ' God made the world because he was good, and the demons ministered to him.

The Timaeus is cast in a more theological and less philosophical mould than the other dialogues, but the same general spirit is apparent ; there is the same dualism or opposition between the ideal and actual (51 B ff. ) — the soul is prior to the body (34 C), the intelligible and unseen to the visible and corporeal (28).

There is the same distinction between knowledge and opinion (37 C) which occurs in the Theaetetus and Republic, the same enmity to the poets (19 D), the same combination of music and gymnastics (88 C). The doctrine of transmigration is still held by him (90 E ff.), as in the Phaedrus and Republic; and the soul has a view of the heavens in a prior state of being (41 E).

The / ideas also remain, but they have become types in nature, forms of men, animals, birds, fishes (39 E). And the attribution of evil to physical causes (86 D, E) accords with the doctrine which he maintains in the Laws (Book ix. 861) respecting the involuntariness of vice. The style and plan of the Timaeus differ greatly from that of any other of the Platonic dialogues. The language is weighty, abrupt, and in some passages sublime.

But Plato has not the same mastery over his instrument which he exhibits in the Phaedrus or Symposium. Nothing can exceed the beauty or art of the introduction, in which he is using words after his accustomed manner. But in the rest of the work the power of language seems to fail him, and the dramatic form is wholly given up.

He could write in one style, but not in another, and the Greek language had not as yet been fashioned by any poet or philosopher to describe physical phenomena. The early physiologists had generally written in verse ; the prose writers, like Democritus and Anaxagoras, as far as we can judge from their fragments, never attained to a periodic style. And hence we find the same sort of clumsiness in the Timaeus of Plato which characterizes the

philosophical poem of Lucretius. There is a want of flow and Timneus. often a defect of rhythm ; the meaninj^ is sometimes obscure, and there is a greater use of apposition and more of repetition than occurs in Plato's earlier writings. The sentences are less closely connected and also more involved ; the antecedents of demonstrative and relative pronouns are in some cases remote and perplexing.

The greater frequency of participles and of absolute constructions gives the effect of heaviness. The descriptive portion of the Timaeus retains traces of the first Greek prose composition ; for the great master of language was speaking on a theme with which he was imperfectly acquainted, and had no words in which to express his meaning. The rugged grandeur of the opening discourse of Timaeus (Tim.

28-31) may be compared with the more harmonious beauty of a similar passage in the Phaedrus (245). To the same cause we may attribute the want of plan. Plato had not the command of his materials which would have enabled him to produce a perfect work of art. Hence there are several new beginnings and resumptions and formal or artificial connexions ; we miss the ' callida junctura ' of the earlier dialogues.

His speculations about the Eternal, his theories of creation, his mathematical anticipations, are supplemented by desultory remarks on the one immortal and the two mortal souls of man, on the functions of the bodily organs in health and disease, on sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. He soars into the heavens, and then, as if his wings were suddenly clipped, he walks ungracefully and with difficulty upon the earth.

The greatest things in the world, and the least things in man, are brought within the compass of a short treatise. But the intermediate links are missing, and we cannot be surprised that there should be a want of unity in a work which embraces astronomy, theology, physiology, and natural philosophy in a few pages.

It is not easy to determine how Plato's cosmos may be presented to the reader in a clearer and shorter form ; or how we may supply a thread of connexion to his ideas without giving greater consistency to them than they possessed in his mind, or adding on consequences which would never have occurred to him. For he has glimpses of the truth, but no comprehensive or perfect vision. There are isolated expressions about the nature

348

A nalysis 17- 20.

Timaeus. Introduction.

of God which have a wonderful depth and power (29 E ff., 37 ff. ) ; but we are not justified in assuming that these had any greater significance to the mind of Plato than language of a neutral and impersonal character. . . . With a view to the illustration of the Timaeus I propose to divide this Introduction into sections, of which the first will contain an outline of the dialogue : (2) I shall consider the aspects of nature which presented themselves to Plato and his age, and the elements of philosophy which entered into the conception of them : (3) the theology and physics of the Timaeus, including the soul of the world, the conception of time and space, and the composition of the elements : (4) in the fourth section I shall consider the Platonic astronomy, and the position of the earth. There will remain, (5) the psychology, (6) the physiology of Plato, and (7) his analysis of the senses to be briefly commented upon : (8) lastly, we may examine in what points Plato approaches or anticipates the discoveries of modern science.

§ I. Analysis. Socrates begins the Timaeus with a summary of the Republic, steph. He lightly touches upon a few points, — the division of labour and ^7? distribution of the citizens into classes, the double nature and training of the guardians, the community of property and of women and children. But he makes no mention of the second education, or of the government of philosophers.

And now he desires to see the ideal State set in motion ; he 19 would like to know how she behaved in some great struggle. But he is unable to invent such a narrative himself; and he is afraid that the poets are equally incapable ; for, although he pretends to have nothing to say against them, he remarks that they are a tribe of imitators, who can only describe what they have seen.

And he fears that the Sophists, who are plentifully supplied with graces of speech, in their erratic way of life having never had a city or house of their own, may through want of experience err in their conception of philosophers and statesmen.

'And therefore to you I turn, Timaeus, citizen of Locris, who are 20 at once a philosopher and a statesman, and to you, Critias, whom all Athenians know to be similarly accomplished, and to Hermocrates, who is also fitted by nature and education to share in our

Aitalysis 20-22. 349 discourse. Her. * We will do our best, and have been already Timaeits. preparing ; for on our way home, Critias told us of an ancient Analysis. tradition, which I wish, Critias, that you would repeat to Socrates.' * I will, if Timaeus approves. ' I approve. Listen then, Socrates, to a tale of Solon's, who, being the friend of Dropides my greatgrandfather, told it to my grandfather Critias, and he told me.

The narrative related to ancient famous actions of the 21 Athenian people, and to one especially, which I will rehearse in honour of you and of the goddess. Critias when he told this tale of the olden time, was ninety years old, I being not more than ten. The occasion of the rehearsal was the day of the Apaturia called the Registration of Youth, at which our parents gave prizes for recitation. Some poems of Solon were recited by the boys.

They had not at that time gone out of fashion, and the recital of them led some one to say, perhaps in compliment to Critias, that Solon was not only the wisest of men but also the best of poets. The old man brightened up at hearing this, and said: Had Solon only had the leisure which was required to complete the famous legend which he brought with him from Egypt he would have been as distinguished as Homer and Hesiod.

' And what was the subject of the poem ? ' said the person who made the remark. The subject was a very noble one ; he described the most famous action in which the Athenian people were ever engaged. But the memory of their exploits has passed away owing to the lapse of time and the extinction of the actors. * Tell us,' said the other, * the whole story, and where Solon heard the story.

' He replied — There is at the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, a city and district called Sais ; the city was the birthplace of King Amasis, and is under the protection of the goddess Neith or Athene. The citizens have a friendly feeling towards the Athenians, believing themselves to be related to them.

Hither 22 came Solon, and was received with honour; and here he first learnt, by conversing with the Egyptian priests, how ignorant he and his countrymen were of antiquity. Perceiving this, and with the view of eliciting information from them, he told them the tales of Phoroneus and Niobe, and also of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and he endeavoured to count the generations which had since passed. Thereupon an aged priest said to him : * O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are ever young, and there is no old man who is a

350 Analysis 22-24. Timaeus. Hellene.' *What do you mean?' he asked. ' In. mind,' replied Analysis. the priest, * I mean to say that you are children ; there is no opinion or tradition of knowledge among you which is white with age ; and I will tell you why. Like the rest of mankind you have suffered from convulsions of nature, which are chiefly brought about by the two great agencies of fire and water.

The former is symbolized in the Hellenic tale of young Phaethon who drove his father's horses the wrong way, and having burnt up the earth was himself burnt up by a thunderbolt. For there occurs at long intervals a derangement of the heavenly bodies, and then the earth is destroyed by fire.

At such times, and when fire is the agent, those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore are safer than those who dwell upon high and dry places, who in their turn are safer when the danger is from water. Now the Nile is our saviour from fire, and as there is little rain in Egypt, we are not harmed by water ; whereas in other countries, when a deluge comes, the inhabitants are swept by the rivers into the sea.

The memorials which your own and other nations have once had of the famous actions of mankind perish in the waters at certain periods ; and the rude survivors in the mountains begin again, knowing nothing of the world before the flood. But in Egypt the traditions of our own and other lands are by us registered for ever in our temples. The genealogies which you have recited to us out of your own annals, Solon, are a mere children's story.

For in the first place, you remember one deluge only, and there were many of them, and you know nothing of that fairest and noblest race of which you are a seed or remnant. The memory of them was lost, because there was no written voice among you. For in the times before the great flood Athens was the greatest and best of cities and did the noblest deeds and had the best constitution of any under the face of heaven.

Solon marvelled, and desired to be informed of the particulars. ' You are welcome to hear them,' said the priest, ' both for your own sake and for that of the city, and above all for the sake of the goddess who is the common foundress of both our cities. Nine thousand years have elapsed since she founded yours, and eight thousand since she founded ours, as our annals record.

Many laws exist among us which are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time. I will briefly describe them to you, and you shall read the

Analysis 24-26. 351 account of them at your leisure in the sacred registers. In the Timaeus. first place, there was a caste of priests among the ancient analysis.

Athenians, and another of artisans; also castes of shepherds, hunters, and husbandmen, and lastly of warriors, who, like the warriors of Egypt, were separated from the rest, and carried shields and spears, a custom which the goddess first taught you, and then the Asiatics, and we among Asiatics first received from her.

Observe again, what care the law took in the pursuit of wisdom, searching out the deep things of the world, and applying them to the use of man. The spot of earth which the goddess chose had the best of climates, and produced the wisest men ; in no other was she herself, the philosopher and warrior goddess, so likely to have votaries.

And there you dwelt as became the children of the gods, excelling all men in virtue, and many famous actions are recorded of you. The most famous of them all was the overthrow of the island of Atlantis.

This great island lay over against the Pillars of Heracles, in extent greater than Libya 25 and Asia put together, and was the passage to other islands and to a great ocean of which the Mediterranean sea was only the harbour ; and within the Pillars the empire of Atlantis reached in Europe to Tyrrhenia and in Libya to Egypt. This mighty power was arrayed against Egypt and Hellas and all the countries bordering on the Mediterranean.

Then your city did bravely, and won renown over the whole earth. For at the peril of her own existence, and when the other Hellenes had deserted her, she repelled the invader, and of her own accord gave liberty to all the nations within the Pillars. A little while afterwards there were great earthquakes and floods, and your warrior race all sank into the earth ; and the great island of Atlantis also disappeared in the sea.

This is the explanation of the shallows which are found in that part of the Atlantic ocean. Such was the tale, Socrates, which Critias heard from Solon ; and I noticed when listening to you yesterday, how close the resemblance was between your city an4 citizens and the ancient 26 Athenian State. But I would not speak at the time, because I wanted to refresh my memory.

I had heard the old man when I was a child, and though I could not remember the whole of our yesterday's discourse, I was able to recall every word of this, which is branded into my mind ; and I am prepared, Socrates, to

352 Analysis 26-29. Timaeus. rehearse to you the entire narrative. The imaginary State which Analysis. you were describing may be identified with the reahty of Solon, and our antediluvian ancestors may be your citizens. ' That is excellent, Critias, and very appropriate to a Panathenaic festival ; ' the truth of the story is a great advantage.

Then now let me 27 explain to you the order of our entertainment; first, Timaeus, who is a natural philosopher, will speak of the origin of the world, going down to the creation of man, and then I shall receive the men whom he has created, and some of whom will have been educated by you, and introduce them to you as the lost Athenian citizens of whom the Egyptian record spoke.

As the law of Solon prescribes, we will bring them into court and acknowledge their claims to citizenship. ' I see,' replied Socrates, * that I shall be well entertained; and do you, Timaeus, offer up a prayer and begin. Tim. All men who have any right feeling, at the beginning of any enterprise, call upon the Gods ; and he who is about to speak of the origin of the universe has a special need of their aid.

May my words be acceptable to them, and may I speak in the manner which will be most intelligible to you and will best express my own meaning ! First, I must distinguish between that which always is and never becomes and which is apprehended by reason and reflection, and that which always becomes and never is and is conceived by 28 opinion with the help of sense.

All that becomes and is created is the work of a cause, and that is fair which the artificer makes after an eternal pattern, but whatever is fashioned after a created pattern is not fair. Is the world created or uncreated? — that is the first question.

Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible ; and if sensible, then created ; and if created, made by a cause, and the cause is the ineffable father of all things, who had before him an eternal 29 archetype. For to imagine that the archetype was created would be blasphemy, seeing that the world is the noblest of creations, and God is the best of causes.

And the world being thus created according to the eternal pattern is the copy of^something ; and we 'I may assume that words are akin to the matter of which they speak. What is spoken of the unchanging or intelligible must be certain and true; but what is spoken of the created image can only be probable ; being is to becoming what truth is to belief.

Analysis 29-32. 353 And amid the variety of opinions which have arisen about God and Timaeus. the nature of the world we must be content to take probabihty for analysis. our rule, considering that I, who am the speaker, and you, who are the judges, are only men ; to probability we may attain but no further. Soc. Excellent, Timaeus; I like your manner of approaching the subject — proceed. Tim. Why did the Creator make the world ? . . .

He was good, and therefore not jealous, and being free from jealousy he desired 30 that all things should be like himself. Wherefore he set in order I the visible world, which he found in disorder.

Now he who is the best could only create the fairest ; and reflecting that of visible things the intelligent is superior to the unintelligent, he put intelligence in soul and soul in body, and framed the universe to be the best and fairest work in the order of nature, and the world became a living soul through the providence of God. In the likeness of what animal was the world made ? — that is the third question. . . .

The form of the perfect animal was a whole, and contained all intelligible beings, and the visible animal, made after the pattern of this, included all visible creatures. 31 Are there many worlds or one only? — that is the fourth question. . . . One only.

For if in the original there had been more than one they would have been the parts of a third, which / would have been the true pattern of the world ; and therefore there is, and will ever be, but one created world. Now that which is created is of necessity corporeal and visible and tangible, — visible and therefore made of fire, — tangible and therefore solid and made 32 of earth.

But two terms must be united by a third, which is a I mean between them ; and had the earth been a surface only, one mean would have sufficed, but two means are required to unite solid bodies.

And as the world was composed of solids, between the elements of fire and earth God placed two other elements of air and water, and arranged them in a continuous proportion — fire : air : : air : water, and air : water : : water : earth, and so put together a visible and palpable heaven, having harmony and friendship in the union of the four elements; and being at unity with itself it was indissoluble except by the hand VOL. III. — 38

354 Analysis 32-36. Timaeus. of the framcr. Each of the elements was taken into the universe Analysis. whole and entire; for he considered that the animal should be perfect and one, leaving no remnants out of which another 33 ^ animal could be created, and should also be free from old age and disease, which are produced by the action of external forces.

And as he was to contain all things, he was made in the all- • containing form of a sphere, round as from a lathe and every way equidistant from the centre, as was natural and suitable to him.

He was finished and smooth, having neither eyes nor ears, for there was nothing without him which he could see or hear ; and he had no need to carry food to his mouth, nor was there air for him to breathe ; and he did not require hands, for there was nothing of which he could take hold, nor feet, with which to walk.

All that he did was done rationally in and by himself, and he 34 moved in a circle turning within himself, which is the most intellectual of motions; but the other six motions were wanting to him ; wherefore the universe had no feet or legs, i And so the thought of God made a God in the image of a perfect body, having intercourse with himself and needing no other, but in every part harmonious and self-contained and truly blessed.

The soul was first made by him — the elder to rule the younger ; not in the order in which our wayward fancy has led us to describe them, but the soul first and afterwards the body.

God took of the unchangeable and indivisible and also of the 35 divisible and corporeal, and out of the two he made a third nature, essence, which was in a mean between them, and partook of the same and the other, the intractable nature of the other being compressed into the same.

Having made a compound of all the three, he proceeded to divide the entire mass into portions related to one another in the ratios of i, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27, and ^6 proceeded to fill up the double and triple intervals thus — I, %, \, 2, %, 3, 4, J^^, 6, 8 : I, i, 2, 3, \, 6, 9, ai, i8, 27; in which double series of numbers are two kinds of means ; the one exceeds and is exceeded by equal parts of the extremes, e. g.

I, f,, 2; the other kind of mean is one which is equidistant from the extremes — 2, 4, 6, In this manner there were formed intervals of thirds, 3 : 2, of fourths, 4 : 3, and of ninths, 9 : 8. And

next he filled up the intervals of a fourth with ninths, leaving a Ttmaeus. remnant which is in the ratio of 256: 243. The entire compound Analysis. was divided by him lengthways into two parts, which he united at the centre like the letter X, and bent them into an inner and outer circle or sphere, cutting one another again at a point over against the point at which they cross.

The outer circle or sphere was named the sphere of the same — the inner, the sphere of the other or diverse ; and the one revolved horizontally to the right, the other diagonally to the left.

To the sphere of the same which was undivided he gave dominion, but the sphere of the other or diverse was distributed into seven unequal orbits, having intervals in ratios of twos and threes, three of either sort, and he bade the orbits move in opposite directions to one another — three of them, the Sun, Mercury, Venus, with equal swiftness, and the remaining four — the Moon, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, with unequal swiftness to the three and to one another, but all in due proportion.

When the Creator had made the soul he made the body within her; and the soul interfused everywhere from the centre to the circumference of heaven, herself turning in herself, began a divine 37 life of rational and everlasting motion.

The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and is the best of creations, being the work of the best. f And being composed of the same, the other, and the essence, ' these three, and also divided and bound in harmonical proportion, and revolving within herself — the soul when touching anything I which has essence, whether divided or undivided, is stirred to utter the sameness or diversity of that and some other thing, and to tell how and when and where individuals are affected or related, whether in the world of change or of essence.

When reason is in the neighbourhood of sense, and the circle of the other or diverse is moving truly, then arise true opinions and beliefs ; when reason is in the sphere of thought, and the circle of the same runs smoothly, then intelligence is perfected.

When the Father who begat the world saw the image which he had made of the Eternal Gods moving and living, he rejoiced ; and in his joy resolved, since the archetype was eternal, to make the creature eternal as far as this was possible. Wherefore he ! made an image of eternity which is time, having an uniform motion according to number, parted into months and days and

356 Analysis 37-39. Timaeus. ycars, and also having greater divisions of past, present, and Analysis. future.

These all apply to becoming in time, and have no meaning in relation to the eternal nature, which ever is and never was or will be; for the unchangeable is never older or I yoiinger, and when we say that he 'was' or 'will be,' we are ^g mistaken, for these words are applicable only to becoming, and ,1 not to true being; and equally wrong are we in saying that ' what has become is become and that what becomes is becoming, and that the non-existent is non-existent. . . .

These are the forms of time which imitate eternity and move in a circle measured by number. Thus was time made in the image of the eternal nature ; and it was created together with the heavens, in order that if they were dissolved, it might perish with them.

And God made the sun and moon aiid five other wanderers, as they are called, seven in all, and to each of them he gave a body moving in an orbit, being one of the seven orbits into which the circle of the other was divided.

He put the moon in the orbit which was nearest to the earth, the sun in that next, the morning star and Mercury in the orbits which move opposite to the sun but with equal swiftness — this being the reason why they overtake and are overtaken by one another.

All these bodies became living creatures, and learnt their appointed tasks, and began to move, the nearer more swiftly, the remoter more slowly, according to the 39 diagonal movement of the other. And since this was controlled by the movement of the same, the seven planets in their courses appeared to describe spirals; and that appeared fastest which, was slowest, and that which overtook others appeared to be overtaken by them.

And God lighted a fire in the second orbit from the earth which is called the sun, to give light over the whole heaven, and to teach intelligent beings that knowledge of number which is derived from the revolution of the same. Thus arose day and night, which are the periods of the most intelligent nature ; a month is created by the revolution of the moon, a year by that of the sun.

Other periods of wonderful length and complexity are not observed by men in general ; there is moreover a cycle or perfect year at the completion of which they all meet and coincide. . . . To this end the stars came into being, that the created heaven might imitate the eternal nature.

Thus far the universal animal was made in the divine image, Timaeus. but the other animals were not as yet included in him. And Analysis. God created them according to the patterns or species of them which existed in the divine original. There are four of them : one of gods, another of birds, a third of fishes, and a fourth of animals. The gods were made in the form of a circle, which is the most perfect figure and the figure of the universe.

They were created chiefly of fire, that they might be bright, and were made to know and follow the best, and to be scattered over the heavens, of which they were to be the glory. Two kinds of motion were assigned to them — first, the revolution in the same and around the same, in peaceful unchanging thought of the same ; and to this was added a forward motion which was under the control of the same.

Thus then the fixed stars were created, being divine and eternal animals, revolving on the same spot, and the wandering stars, in their courses, were created in the manner already described. The earth, which is our nurse, clinging around the pole extended through the universe, he made to be the guardian and artificer of night and day, first and eldest of gods that are in the interior of heaven.

Vain would be the labour of telling all the figures of them, moving as in dance, and their juxta-positions and approximations, and when and where and behind what other stars they appear or disappear — to tell of all this without looking at a plan of them would be labour in vain.

The knowledge of the other gods is beyond us, and we can only accept the traditions of the ancients, who were the children of the gods, as they said; for surely they must have known their own ancestors. Although they give no proof, we must believe them as is customary.

They tell us that Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven ; that Phorcys, Cronos, and Rhea came in the next generation, and were followed by Zeus and Here, whose brothers and children are known to everybody. When all of them, both those who show themselves in the sky, and those who retire from view, had come into being, the Creator addressed them thus : — ' Gods, sons of gods, my works, if I will, are indissoluble.

That which is bound may be dissolved, but only an evil being would dissolve that which is harmonious and happy. And although you are not immortal you shall not die, for I will hold you together. Hear me, then : — Three tribes

358 Aiialysis 41-43. Timaeus. of mortal beings have still to be created, but if created by me they Analysis. \ would be like gods. Do ye therefore make them ; I will implant in them the seed of immortality, and you shall weave together the : mortal and immortal, and provide food for them, and receive them again in death. Thus he spake, and poured the remains of the elements into the cup in which he had mingled the soul of the universe.

They were no longer pure as before, but diluted ; and the mixture he distributed into souls equal in number to the stars, and assigned each to a star — then having mounted them, as in a chariot, he showed them the nature of the universe, and told them of their future birth and human lot. They were to be sown in the planets, and out of them was to come forth the most religious of animals, which would hereafter be called man.

The 42 souls were to be implanted in bodies, which were in a perpetual flux, whence, he said, would arise, first, sensation ; secondly, love, which is a mixture of pleasure and pain ; thirdly, fear and anger, and the opposite affections: and if they conquered these, they would live righteously, but if they were conquered by them, unrighteously.

He who lived well would return to his native star, and would there have a blessed existence ; but, if he lived ill, I he would pass into the nature of a woman, and if he did not then alter his evil ways, into the likeness of some animal, until the reason which was in him reasserted her sway over the elements of fire, air, earth, water, which had engrossed her, and he regained his first and better nature.

Having given this law to his creatures, that he might be guiltless of their future evil, he sowed them, some in the earth, some in the moon, and some in the other planets ; and he ordered the younger gods to frame human bodies for them and to make the necessary additions to them, and to avert from them all but self-inflicted evil. Having given these commands, the Creator remained in his own nature.

And his children, receiving from him the immortal principle, borrowed from the world portions of earth, air, fire, water, hereafter to be returned, which they fastened together, ^^ not with the adamantine bonds which bound themselves, but by little invisible pegs, making each separate body out of all the elements, subject to influx and efflux, and containing the courses of the soul. These swelling and surging as in a river moved irregularly and irrationally in all the six possible ways, forwards.

backwards, right, left, up and down. But violent as were the internal and alimentary fluids, the tide became still more violent when the body came into contact with flaming fire, or the solid earth, or gliding waters, or the stormy wind; the motions produced by these impulses pass through the body to the soul and have the name of sensations.

Uniting with the ever-flowing current, they shake the courses of the soul, stopping the revolution of the same and twisting in all sorts of ways the nature of the other, and the harmonical ratios of twos and threes and the mean terms which connect them, until the circles are bent and disordered and their motion becomes irregular.

You may imagine a position of the body in which the head is resting upon the ground, and the legs are in the air, and the top is bottom and the left right. And something similar happens when the disordered motions of the soul come into contact with any external 44I thing; they say the same or the other in a manner which is the 'very opposite of the truth, and they are false and foolish, and have no guiding principle in them.

And when external impressions enter in, they are really conquered, though they seem to conquer. By reason of these affections the soul is at first without intelligence, but as time goes on the stream of nutriment abates, and the courses of the soul regain their proper motion, and apprehend the same and the other rightly, and become rational.

The soul of him who has education is whole and perfect and escapes the worst disease, but, if a man's education be neglected, he walks lamely through life and returns good for nothing to the world below. This, however, is an after-stage — at present, we are only concerned with the creation of the body and soul. The two divine courses were encased by the gods in a sphere which is called the head, and is the god and lord of us.

And to this they gave the body to be a vehicle, and the members to be 45 instruments, having the power of flexion and extension. Such was the origin of legs and arms. In the next place, the gods gave a forward motion to the human body, because the front part of man was the more honourable and had authority. And they put in a face in which they inserted organs to minister in all things to the providence of the soul. They first contrived the eyes, into which they conveyed a light akin to the light of day.

360 Analysis a^^-a^^j. Timaeus. making it to flow through the pupils. When the Hght of the eye Analysis. ; is surrounded by the light of day, then like falls upon like, and I they unite and form one body which conveys to the soul the motions of visible objects. But when the visual ray goes forth into the darkness, then unlike falls upon unlike — the eye no longer sees, and we go to sleep.

The fire or light, when kept in by the eyelids, equalizes the inward motions, and there is rest accompanied by few dreams ; only when the greater motions 46 remain they engender in us corresponding visions of the night. And now we shall be able to understand the nature of reflections in mirrors.

The fires from within and from without meet about the smooth and bright surface of the mirror; and because they meet in a manner contrary to the usual mode, the right and left sides of the object are transposed. In a concave mirror the top and bottom are inverted, but this is no transposition. ( These are the second causes which God used as his ministers ( in fashioning the world.

They aire thought by many to be the I prime causes, but they are not so ; for they are destitute of mind 1 and reason, and the lover of mind will not allow that there are any prime causes other than the rational and invisible ones — these he investigates first, and afterwards the causes of things which are moved by others, and which work by chance and without order.

Of the second or concurrent causes of sight I have already spoken, and I will now speak of the higher purpose of God in giving us eyes. Sight is the source of the greatest benefits to 47 us ; for if our eyes had never, seen the sun, stars, and heavens, the words which we have spoken would not have been uttered.

The sight of them and their revolutions has given us the knowledge of number and time, the power of enquiry, and philosophy, which is the great blessing of human life ; not to speak of the lesser benefits which even the vulgar can appreciate. God gave us the faculty of sight that we might behold the order of the heavens and create a corresponding order in our own erring minds.

To the like end the gifts of speech and hearing were bestowed upon us; not for the sake of irrational pleasure, but in order that we might harmonize the courses of the soul by sympathy with the harmony of sound, and cure ourselves of our irregular and graceless ways. Thus far we have spoken of the works of mind; and there are

Analysis 47-51. 361 I other works done from necessity, which we must now place Timaeus. 48f beside them ; for the creation is made up of both, mind per- analysis. ' suading necessity as far as possible to work out good.

Before the heavens there existed fire, air, water, earth, which we suppose men to know, though no one has explained their nature, and we erroneously maintain them to be the letters or elements of the whole, although they cannot reasonably be compared even to syllables or first compounds. I am not now speaking of the first principles of things, because I cannot discover them by our present mode of enquiry.

But as I observed the rule of probability at first, I will begin anew, seeking by the grace of God to observe it still. In our former discussion I distinguished two kinds of being — 49 the unchanging or invisible, and the visible or changing. But now a third kind is required, which I shall call the receptacle or nurse of generation.

There is a difficulty in arriving at an I exact notion of this third kind, because the four elements themselves are of inexact natures and easily pass into one another, and ' are too transient to be detained by any one name ; wherefore we are compelled to speak of water or fire, not as substances, but as 50, qualities. They may be compared to images made of gold, which are continually assuming new forms.

Somebody asks what they are ; if you do not know, the safest answer is to reply that they are gold. In like manner there is a universal nature out of which all things are made, and which is like none of them ; but they enter into and pass out of her, and are made after patterns of the ' true in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.

The containing principle may be likened to a mother, the source or spring to a father, the intermediate nature to a child ; and we may also remark that the matter which receives every variety of form must be formless, like the inodorous liquids which are prepared to receive scents, or the smooth and soft materials on which figures ri are impressed.

In the same way space or matter is neither earth nor fire nor air nor water, but an invisible and formless being which receives all things, and in an incomprehensible manner partakes of the intelligible. But we may say, speaking generally, that fire is that part of this nature which is inflamed, water that which is moistened, and the like. Let me ask a question in which a great principle is involved :

Timaeus. Is there an essence of fire and the other elements, or are there Analysis. only fires visible to sense ? I answer in a word : If mind is one thing and true opinion another, then there are self-existent essences ; but if mind is the same with opinion, then the visible and corporeal is most real. But they are not the same, and they have a different origin and nature. .

The one comes to us by instruction, the other by persuasion ; the one is rational, the other is irrational ; the one is movable by persuasion, the other immovable ; the one is possessed by every man, the other by the gods and by very few men.

And we must acknowledge that as there are two kinds of knowledge, so there are two kinds of being corresponding to them; the one uncreated, indestructible, im- 52 movable, which is seen by intelligence only ; the other created, which is always becoming in place and vanishing out of place, and is apprehended by opinion and sense.

There is also a third nature — that of space, which is indestructible, and is perceived by a kind of spurious reason without the help of sense. This is presented to us in a dreamy manner, and yet is said to be necessary, for we say that all things must be somewhere in space. For they are the images of other things and must therefore have a separate existence and exist in something (i. e. in space).

But true reason assures us that while two things (i. e. the idea and the image) are different they cannot inhere in one another, so as to be one and two at the same time. To sum up : Being and generation and space, these three, existed before the heavens, and the nurse or vessel of generation, moistened by water and inflamed by fire, and taking the forms of air and earth, assumed various shapes.

By the motion of the vessel, the elements were divided, and like grain winnowed by fans, the close and heavy particles settled in one place, the light and airy ones in another. At first they were ^3 without reason or measure, and had only certain faint traces of themselves, until God fashioned them by figure and number.

In this, as in every other part of creation, I suppose God to have made things, as far as was possible, fair and good, out of things not fair and good. And now I will explain to you the generation of the world by a method with which your scientific training will have made you familiar. Fire, air, earth, and water are bodies and therefore

Analysis 53-56- 3^3 solids, and solids are contained in planes, and plane rectilinear Timaeus. figures are made up of triangles. Of triangles there are two analysis. kinds ; one having the opposite sides equal (isosceles), the other with unequal sides (scalene). These we may fairly assume to be the original elements of fire and the other bodies ; what principles are prior to these God only knows, and he of men whom God loves.

Next, we must determine what are the four most beautiful figures which are unlike one another and yet sometimes capable 54 of resolution into one another. . . . Of the two kinds of triangles the equal-sided has but one form, the unequal-sided he's an infinite variety of forms; and there is none more beautiful than that which forms the half of an equilateral triangle.

Let us then choose two triangles ; one, the isosceles, the other, that form of scalene which has the square of the longer side three times as great as the square of the lesser side; and affirm that, out of these, fire and the other elements have been constructed. j I was wrong in imagining that all the four elements could be generated into and out of one another.

For as they are formed, three of them from the triangle which has the sides unequal, the fourth from the triangle which has equal sides, three can be resolved into one another, but the fourth cannot be resolved into them nor they into it. So much for their passage into one another : I must now speak of their construction.

From the triangle of which the hypothenuse is twice the lesser side the three 55 first regular solids are formed — first, the equilateral pyramid or tetrahedron ; secondly, the octahedron ; thirdly, the icosahedron ; and from the isosceles triangle is formed the cube. And there is a fifth figure [which is made out of twelve pentagons], the dodecahedron — this God used as a model for the t^<'elvefold division of the Zodiac.

Let us now assign the geometrical forms to their respective elements. The cube is the most stable of them because resting on a quadrangular plane surface, and composed of isosceles triangles.

To the earth then, which is the most stable of bodies 56 and the most easily modelled of them, may be assigned the form of a cube ; and the remaining forms to the other elements, — to fire the pyramid, to air the octahedron, and to water the icosahedron, — according to their degrees of lightness or heaviness or power, or want of power, of penetration. The single particles of any of the

364 Analysis 56-59. Timaeus. elements are not seen by reason of their smallness; they only Analysis. become visible when collected. The ratios of their motions, numbers, and other properties, are ordered by the God, who harmonized them as far as necessity permitted.

The probable conclusion is as follows: — Earth, when dissolved by the more penetrating element of fire, whether acting immediately or through the medium of air or water, is decomposed but not transformed. Water, when divided by fire or air, becomes one part fire, and two parts air. A volume of air divided becomes two of fire.

On the other hand, when condensed, two volumes of fire make a volume of air ; and two and a half parts of air condense into one of water. Any element which is fastened upon ^7 by fire is cut by the sharpness of the triangles, until at length, coalescing with the fire, it is at rest ; for similars are not affected by similars.

When two kinds of bodies quarrel with one another, then the tendency to decomposition continues until the smaller either escapes to its kindred element or becomes one with its conqueror. And this tendency in bodies to condense or escape is a source of motion. . . . Where there is motion there must be a mover, and where there is a mover there must be something to move.

These cannot exist in what is uniform, and therefore ' motion is due to want of uniformity. But then why, when things c8 are divided after their kinds, do they not cease from motion ?

The answer is, that the circular motion of all things compresses them, and as ' nature abhors a vacuum,' the finer and more subtle particles of the lighter elements, such as fire and air, are thrust into the interstices of the larger, each of them penetrating according to their rarity, and thus all the elements are on their way up and down everywhere and always into their own places.

Hence there is a principle of inequality, and therefore of motion, in all time. In the next place, we may observe that there are different kinds of fire — ( i ) flame, (2) light that burns not, (3) the red heat of the embers of fire. And there arc varieties of air, as for example, the pure aether, the opaque mist, and other nameless forms. Water, again, is of two kinds, liquid and fusile.

The liquid is composed of small and unequal particles, the fusile of large and uniform particles and is more solid, but nevertheless melts at the approach of fire, and then spreads upon the earth. When the 59

Analysis 59-61. 365 substance cools, the fire passes into the air, which is displaced, Thnaeus. and forces together and condenses the liquid mass. This process Analysis. is called coohng and congealment. Of the fusile kinds the fairest and heaviest is gold ; this is hardened by filtration through rock, and is of a bright yellow colour. A shoot of gold which is darker and denser than the rest is called adamant.

Another kind is called copper, which is harder and yet lighter because the interstices are larger than in gold. There is mingled with it a fine and small portion of earth which comes out in the form of rust, f These are a few of the conjectures which philosophy forms, when, leaving the eternal nature, she turns for innocent recreation to consider the truths of generation.

Water which is mingled with fire is called liquid because it rolls upon the earth, and soft because its bases give way. This becomes more equable when separated from fire and air, and then congeals into hail or ice, or the looser forms of hoar frost or 60 snow. There are other waters which are called juices and are distilled through plants.

Of these we may mention, first, wine, which warms the soul as well as the body ; secondly, oily substances, as for example, oil or pitch ; thirdly, honey, which relaxes the contracted parts of the mouth and so produces sweetness ; fourthly, vegetable acid, which is fi-othy and has a burning quality and dissolves the flesh.

Of the kinds of earth, that which is filtered through water passes into stone ; the water is broken up by the earth and escapes in the form of air — this in turn presses upon the mass of earth, and the earth, compressed into an indissoluble union with the remaining water, becomes rock. Rock, when it is made up of equal particles, is fair and transparent, but the reverse when of unequal.

Earth is converted into pottery when the watery part is suddenly drawn away; or if moisture remains, the earth, when fused by fire, becomes, on cooling, a stone of a black colour. When the earth is finer and of a briny nature then two half-solid bodies are formed by separating the water, — soda and salt. The strong compounds of earth 61 and water are not soluble by water, but only by fire.

Earth itself, when not consolidated, is dissolved by water ; when consolidated, by fire only. The cohesion of water, when strong, is dissolved by fire only ; when weak, either by air or fire, the former entering the interstices, the latter penetrating even the

366 Analysis 61-64. Timaeus. triangles. Air when strongly condensed is indissoluble by any Analysis. power which does not reach the triangles, and even when not strongly condensed is only resolved by fire. Compounds of earth and water are unaffected by water while the water occupies the interstices in them, but begin to liquefy when fire enters into the interstices of the water.

They are of two kinds, some of them, like glass, having more earth, others, like wax, having more water in them. Having considered objects of sense, we now pass on to sensation. But we cannot explain sensation without explaining the nature of flesh and of the mortal soul ; and as we cannot treat of both together, in order that we may proceed at once to the sensations we must assume the existence of body and soul. What makes fire burn ?

The fineness of the sides, the sharpness of the angles, the smallness of the particles, the quickness of the motion. Moreover, the pyramid, which is the figure of fire, is 62 more cutting than any other. The feeling of cold is produced by the larger particles of moisture outside the body trying to eject the smaller ones in the body which they compress. The struggle which arises between elements thus unnaturally brought together causes shivering.

That is hard to which the flesh yields, and soft which yields to the flesh, and these two terms are also relative to one another. The yielding matter is that which has the slenderest base, whereas that which has a rectangular base is compact and repellent. Light and heavy are wrongly explained with reference to a lower and higher in place.

For in the universe, which is a sphere, there is no opposition of above or below, and that which is to us above would be below to a man standing at the 6^ antipodes. The greater or less difficulty in detaching any element from its like is the real cause of heaviness or of lightness. If you draw the earth into the dissimilar air, the particles of earth cling to their native element, and you more easily detach a small portion than a large.

There would be the same difficulty in moving any of the upper elements towards the lower. The smooth and the rough are sev^erally produced by the union of evenness with compactness, and of hardness with inequality. 64 Pleasure and pain are the most important of the affections common to the whole body. According to our general doctrine of sensation, parts of the body which are easily moved readily

A 71 a lysis 64- 6y. 367 transmit the motion to the mind ; but parts which are not easily Timaeus. moved have no effect upon the patient. The bones and hair are Analysis. of the latter kind, sight and hearing of the former. Ordinary affections are neither pleasant nor painful. The impressions of sight afford an example of these, and are neither violent nor 65 sudden.

But sudden replenishments of the body cause pleasure, and sudden disturbances, as for example cuttings and burnings, have the opposite effect. From sensations common to the .vhole body, we proceed to those of particular parts. The affections of the tongue appear to be caused by contraction and dilation, but they have more of roughness or smoothness than is found in other affections.

Earthy particles, entering into the small veins of the tongue which reach to the heart, when they melt into and dry up the little veins are astringent if they are rough ; or if not so rough, they are only harsh, and if excessively abstergent, like potash and soda, bitter. Purgatives of a weaker sort are called salt and, having no bitterness, are rather agreeable.

Inflammatory bodies, 66 which by their lightness are carried up into the head, cutting all that comes in their way, are termed pungent.

But when these are refined by putrefaction, and enter the narrow veins of the tongue, and meet there particles of earth and air, two kinds of globules are formed — one of earthy and impure liquid, which boils and ferments, the other of pure and transparent water, which are called bubbles ; of all these affections the cause is termed acid.

When, on the other hand, the composition of the deliquescent particles is congenial to the tongue, and disposes the parts according to their nature, this remedial power in them is called sweet. Smells are not divided into kinds ; all of them are transitional, and arise out of the decomposition of one element into another, for the simple air or water is without smell.

They are vapours or mists, thinner than water and thicker than air: and hence in drawing in the breath, when there is an obstruction, the air 67 passes, but there is no smell. They have no names, but are distinguished as pleasant and unpleasant, and their influence extends over the whole region from the head to the navel.

Hearing is the effect of a stroke which is transmitted through the ears by means of the air, brain, and blood to the soul, beginning

368 Analysis Gy, 68. Timaeus. at thc head and extending to the liver. The sound which moves Analysis. swiftly is acute ; that which moves slowly is grave ; that which is uniform is smooth, and the opposite is harsh. Loudness depends on the quantity of the sound. Of the harmony of sounds I will hereafter speak (80). Colours are flames which emanate from all bodies, having par- • tides corresponding to the sense of sight.

Some of the particles are less and some larger, and some are equal to the parts of the sight. The equal particles appear transparent; the larger contract, and the lesser dilate the sight. White is produced by the dilation, black by the contraction, of the particles of sight.

There is also a swifter motion of another sort of fire which forces a way 68 through the passages of the eyes, and elicits from them a union of fire and water which we call tears. The inner fire flashes forth, and the outer finds a way in and is extinguished in the moisture, and all sorts of colours are generated by the mixture. This affection is termed by us dazzling, and the object which produces it is called bright.

There is yet another sort of fire which mingles with the moisture of the eye without flashing, and produces a colour like blood — to this we give the name of red. A bright element mingling with red and white produces a colour which we call auburn. The law of proportion, however, according to which compound colours are formed, cannot be determined scientifically or even probably.

Red, when mingled with black and white, gives a purple hue, which becomes umber when the colours are burnt and there is a larger admixture of black. Flame-colour is a mixture of auburn and dun ; dun of white and black; yellow of white and auburn. White and bright meeting, and falling upon a full black, become dark blue; dark blue mingling with white becomes a light blue ; the union of flamecolour and black makes leek-green.

There is no difficulty in seeing how other colours are probably composed. But he who should attempt to test the truth of this by experiment, would forget the difference of the human and divine nature. God only is able to compound and resolve substances ; such experiments are impossible to man.

These are the elements of necessity which the Creator received , in the world of generation when he made the all-sufficient and I perfect creature, using the secondary causes as his ministers, but

Analysis 68-70. 369 J. himself fashioning the good in all things. For there are two sorts Timaeus. 5] of causes, the one divine, the other necessary; and we should analysis. 69 seek to discover the divine above all, and, for their sake, the ; . necessary, because without them the higher cannot be attained by us.

Having now before us the causes out of which the rest of our discourse is to be framed, let us go back to the point at which we began, and add a fair ending to our tale. As I said at first, all things were originally a chaos in which there was no order or proportion. The elements of this chaos were arranged by the Creator, and out of them he made the world.

Of the divine he himself was the author, but he committed to his offspring the creation of the mortal. From him they received the immortal !soul, but themselves made the body to be its vehicle, and constructed within another soul which was mortal, and subject to terrible affections— pleasure, the inciter of evil; pain, which deters from good; rashness and fear, foolish counsellors; anger hard to be appeased ; hope easily led astray.

These they mingled with irrational sense and all-daring love according to necessary laws and so framed man. And, fearing to pollute the divine element, they gave the mortal soul a separate habitation in ^Q the breast, parted off from the head by a narrow isthmus. And as in a house the women's apartments are divided from the men's, the cavity of the thorax was divided into two parts, a higher and a lower.

The higher of the two, which is the seat of courage and anger, lies nearer to the head, between the midriff and the neck, and assists reason in restraining the desires. The heart is the house of guard in which all the veins meet, and through them reason sends her commands to the extremity of her kingdom.

When the passions are in revolt, or danger approaches from without, then the heart beats and swells ; and the creating powers, knowing this, implanted in the body the soft and bloodless substance of the lung, having a porous and springy nature like a sponge, and being kept cool by drink and air which enters through the trachea.

The part of the soul which desires meat and drink was placed between the midriff and navel, where they made a sort of manger ; and here they bound it down, like a wild animal, away from the council-chamber, and leaving the better principle undisturbed to VOL. III. — 39

370 Analysis 71-73. Thuaeus. advisc quietly for the good of the whole. For the Creator knew 71 Analysis. that the belly would not listen to reason, and was under the power of idols* and fancies.

Wherefore he framed the liver to connect with the lower nature, contriving that it should be compact, and bright, and sweet, and also bitter and smooth, in order that the power of thought which originates in the mind might there be reflected, terrifying the belly with the elements of bitterness and gall, and a suffusion of bilious colours when the liver is contracted, and causing pain and misery by twisting out of its place the lobe and closing up the vessels and gates.

And the converse happens when some gentle inspiration coming from intelligence mirrors the opposite fancies, giving rest and sweetness and freedom, and i at night, moderation and peace accompanied with prophetic insight, when reason and sense are asleep.

For the authors of our being, in obedience to their Father's will and in order to make men as good as they could, gave to the liver the power of divination, which is never active when men are awake or in health ; but when they are under the influence of some disorder or enthusiasm then they receive intimations, which have to be interpreted by 72 others who are called prophets, but should rather be called interpreters of prophecy ; after death these intimations become unintelligible.

The spleen which is situated in the neighbourhood, on the left side, keeps the liver bright and clean, as a napkin does a mirror, and the evacuations of the liver are received into it ; and being a hollow tissue it is for a time swollen with these impurities, but when the body is purged it returns to its natural size. I The truth concerning the soul can only be established by the I word of God.

Still, we may venture to assert what is probable both concerning soul and body. The creative powers were aware of our tendency to excess.

73 And so when they made the belly to be a receptacle for food, in order that men might not perish by insatiable gluttony, they formed the convolutions of the intestines, in this way retarding the passage of food through the body, lest mankind should be absorbed in eating and drinking, and the whole race become impervious to divine philosophy. The creation of bones and flesh was on this wise.

The foundation of these is the marrow which binds together body and soul, and the marrow is made out of such of the primary triangles as

Analysis 7^-7S- 37 1 are adapted by their perfection to produce all the four elements. Timaeus. These God took and mingled them in due proportion, making as Analysis. many kinds of marrow as there were hereafter to be kinds of souls. The receptacle of the divine soul he made round, and called that portion of the marrow brain, intending that the vessel containing this substance should be the head.

The remaining part he divided into long and round figures, and to these as to anchors, fastening the mortal soul, he proceeded to make the rest of the body, first forming for both parts a covering of bone. The bone was formed by sifting pure smooth earth and wetting it with marrow. It was then thrust alternately into fire and water, and 74 thus rendered insoluble by either.

Of bone he made a globe which he placed around the brain, leaving a narrow opening, and around the marrow of the neck and spine he formed the vertebrae, like hinges, which extended from the head through the whole of the trunk.

And as the bone was brittle and liable to mortify and destroy the marrow by too great rigidity and susceptibility to heat and cold, he contrived sinews and flesh — the first to give flexibility, the second to guard against heat and cold, and to be a protection against falls, containing a warm moisture, which in summer exudes and cools the body, and in winter is a defence against cold.

Having this in view, the Creator mingled earth with fire and water and mixed with them a ferment of acid and salt, so as to form pulpy flesh. But the sinews he made of a mixture of bone and unfermented flesh, giving them a mean nature between the two, and a yellow colour. Hence they were more glutinous than flesh, but softer than bone.

The bones which have most of the living soul within them he covered with the thinnest film of flesh, those which have least of it, he lodged deeper. At the joints he diminished the flesh in order not to impede the flexure of the limbs, and also to avoid clogging the perceptions of the mind. 75 About the thighs and arms, which have no sense because there is little soul in the marrow, and about the inner bones, he laid the flesh thicker.

For where the flesh is thicker there is less feeling, except in certain parts which the Creator has made solely of flesh, as for example, the tongue. Had the combination of solid bone and thick flesh been consistent with acute perceptions, the Creator would have given man -k sinewy and fleshy head, and then he would have lived twice as long. But our creators were of

3/2 Analysis 75-78. Timaeus. Opinion that a shorter hfe which was better was preferable to a Analysis. longer which was worse, and therefore they covered the head with thin bone, and placed the sinews at the extremity of the head round the neck, and fastened the jawbones to them below the face.

And they framed the mouth, having teeth and tongue and lips, with a view to the necessary and the good ; for food is a necessity, and the river of speech is the best of rivers. Still, the head could not be left a bare globe of bone on account of the extremes of heat and cold, nor be allowed to become dull and senseless by an overgrowth of flesh. Wherefore it was covered by a peel or skin which met and grew by the help of the cerebral 76 humour.

The diversity of the sutures was caused by the struggle of the food against the courses of the soul. The skin of the head was pierced by fire, and out of the punctures came forth a moisture, part liquid, and part of a skinny nature, which was hardened by the pressure of the external cold and became hair. And God gave hair to the head of man to be a light covering, so that it might not interfere with his perceptions.

Nails were formed by combining sinew, skin, and bone, and were made by the creators with a view to the future when, as they knew, women and other animals who would require them would be framed out of man. The gods also mingled natures akin to that of man with other 77 forms and perceptions. Thus trees and plants were created, which were originally wild and have been adapted by cultivation to our use.

They partake of that third kind of life which is seated (between the midriff and the navel, and is altogether passive and incapable of reflection. When the creators had furnished all these natures for our sustenance, they cut channels through our bodies as in a garden, watering them with a perennial stream.

Two were cut down the back, along the back bone, where the skin and flesh meet, one on the right and the other on the left, having the marrow of generation between them. In the next place, they divided the veins about the head and interlaced them with each other in order that they might form an additional link between the head and the body, and that the sensations from both sides might be diffused throughout the body. In the third place, they contrived the passage of liquids, which may be explained in this way: — Finer yg

Analysis 78-80. 373 bodies retain coarser, but not the coarser the finer, and the belly Timaeus. is capable of retaining food, but not fire and air. God therefore Analysis. formed a network of fire and air to irrigate the veins, having within it two lesser nets, and stretched cords reaching from both the lesser nets to the extremity of the outer net. The inner parts of the net were made by him of fire, the lesser nets and their cavities of air.

The two latter he made to pass into the mouth ; the one ascending by the air-pipes from the lungs, the other by the side of the air-pipes from the belly. The entrance to the first he divided into two parts, both of which he made to meet at the channels of the nose, that when the mouth was closed the passage connected with it might still be fed with air.

The cavity of the network he spread around the hollows of the body, making the entire receptacle to flow into and out of the lesser nets and the lesser nets into and out of it, while the outer net found a way into and out of the pores of the body, and the internal heat followed the air to and fro. These, as we affirm, are the phenomena of respiration.

And all this process takes place in order that the body may be watered and cooled and nourished, and the meat and 79 drink digested and liquefied and carried into the veins. The causes of respiration have now to be considered. The exhalation of the breath through the mouth and nostrils displaces the external air, and at the same time leaves a vacuum into which through the pores the air which is displaced enters.

Also the vacuum which is made when the air is exhaled through the pores is filled up by the inhalation of breath through the mouth and nostrils. The explanation of this double phenomenon is as follows: — Elements move towards their natural places.

Now as every animal has within him a fountain of fire, the air which is inhaled through the mouth and nostrils, on coming into contact with this, is heated ; and when heated, in accordance with the law of attraction, it escapes by the way it entered toward the place of fire. On leaving the body it is cooled and drives round the air which it displaces through the pores into the empty lungs.

This again is in turn heated by the internal fire and escapes, as it entered, through the pores. 80 The phenomena of medical cupping-glasses, of swallowing, and of the hurling of bodies, are to be explained on a similar principle; as also sounds, which are sometimes discordant on account

374 Analysis 80-82. Timaeus. of thc inequality of them, and again harmonious by reason of Analysis. equahty. The slower sounds reaching the swifter, when they begin to pause, by degrees assimilate with them: whence arises a pleasure which even the unwise feel, and which to the wise becomes a higher sense of delight, being an imitation of divine harmony in mortal motions.

Streams flow, lightnings play, amber and the magnet attract, not by reason of attraction, but because 'nature abhors a vacuum,' and because things, when compounded or dissolved, move different ways, each to its own place. I will now return to the phenomena of respiration.

The fire, entering the belly, minces the food, and as it escapes, fills the veins by drawing after it the divided portions, and thus the streams of nutriment are diffused through the body.

The fruits or herbs which are our daily sustenance take all sorts of colours when intermixed, but the colour of red or fire predominates, and hence the liquid which we call blood is red, being the nurturing principle of the body, whence all parts are watered and empty gj places filled. The process of repletion and depletion is produced by the attraction of like to like, after the manner of the universal motion.

The external elements by their attraction are always diminishing the substance of the body : the particles of blood, too, formed out ' of the newly digested food, are attracted towards kindred elements within the body and so fill up the void. When more is taken away than flows in, then we decay; and when less, we grow and increase.

The young of every animal has the triangles new and closely locked together, and yet the entire frame is soft and delicate, being newly made of marrow and nurtured on milk. These triangles are sharper than those which enter the body from without in the shape of food, and therefore they cut them up.

But as life advances, the triangles wear out and are no longer able to assimilate food ; and at length, when the bonds which unite the triangles of the marrow become undone, they in turn unloose the bonds of the soul ; and if the release be according to nature, she then flics away with joy. For the death which is natural is pleasant, but that which is caused by violence is painful. Every one may understand thc origin of diseases. They may 32

be occasioned by the disarrangement or disproportion of the Timaeus. elements out of which the body is framed. This is the origin of Analysis. many of them, but the worst of all owe their severity to the following causes: There is a natural order in the human frame according to which the flesh and sinews are made of blood, the sinews out of the fibres, and the flesh out of the congealed substance which is formed by separation from the fibres.

The glutinous matter which comes away from the sinews and the flesh, not only binds the flesh to the bones, but nourishes the bones and waters the marrow. When these processes take place in regular order the body is in health. But when the flesh wastes and returns into the veins there is discbloured blood as well as air in the veins, having acid and salt qualities, from which is generated every sort of phlegm and bile.

83 AH things go the wrong way and cease to give nourishment to the body, no longer preserving" their natural courses, but at war with themselves and destructive to the constitution of the body. The oldest part of the flesh which is hard to decompose blackens from long burning, and from being corroded grows bitter, and as the bitter element refines away, becomes acid.

When tinged with blood the bitter substance has a red colour, and this when mixed with black takes the hue of grass; or again, the bitter substance has an auburn colour, when new flesh is decomposed by the internal flame. To all which phenomena some physician or philosopher who was able to see the one in many has given the name of bile. The various kinds of bile have names answering to their colours.

Lymph or serum is of two kinds : first, the whey of blood, which is gentle ; secondly, the secretion of dark and bitter bile, which, when mingled under the influence of heat with salt, is malignant and is called acid phlegm. There is also white phlegm, formed by the decomposition of young and tender flesh, and covered with little bubbles, separately invisible, but becoming visible when collected.

The water of tears and perspiration and similar substances is also the watery part of fresh phlegm. All these humours become sources of disease when the blood is replenished in irregular ways and not by food or drink. ^A The danger, however, is not so great when the foundation remains, for then there is a possibility of recovery. But when the substance which unites the flesh and bones is diseased, and is no

3/6 Analysis 84, 85. Tiniaais. longer renewed from the muscles and sinews, and instead of being Analysis. oily and smooth and glutinous becomes rough and salt and dry, then the fleshy parts fall away and leave the sinews bare and full of brine, and the flesh gets back again into the circulation of the blood, and makes the previously mentioned disorders still greater.

There are other and worse diseases which are prior to these ; as when the bone through the density of the flesh does not receive sufficient air, and becomes stagnant and gangrened, and crumbling away passes into the food, and the food into the flesh, and the flesh returns again into the blood. Worst of all and most fatal is the disease of the marrow, by which the whole course of the body is reversed.

There is a third class of diseases which are produced, some by wind and some by phlegm and some by bile. When the lung, which is the steward of the air, is obstructed by rheums, and in one part no air, and in another too much, enters in, then the parts which are unrefreshed by air corrode, and other parts are distorted by the excess of air ; and in this manner painful diseases are produced.

The most painful are caused by wind generated within the body, which gets about the great sinews of the shoulders — these are termed tetanus. The cure of them is difficult, and in most cases they are relieved only by fever. White 85 phlegm, which is dangerous if kept in, by reason of the air bubbles, is not equally dangerous if able to escape through the pores, although it variegates the body, generating divers kinds of leprosies.

If, when mingled with black bile, it disturbs the courses of the head in sleep, there is not so much danger; but if it assails those who are awake, then the attack is far more dangerous, and is called epilepsy or the sacred disease. Acid and salt phlegm is the source of catarrh.

Inflammations originate in bile, which is sometimes relieved by boils and swellings, but when detained, and above all when mingled with pure blood, generates many inflammatory disorders, disturbing the position of the fibres which are scattered about in the blood in order to maintain the balance of rare and dense which is necessary to its regular circulation.

If the bile, which is only stale blood, or liquefied flesh, comes in little by little, it is congealed by the fibres and produces internal cold and shuddering. But when it enters with more of a flood it overcomes the fibres by its heat and reaches the spinal marrow, and burning up the

Analysis 85-87. 377 cables of the soul sets her free from the body. When on the Ttmofus. other hand the body, though wasted, still holds out, then the bile analysis. 86 is expelled, like an exile from a factious state, causing diarrhoeas and dysenteries and similar disorders.

The body which is diseased from the effects of fire is in a continual fever ; when air is the agent, the fever is quotidian ; when water, the fever intermits a day; when earth, which is the most sluggish element, the fever intermits three days and is with difficulty shaken off. Of mental disorders there are two sorts, one madness, the other ignorance, and they may l)c justly attributed to disease.

Excessive pleasures or pains are among the greatest diseases, and deprive men of their senses. When the seed about the spinal marrow is too abundant, the body has too great pleasures and pains ; and during a great part of his life he who is the subject of them is more or less mad.

He is often thought bad, but this is a mistake ; for the truth is that the intemperance of lust is due to \ the fluidity of the marrow produced by the loose consistency of | the bones. And this is true of vice in general, which is commonly regarded as disgraceful, whereas it is really involuntary and arises from a bad habit of the body and evil education.

In like manner the soul is often made vicious by the influence of bodily pain ; the briny phlegm and other bitter and bilious humours wander over the body and find no exit, but are compressed within, and mingle 87 their own vapours with the motions of the soul, and are carried to the three places of the soul, creating infinite varieties of trouble and melancholy, of rashness and cowardice, of forgetfulness and stupidity.

When men are in this evil plight of body, and evil forms of government and evil discourses are superadded, and there is no education to save them, they are corrupted through two causes ; but of neither of them are they really the authors. For the planters arc to blame rather than the plants, the educators and not the educated. Still, we should endeavour to attain virtue and avoid vice ; but this is part of another subject.

Enough of disease — I have now to speak of the means by which the mind and body are to be preserved, a higher theme than the other. The good is tlie beautiful, and the beautiful is the symmetrical, and there is no greater or fairer symmetry than that of body and soul, as the contrary is the greatest of deformities. A leg or an arm too long or too short is at once ugly and unservlce-

3/8 Analysis 87-90. rimaetis. able, and the same is true if body and soul are disproportionate. Analysis. For a Strong and impassioned soul may ' fret the pigmy body to %2> decay,' and so produce convulsions and other evils. The violence of controversy, or the earnestness of enquiry, will often generate inflammations and rheums which are not understood, or assigned to their true cause by the professors of medicine.

And in like manner the body may be too much for the soul, darkening the reason, and quickening the animal desires. The only security is to preserve the balance of the two, and to this end the mathematician or philosopher must practise gymnastics, and the gymnast must cultivate music. The parts of the body too must be treated in the same way — they should receive their appropriate exercise.

For the body is set in motion when it is heated and cooled by the elements which enter in, or is dried up and moistened by external things ; and, if given up to these processes when at rest, it is liable to destruction. But the natural mation, as in the world, so also in the human frame, produces harmony and divides hostile powers.

The best exercise is the spontaneous 89 motion of the body, as in gymnastics, because most akin to the motion of mind ; not so good is the motion of which the source is in another, as in sailing or riding; least good when the body is at rest and the motion is in parts only, which is a species of motion imparted by physic. This should only be resorted to by men of sense in extreme cases ; lesser diseases are not to be irritated by medicine.

For every disease is akin to the living being and has an appointed term, just as life has, which depends on the form of the triangles, and cannot be protracted when they are worn out. And he who, instead of accepting his destiny, endeavours to prolong his life by medicine, is likely to multiply and magnify his diseases. Regimen and not medicine is the true cure, when a man has time at his disposal.

Enough of the nature of man and of the body, and of training and education. The subject is a great one and cannot be adequately treated as an appendage to another. To sum up all in a word : there are three kinds of soul located within us, and any one of them, if remaining inactive, becomes very weak; if exercised, very strong. Wherefore we should duly train and exercise 90 all three kinds. The divine soul God lodged in the head, to raise us, like plnnts

Ajiaiysis 90-92. ' 379 which are not of earthly origin, to our kindred ; for the head Timaeus. i$ nearest to heaven. He who is intent upon the gratification analysis. of his desires and cherishes the mortal soul, has all his ideas mortal, and is himself mortal in the truest sense.

But he who seeks after knowledge and exercises the divine part of himself in godly and immortal thoughts, attains to truth and immortality, as far as is possible to man, and also to happiness, while he is training up within him the divine principle and indwelling power of order. There is only one way in which one person can benefit another ; and that is by assigning to him his proper nurture and motion.

To the motions of the soul answer the motions of the universe, and by the study of these the individual is restored to his original nature. Thus we have finished the discussion of the universe, which, according to our original intention, has now been brought down to the creation of man. Completeness seems to require that something should be briefly said about other animals : first of women, who are probably degenerate and cowardly men.

And 91 when they degenerated, the gods implanted in men the desire of union with them, creating in man one animate substance and in woman another in the following manner : — The outlet for liquids they connected with the living principle of the spinal marrow, which the man has the desire to emit into the fruitful womb of the woman ; this is like a fertile field in which the seed is quickened and matured, and at last brought to light.

When this desire is unsatisfied the man is over-mastered by the power of the generative organs, and the woman is subjected to disorders from the obstruction of the passages of the breath, until the two meet and pluck the fruit of the tree. The race of birds was created out of innocent, light-minded men, who thought to pursue the study of the heavens by sight; these were transformed into birds, and grew feathers instead of hair.

The race of wild animals were men who had no philosophy, and never looked up to heaven or used the courses of the head, but followed only the influences of passion. Naturally they turned to their kindred earth, and put their forelegs to the ground, 92 3^nd their heads were crushed into strange oblong forms. Some of them have four feet, and some of them more than four, — the latter, who are the more senseless, drawing closer to their native

380

Analysis 92.

Timaeus. element; the most senseless of all have no limbs and trail their Analysis. whole body on the ground. Tiie fourth kind are the inhabitants of the waters ; these are made out of the most senseless and ignorant and impure of men, whom God placed in the uttermost parts of the world in return for their utter ignorance, and caused them to respire water instead of the pure element of air. Such are the laws by which animals pass into one another. And so the world received animals, mortal and immortal, and was fulfilled with them, and became a visible God, comprehending the visible, made in the image of the Intellectual, being the one perfect only-begotten heaven.

Introduction.

§2. Nature in the aspect which she presented to a Greek philosopher of the fourth century before Christ is not easily reproduced to modern eyes. The associations of mythology and poetry have to be added, and the unconscious influence of science has to be subtracted, before we can behold the heavens or the earth as they appeared to the Greek. The philosopher himself was a child and also a man — a child in the range of his attainments, but also a great intelligence having an insight into nature, and often anticipations of the truth. He was full of original thoughts, and yet liable to be imposed upon by the most obvious fallacies. He occasionally confused numbers with ideas, and atoms with numbers ; his a priori notions were out of all proportion to his experience. He was ready to explain the phenomena of the heavens by the most trivial analogies of earth. The experiments which nature worked for him he sometimes accepted, but he never tried experiments for himself which would either prove or disprove his theories. His knowledge was unequal; while in some branches, such as medicine and astronomy, he had made considerable proficiency, there were others, such as chemistry, electricity, mechanics, of which the very names were unknown to him. He was the natural enemy of mythology, and yet mythological ideas still retained their hold over him. He was endeavouring to form a conception of principles, but these principles or ideas were regarded by him as real powers or entities, to which the

FrojH mythology to philosophy.

381

world has been subjected. He was always tending to argue from Timaeus. what was near to what was remote, from what was known to Intkoducwhat was unknown, from man to the universe, and back again ^'"^" from the universe to man. While he was arranging the world, he was arranging the forms of thought in his own mind ; and the light from within and the light from without often crossed and helped to confuse one another.

He might be compared to a builder engaged in some great design, who could only dig with his hands because he was unprovided with common tools ; or to some poet or musician, Uke Tynnichus (Ion 534 D), obliged to accommodate his lyric raptures to the limits of the tetrachord or of the flute.

The Hesiodic and Orphic cosmogonies were a phase of thought intermediate between mythology and philosophy and had a great influence on the beginnings of knowledge. There was nothing behind them ; they were to physical science what the poems of Homer were to early Greek history.

They made men think of the world as a whole ; they carried the mind back into the infinity of past time ; they suggested the first observation of the effects of fire and water on the earth's surface. To the ancient physics they stood much in the same relation which geology does to modern science.

But the Greek was not, like the enquirer of the last generation, confined to a period of six thousand years ; he was able to speculate freely on the effects of infinite ages in the production of physical phenomena. He could imagine cities which had existed time out of mind (Statesm. 302 A; Laws iii. 676), laws or forms of art and music which had lasted, ' not in word only, but in very truth, for ten thousand years' (Laws ii. 656 E; cp. also vii.

799 A) ; he was aware that natural phenomena like the Delta of the Nile might have slowly accumulated in long periods of time (cp. Hdt. ii. 5, 10). But he seems to have supposed that the course of events was recurring rather than progressive. To this he was probably led by the fixedness of Egyptian customs and the general observation that there were other civilizations in the world more ancient than that of Hellas.

The ancient philosophers found in mythology many ideas which, if not originally derived from nature, were easily transferred-to her — such, for example, as love or hate, corresponding to attraction or repulsion ; or the conception of necessity allied both

to the regularity and irregularity of nature ; or of chance, the nameless or unknown cause; or of justice, symbolizing the law of compensation; or of the Fates and Furies, typifying the fixed order or the extraordinary convulsions of nature. Their own interpretations of Homer and the poets were supposed by them to be the original meaning.

Musing in themselves on the phenomena of nature, they were relieved at being able to utter the thoughts of their hearts in figures of speech which to them were not figures, and were already consecrated by tradition. Hesiod and the Orphic poets moved in a region of half-personification in which the meaning or principle appeared through the person.

In their vaster conceptions of Chaos, Erebus, Aether, Night, and the like, the first rude attempts at generalization are dimly seen. The Gods themselves, especially the greater Gods, such as Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Athene, are universals as well as individuals. They were gradually becoming lost in a common conception of mind or God.

They continued to exist for the purposes of ritual or of art ; but from the sixth century onwards or even earlier there arose and gained strength in the minds of men the notion of * one God, greatest among Gods and men, who was all sight, all hearing, all knowing' (Xenophanes).

Under the influence of such ideas, perhaps also deriving from the traditions of their own or of other nations scraps of medicine and astronomy, men came to the observation of nature. The Greek philosopher looked at the blue circle of the heavens and it flashed upon him that all things were one; the tumult of sense abated, and the mind found repose in the thought which former generations had been striving to realize.

The first expression of this was some element, rarefied by degrees into a pure abstraction, and purged from any tincture of sense. Soon an inner world of ideas began to be unfolded, more absorbing, more overpowering, more abiding than the brightest of visible objects, which to the eye of the philosopher looking inward, seemed to pale before them, retaining only a faint and precarious existence.

At the same time, the minds of men parted into the two great divisions of those who saw only a principle of motion, and of those who saw only a principle of rest, in nature and in themselves ; there were born Heracliteans or Eleatics, as there have been in later ages born Aristotelians or Platonists. Like some philosophers in

modern times, who are accused of making a theory first and Timaeus. finding their facts afterwards, the advocates of either opinion iNTRonecnever thought of applying either to themselves or to their adver- ^'°^ saries the criterion of fact. They were mastered by their ideas and not masters of them.

Like the Heraclitean fanatics whom Plato has ridiculed in the Theaetetus (179 E, 180), they were incapable of giving a reason of the faith that was in them, and had all the animosities of a religious sect. Yet, doubtless, there was some first impression derived from external nature, which, as in mythology, so also in philosophy, worked upon the minds of the first thinkers.

Though incapable of induction or generalization in the modern sense, they caught an inspiration from the external world.

The most general facts or appearances of nature, the circle of the universe, the nutritive power of water, the air which is the breath of life, the destructive force of fire, the seeming regularity of the greater part of nature and the irregularity of a remnant, the recurrence of day and night and of the seasons, the solid earth and the impalpable aether, were always present to them.

The great source of error and also the beginning of truth to them was reasoning from analogy ; they could see resemblances, but not differences; and they were incapable of distinguishing illustration from argument. Analogy in modern times only points the way, and is immediately verified by experiment.

The dreams and visions, which pass through the philosopher's mind, of resem-. blances between different classes of substances, or between the animal and vegetable world, are put into the refiner's fire, and the dross and other elements which adhere to them are purged away.

But the contemporary of Plato and Socrates was incapable of resisting the power of any analogy which occurred to him, and was drawn into any consequences which seemed to follow. He had no methods of difference or of concomitant variations, by the use of which he could distinguish the accidental from the essential. He could not isolate phenomena, and he was helpless against the influence of any word which had an equivocal or double sense.

Yet without this crude use of analogy the ancient physical philosopher would have stood still ; he could not have made even ' one guess among many ' without comparison. The course of natural phenomena would have passed unheeded before his eyes,

like fair sights or musical sounds before the eyes and ears of an animal. Even the fetichism of the savage is the beginning of reasoning; the assumption of the most fanciful of causes indicates a higher mental state than the absence of all enquiry about them. The tendency to argue from* the higher to the lower, from man to the world, has led to many errors, but has also had an elevating influence on philosophy.

The conception of the world as a whole, a person, an animal, has been the source of hasty generalizations ; yet this general grasp of nature led also to a spirit of comprehensiveness in early philosophy, which has not increased, but rather diminished, as the fields of knowledge have become more divided. The modern physicist confines himself to one or perhaps two branches of science.

But he comparatively seldom rises above his own department, and often falls under the narrowing influence which any single branch, when pursued to the exclusion of every other, has over the mind.

Language, too, exercised a spell over the beginnings of physical philosophy, leading to error and sometimes to truth ; for many thoughts were suggested by the double meanings of words (cp. gtoix^'i-ov, Gv71a(ifj, fxovGiK?/, dpfiovla, KOGfiog)) and the accidental distinctions of words sometimes led the ancient philosopher to make corresponding differences in things (cp. (iovAeGdai, E7ridvfj.elv, (pd^og, dtog, aldtoi; aiGxvvTj).

'If they are the same, why have they different names; or if they are different, why have they the same name?' — is an argument not easily answered in the infancy of knowledge. The modern philosopher has always been taught the lesson which he still imperfectly learns, that he must disengage himself from the influence of words.

Nor are there wanting in Plato, who was himself too often the victim of them, impressive admonitions that wc should regard not words but things (cp. Statesm. 261 E). But upon the whole, the ancients, though not entirely dominated by them, were much more subject to the influence of words than the moderns. They had no clear divisions of colours or substances; even the four elements were undefined ; the fields of knowledge were not parted off.

They were bringing order out of disorder, having a small grain of experience mingled in a confused heap of a priori notions. And yet, probably, their first impressions, the illusions and mirages of their fancy, created a greater intellectual activity and made a nearer approach to the truth than any patient

investigation of isolated facts, for which the time had not yet come, Timaeus. could have accomplished. Introduc- There was one more illusion to which the ancient philosophers ^'°'*" were subject, and against which Plato in his later dialogues seems to be struggling — the tendency to mere abstractions; not perceiving that pure abstraction is only negation, they thought that the greater the abstraction the greater the truth.

Behind any pair of ideas a new idea which comprehended them — the rpiroq avOpuTTo^j as it was technically termed — began at once to appear. Two are truer than three, one than two. The words 'being,' or * unity,* or * essence,' or 'good,' became sacred to them. They did not see that they had a word only, and in one sense the most unmeaning of words.

They did not understand that the content of notions is in inverse proportion to their universality — the element which is the most widely diffused is also the thinnest ; or, in the language of the common logic, the greater the extension the less the comprehension. But this vacant idea of a whole without parts, of a subject without predicates, a rest without motion, has been also the most fruitful of all ideas.

It is the beginning of a priori thought, and indeed of thinking at all. Men were led to conceive it, not by a love of hasty generalization, but by a divine instinct, a dialectical enthusiasm, in which the human faculties seemed to yearn for enlargement.

We know that 'being' is only the verb of existence, the copula, the most general symbol of relation, the first and most meagre of abstractions; but to some of the ancient philosophers this little word appeared to attain divine proportions, and to comprehend all truth. Being or essence, and similar words, represented to them a supreme or divine being, in which they thought that they found the containing and continuing principle of the universe.

In a few years the human mind was peopled with abstractions ; a new world was called into existence to give law and order to the old. But between them there was still a gulf, and no one could pass from the one to the other.

Number and figure were the greatest instruments of thought which were possessed by the Greek philosopher ; having the same power over the mind which was exerted by abstract ideas, they were also capable of practical application. Many curious and, to the early thinker, mysterious properties of them came to light when they were compared with one another. They admitted of VOL. III. — 40

infinite multiplication and construction ; in Pythagorean triangles or in proportions of i : 2 : 4 : 8 and i : 3 : 9 : 27, or compounds of them, the laws of the world seemed to be more than half revealed. They were also capable of infinite subdivision — a wonder and also a puzzle to the ancient thinker (cp. Rep. vii. 525 E).

They were not, like being or essence, mere vacant abstractions, but admitted of progress and growth, while at the same time they confirmed a higher sentiment of the mind, that there was order in the universe. And so there began to be a real sympathy between the world within and the world without.

The numbers and figures which were present to the mind's eye became visible to the eye of sense ; the truth of nature was mathematics ; the other properties of objects seemed to reappear only in the light of number. Law and morality also found a natural expression in number and figure. Instruments of such power and elasticity could not fail to be 'a most gracious assistance ' to the first efTorts of human intelligence.

There was another reason why numbers had so great an influence over the minds of early thinkers — they were verified by experience. Every use of them, even the most trivial, assured men of their truth; they were everywhere to be found, in the least things and the greatest alike. One, two, three, counted on the fingers was a ^trivial matter' (Rep. vii.

522 C), a little instrument out of which to create a world ; but from these and by the help of these all our knowledge of nature has been developed.

They were the measure of all things, and seemed to give law to all things; nature was rescued from chaos and confusion by their power ; the notes of music, the motions of the stars, the forms of atoms, the evolution and recurrence of days, months, years, the military divisions of an army, the civil divisions of a state, seemed to afford a 'present witness' of them — what would have become of man or of the world if deprived of number (Rep. vii.

522 E) The mystery of number and the mystery of music were akin. There was a music of rhythm and of harmonious motion everywhere; and to the real connexion which existed between music and number, a fanciful or imaginary relation was superadded. There was a music of the spheres as well as of the notes of the lyre.

If in all things seen there was number and figure, why should they not also pervade the unseen world, with which by their wonderful and unchangeable nature they seemed to hold communion?

Two other points strike us in the use which the ancient philo- Timacus. sophers made of numbers. First, they applied to external nature Introducthe relations of them which they found in their own minds; and ^'°^* where nature seemed to be at variance with number, as for example in the case of fractions, they protested against her (Rep. vii. 525 ; Arist. Metaph. i. 6).

Having long meditated on the properties of I : 2 : 4 : 8, or I : 3 : 9 : 27, or of 3, 4, 5, they discovered in them many curious correspondences and were disposed to find in them the secret of the universe.

Secondly, they applied number and figure equally to those parts of physics, such as astronomy or mechanics, in which the modern philosopher expects to find them, and to those in which he would never think of looking for them, such as physiology and psychology.

For the sciences were not yet divided, and there was nothing really irrational in arguing that the same laws which regulated the heavenly bodies were partially applied to the erring limbs or brain of man. Astrology was the form which the lively fancy of ancient thinkers almost necessarily gave to astronomy.

The observation that the lower principle, e. g. mechanics, is always seen in the higher, e. g. in the phenomena of life, further tended to perplex them. Plato's doctrine of the same and the other ruling the courses of the heavens and of the human body is not a mere vagary, but is a natural result of the state of knowledge and thought at which he had arrived.

When in modern times we contemplate the heavens, a certain amount of scientific truth imperceptibly blends, even with the cursory glance of an unscientific person. He knows that the earth is revolving round the sun, and not the sun around the earth. He does not imagine the earth to be the centre of the universe, and he has some conception of chemistry and the cognate sciences.

A very different aspect of nature would have been present to the mind of the early Greek philosopher. He would have beheld the earth a surface only, not mirrored, however faintly, in the glass of science, but indissolubly connected with some theory of one, two, or more elements. He would have seen the world pervaded by number and figure, animated by a principle of motion, immanent in a principle of rest.

He would have tried to construct the universe on a quantitative principle, seeming to find in endless combinations of geometrical figures or in the infinite variety of their sizes a sufficient account of the multiplicity of

phenomena. To these a priori speculations he would add a rude conception of matter and his own immediate experience of health and disease. His cosmos would necessarily be imperfect and unequal, being the first attempt to impress form and order on the primaeval chaos of human knowledge. He would see all things as in a dream.

The ancient physical philosophers have been charged by Dr. Whewell and others with wasting their fine intelligences in wrong methods of enquiry ; and their progress in moral and political philosophy has been sometimes contrasted with their supposed failure in physical investigations. 'They had plenty of ideas,' says Dr. Whewell, ' and plenty of facts ; but their ideas did not accurately represent the facts with which they were acquainted.

This is a very crude and misleading way of describing ancient science. It is the mistake of an uneducated person — uneducated, that is, in the higher sense of the word — who imagines every one else to be like himself and explains every other age by his own. No doubt the ancients often fell into strange and fanciful errors : the time had not yet arrived for the slower and surer path of the modern inductive philosophy.

But it remains to be shown that they could have done more in their age and country ; or that the contributions which they made to the sciences with which they were acquainted are not as great upon the whole as those made by their successors.

There is no single step in astronomy as great as that of the nameless Pythagorean who first conceived the world to be a body moving round the sun in space : there is no truer or more comprehensive principle than the application of mathematics alike to the heavenly bodies, and to the particles of matter.

The ancients had not the instruments which would have enabled them to correct or verify their anticipations, and their opportunities of observation were limited. Plato probably did more for physical science by asserting the supremacy of mathematics than Aristotle or his disciples by their collections of facts.

When the thinkers of modern times, following Bacon, undervalue or disparage the speculations of ancient philosophers, they seem wholly to forget the conditions of the world and of the human mind, under which they carried on their investigations. When we accuse them of being under the influence of words, do we suppose that we are altogether free from this illusion? When

we remark that Greek physics soon became stationary or extinct, Timaeus may we not observe also that there have been and may be again periods in the history of modern philosophy which have been barren and unproductive ? We might as well maintain that Greek art was not real or great, because it had nihil simile ant secundum^ as say that Greek physics were a failure because they made no subsequent progress.

The charge of premature generalization which is often urged against ancient philosophers is really an anachronism. For they can hardly be said to have generalized at all. They may be said more truly to have cleared up and defined by the help of experience ideas which they already possessed. The beginnings of thought about nature must always have this character.

A true method is the result of many ages of experiment and observation, and is ever going on and enlarging with the progress of science and knowledge. At first men personify nature, then they form impressions of nature, at last they conceive ' measure ' or laws of nature. They pass out of mythology into philosophy.

Early science is not a process of discovery in the modern sense ; but rather a process of correcting by observation, and to a certain extent only, the first impressions of nature, which mankind, when they began to think, had received from poetry or language or unintelligent sense.

Of all scientific truths the greatest and simplest is the uniformity of nature ; this was expressed by the ancients in many ways, as fate, or necessity, or measure, or limit. Unexpected events, of which the cause was unknown to them, they attributed to chance (cp. Thucyd. i. 140).

But their conception of nature was never that of law interrupted by exceptions, — a somewhat unfortunate metaphysical invention of modern times, which is at variance with facts and has failed to satisfy the requirements of thought. §3- Plato's account of the soul is partly mythical or figurative, and partly literal.

Not that either he or wc can draw a line between them, or say, 'This is poetry, this is philosophy'; for the transition from the one to the other is imperceptible. Neither must we expect to find in him absolute consistency. He is apt to pass from one level or stage of thought to another without always making it

apparent that he is changing his ground. In such passages we have to interpret his meaning by the general spirit of his writings. To reconcile his inconsistencies would be contrary to the first principles of criticism and fatal to any true understanding of him. There is a further difficulty in explaining this part of the Timaeus — the natural order of thought is inverted.

We begin with the most abstract, and proceed from the abstract to the concrete. We are searching into things which are upon the utmost limit of human intelligence, and then of a sudden we fall rather heavily to the earth. There are no intermediate steps which lead from one to the other. But the abstract is a vacant form to us until brought into relation with man and nature.

God and the world are mere names, like the Being of the Eleatics, unless some human qualities are added on to them. Yet the negation has a kind of unknown meaning to us. The priority of God and of the world, which he is imagined to have created, to all other existences, gives a solemn awe to them. And as in other systems of theology and philosophy, that of which we know least has the greatest interest to us.

There is no use in attempting to define or explain the first God in the Platonic system, who has sometimes been thought to answer to God the Father ; or the world, in whom the Fathers of the Church seemed to recognize ' the firstborn of every creature. Nor need we discuss at length how far Plato agrees in the later Jewish idea of creation, according to which God made the world out of nothing.

For his original conception of matter as something which has no qualities is really a negation. Moreover in the Hebrew Scriptures the creation of the world is described,' even more explicitly than in the Timaeus, not as a single act, but as a work or process which occupied six days. There is a chaos in both, and it would be untrue to say that the Greek, any more than the Hebrew, had any definite belief in the eternal existence of matter.

The beginning of things vanished into the distance. The real creation began, not with matter, but with ideas. According to Plato in the Timaeus, God took of the same and the other, of the divided and undivided, of the finite and infinite, and made essence, and out of the three combined created the soul of the world. To the soul he added a body formed out of the four elements. The general meaning of these words is that God im-

parted determinations of thought, or, as we might say, gave law and variety to the material universe. The elements are moving in a disorderly manner before the work of creation begins (30 A) ; and there is an eternal pattern of the world, which, like the * idea of good,' is not the Creator himself, but not separable from him.

The pattern too, though eternal, is a creation, a world of thought prior to the world of sense, which may be compared to the wisdom of God in the book of Ecclesiasticus, or to the * God in the form of a globe * of the old Eleatic philosophers. The visible, which already exists, is fashioned in the likeness of this eternal pattern.

On the other hand, there is no truth of which Plato is more firmly convinced than of the priority of the soul to the body, both in the universe and in man. So inconsistent are the forms in which he describes the works which no tongue can utter — his language, as he himself says (29 C), partaking of his own uncertainty about the things of which he is speaking.

We may remark in passing, that the Platonic compared with the Jewish description of the process of creation has less of freedom or spontaneity. The Creator in Plato is still subject to a remnant of necessity which he cannot wholly overcome (cp. 35 A). When his work is accomplished he remains in his own nature.

Plato is more sensible than the Hebrew prophet of the existence of evil, which he seeks to put as far as possible out of the way of God (cp. 42 D). And he can only suppose this to be accomplished by God retiring into himself and committing the lesser works of creation to inferior powers. (Compare, however. Laws X.

903 for another solution of the difficulty.) Nor can we attach any intelligible meaning to his words when he speaks of the visible being in the image of the invisible (28). For how can that which is divided be like that which is undivided? or that which is changing be the copy of that which is unchanging ? All the old difficulties about the ideas come back upon us in an altered form.

We can imagine two worlds, one of which is the mere double of the other, or one of which is an imperfect copy of the other, or one of which is the vanishing ideal of the other ; but we cannot imagine an intellectual world which has no qualities — 'a thing in itself — a point which has no parts or magnitude, which is nowhere, and nothing. This cannot be the archetype according to which God made the world, and is

in reality, whether in Plato or in Kant, a mere negative residuum of human thought. There is another aspect of the same difficulty which appears to have no satisfactory solution. In what relation does the archetype stand to the Creator himself? For the idea or pattern of the world is not the thought of God, but a separate, self-existent nature, of which creation is the copy.

We can only reply, (i) that to the mind of Plato subject and object were not yet distinguished; (2) that he supposes the process of creation to take place in accordance with his own theory of ideas ; and as we cannot give a consistent account of the one, neither can we of the other.

He means (3) to say that the creation of the world is not a material process of working with legs and arms, but ideal and intellectual ; according to his own fine expression, * the thought of God made the God that was to be ' (34 A). He means (4) to draw an absolute distinction between the invisible or unchangeable which is or is the place of mind or being, and the world of sense or becoming which is visible and changing.

He means (5) that the idea of the world is prior to the world, just as the other ideas are prior to sensible objects ; and like them may be regarded as eternal and self-existent, and also, like the idea of good, may be viewed apart from the divine mind. There are several other questions which we might ask and which can receive no answer, or at least only an answer of the same kind as the preceding.

How can matter be conceived to exist without form? Or, how can the essences or forms of things be distinguished from the eternal ideas, or essence itself from the soul? Or, how could there have been motion in the chaos when as yet time was not? Or, how did chaos come into existence, if not by the will of the Creator ? Or, how could there have been a time when the world was not, if time was not?

Or, how could the Creator have taken portions of an indivisible same? Or, how could space or anything else have been eternal when time is only created ? Or, how could the surfaces of geometrical figures have formed solids? We must reply again that we cannot follow Plato in all his inconsistencies, but that the gaps of thought are probably more apparent to us than to him.

He would, perhaps, have said that 'the first things are known only to God and to him of men whom God loves. How often have the gaps in Theology been

concealed from the eye of faith ! And we may say that only by an effort of metaphysical imagination can we hope to understand Plato from his own point of view ; we must not ask for consistency. Everywhere we find traces of the Platonic theory of knowledge expressed in an objective form, which by us has to be translated into the subjective, before we can attach any meaning to it.

And this theory is exhibited in so many different points of view, that we cannot with any certainty interpret one dialogue by another; e. g. the Timaeus by the Parmenides or Phaedrus or Philebus. The soul of the world may also be conceived as the personification of the numbers and figures in which the heavenly bodies move. Imagine these as in a Pythagorean dream, stripped of qualitative difference and reduced to mathematical abstractions.

They too conform to the principle of the same, and may be compared with the modern conception of laws of nature. They are in space, but not in time, and they are the makers of time.

They are represented as constantly thinking of the same ; for thought in the view of Plato is equivalent to truth or law, and need not imply a human consciousness, a conception which is familiar enough to us, but has no place, hardly even a name, in ancient Greek philosophy.

To this principle of the same is opposed the principle of the other — the principle of irregularity and disorder, of necessity and chance, whicK is only partially impressed by mathematical laws and figures. (We may observe by the way, that the principle of the other, which is the principle of plurality and variation in the Timaeus, has nothing in common with the 'other' of the Sophist, which is the principle of determination.) The element of the same dominates to a certain extent over the other — the fixed stars keep the ' wanderers ' of the inner circle in their courses (36 C), and a similar principle of fixedness or order appears to regulate the bodily constitution of man (89 A, 90 D), But there still remains a rebellious seed of evil derived from the original chaos, which is the source of disorder in the world, and of vice and disease in man.

But what did Plato mean by essence, ovaia, which is the intermediate nature compounded of the Same and the Other, and out of which, together with these two, the soul of the world is created ? It is difficult to explain a process of thought so strange and unaccustomed to us, in which modern distinctions run into one another

and are lost sight of. First, let us consider once more the meaning of the Same and the Other. The Same is the unchanging and indivisible, the heaven of the fixed stars, partaking of the divine nature, which, having law in itself, gives law to all besides and is the element of order and permanence in man and on the earth. It is the rational principle, mind regarded as a work, as creation — not as the creator.

The old tradition of Parmenides and of the Eleatic Being, the foundation of so much in the philosophy of Greece and of the world, was lingering in Plato's mind. The Other is the variable or changing element, the residuum of disorder or chaos, which cannot be reduced to order, nor altogether banished, the source of evil, seen in the error? of man and also in the wanderings of the planets, a necessity which protrudes through nature.

Of this too there was a shadow in the Eleatic philosophy in the realm of opinion, which, like a mist, seemed to darken the purity of truth in itself. — So far the words of Plato may perhaps find an intelligible meaning. But when he goes on to speak of the Essence which is compounded out of both, the track becomes fainter and we can only follow him with hesitating steps.

But still we find a trace reappearing of the teaching of Anaxagoras : 'AH was confusion, and then mind came and arranged things. We have already remarked that Plato was not acquainted with the modern distinction of subject and object, and therefore he sometimes confuses mind and the things of mind — vovq and voT}Ta. By ovaia. he clearly means some conception of the intelligible and the intelligent ; it belongs to the class of w^rd.

Matter, being, the Same, the eternal, — for any of these terms, being almost vacant of meaning, is equally suitable to express indefinite existence,— are compared or united with the Other or Diverse, and out of the union or comparison is elicited the idea of intelligence, the ' One in many,' brighter than any Promethean fire (cp. Phil. i6 C), which co-existing with them and so forming a new existence, is or becomes the intelligible world. ...

So we may perhaps venture to paraphrase or interpret or put into other words the parable in which Plato has wrapped up his conception of the creation of the world. The explanation may help to fill up with figures of speech the void of knowledge. The entire compound was divided by the Creator in certain proportions and reunited ; it was then cut into two strips, which

The diatonic scale : means of surfaces and solids. 395 were bent into an inner circle and an outer, both moving with an Timaeus. uniform motion around a centre, the outer circle containing the Introducfixed, the inner the wandering stars. The soul of the world was ^'°'^" diffused everywhere from the centre to the circumference.

To this God gave a body, consisting at first of fire and earth, and afterwards receiving an addition of air and water ; because solid bodies, like the world, arc always connected by two middle terms and not by one. The world was made in the form of a globe, and all the material elements were exhausted in the work of creation.

The proportions in which the soul of the world as well as the human soul is divided answer to a series of numbers i, 2, 3, 4, 9, 8, 27, composed of the two Pythagorean progressions i, 2, 4, 8, and i> 3) 9> 27, of which the number i represents a point, 2 and 3 lines, 4 and 8, 9 and 27 the squares and cubes respectively of 2 and 3.

This series, of which the intervals are afterwards filled up, probably represents (i) the diatonic scale according to the Pythagoreans and Plato ; (2) the order and distances of the heavenly bodies; and (3) ma^; possibly contain an allusion to the music of the spheres, which is referred to in the myth at the end of the Republic.

The meaning of the words that 'solid bodies are always connected by two middle terms ' or mean proportionals has been much disputed. The most received explanation is that of Martin, who supposes that Plato is only speaking of surfaces and solids compounded of prime numbers (i. e. of numbers not made up of two factors, or, in other words, only measurable by unity). The square of any such number represents a surface, the cube a solid.

The squares of any two such numbers (e. g. 2^, 3"" = 4, 9), have always a single mean proportional (e. g. 4 and 9 have the single mean 6), whereas the cubes of primes (e. g. 33 and 53) have always two mean proportionals (e. g. 27 : 45 : 75 : 125).

But to this explanation of Martin's it maybe objected, (i) that Plato nowhere says that his proportion is to be limited to prime numbers ; (2) that the limitation of surfaces to squares is also not to be found in his words; nor (3) is there any evidence to show that the distinction of prime from other numbers was known to him.

What Plato chiefly intends to express is that a solid requires a stronger bond than a surface ; and that the double bond which is given by two means is stronger than the single bond given by one. Having reflected on the singular numerical phe-

nomenon of the existence of one mean proportional between two square numbers or rather perhaps only between the two lowest squares ; and of two mean proportionals between two cubes, perhaps again confining his attention to the two lowest cubes, he finds in the latter symbol an expression of the relation of the elements, as in the former an image of the combination of two surfaces.

Between fire and earth, the two extremes, he remarks that there are introduced, not one, but two elements, air and water, which are compared to the two mean proportionals between two cube numbers. The vagueness of his language does not allow us to determine whether anything more than this was intended by him.

Leaving the further explanation of details, which the reader will find discussed at length in Boeckh and Martin, we may now return to the main argument : Why did God make the world ? Like man, he must have a purpose ; and his purpose is the diffusion of that goodness or good which he himself is.

The term ' goodness ' is not to be understood in this passage as meaning benevolence or love, in the Christian sense of the term, but rather law, order, harmony, like the idea of good in the Republic. The ancient mythologers, and even the Hebrew prophets, had spoken of the jealousy of God; and the Greek had imagined that there was a Nemesis always attending the prosperity of mortals.

But Plato delights to think of God as the author of order in his works, who, like a father, lives over again in his children, and can never have too much of good or friendship among his creatures. Only, as there is a certain remnant of evil inherent in matter which he cannot get rid of, he detaches himself from them and leaves them to themselves, that he may be guiltless of their faults and sufferings.

Between the ideal and the sensible Plato interposes the two natures of time and space. Time is conceived by him to be only the shadow or image of eternity which ever is and never has been or will be, but is described in a figure only as past or future. This is one of the great thoughts of early philosophy, which are still as difficult to our minds as they were to the early thinkers ; or perhaps more difficult, because we more distinctly see the consequences which are involved in such an hypothesis. All the

The contradictions of Time and Space.

397

objections which may be urged against Kant's doctrine of the ideaUty of space and time at once press upon us. If time is unreal, then all which is contained in time is unreal — the succession of human thoughts as well as the flux of sensations ; there is no connecting link between (paivo/ueva and dvra.

Yet, on the other hand, we are conscious that knowledge is independent of time, that truth is not a thing of yesterday or to-morrow, but an 'eternal now. To the ' spectator of all time and all existence' the universe remains at rest. The truths of geometry and arithmetic in all their combinations are always the same.

The generations of men, like the leaves of the forest, come and go, but the mathematical laws by which the world is governed remain, and seem as if they could never change.

The ever-present image of space is transferred to time — succession is conceived as extension. (We remark that Plato does away with the above and below in space, as he has done away with the absolute existence of past and future.) The course of time, unless regularly marked by divisions of number, partakes of the indefiniteness of the Heraclitean flux.

By such reflections we may conceive the Greek to have attained the metaphysical conception of eternity, which to the Hebrew was gained by meditation on the Divine Being. No one saw that this objective was really a subjective, and involved the subjectivity of all knowledge.

' Non in tempore sed cum tempore finxit Deus mundum,' says St. Augustine, repeating a thought derived from the Timaeus, but apparently unconscious of the results to which his doctrine would have led. The contradictions involved in the conception of time or motion, like the infinitesimal in space, were a source of perplexity to the mind of the Greek, who was driven to find a point of view above or beyond them.

They had sprung up in the decline of the Eleatic philosophy and were very familiar to Plato, as we gather from the Parmenides. The consciousness of them had led the great Eleatic philosopher to describe the nature of God or Being under negatives.

He sings of ' Being unbegotten and imperishable, unmoved and never-ending, which never was nor will be, but always is, one and continuous, which cannot spring from any other ; for it cannot be said or imagined not to be. The idea of eternity was for a great part a negation. There are regions of speculation in which the negative is hardly separable from the positive, and even seems

to pass into it. Not only Buddhism, but Greek as well as Christian philosophy, show that it is quite possible that the human mind should retain an enthusiasm for mere negations. In different ages and countries there have been forms of light in which nothing could be discerned and which have nevertheless exercised a lifegiving and illumining power.

For the higher intelligence of man seems to require, not only something above sense, but above knowledge, which can only be described as Mind or Being or Truth or God or the unchangeable and eternal element, in the expression of which all predicates fail and fall short.

Eternity or the eternal is not merely the unlimited in time but the truest of all Being, the most real of all realities, the most certain of all knowledge, which we nevertheless only see through a glass darkly. The passionate earnestness of Parmenides contrasts with the vacuity of the thought which he is revolving in his mind. Space is said by Plato to be the ' containing vessel or nurse of generation.

Reflecting on the simplest kinds of external objects, which to the ancients were the four elements, he was led to a more general notion of a substance, more or less like themselves, out of which they were fashioned. He would not have them too precisely distinguished. Thus seems to have arisen the first dim perception of v^ri or matter, which has played so great a part in the metaphysical philosophy of Aristotle and his followers.

But besides the material out of which the elements are made, there is also a space in which they are contained. There arises thus a second nature which the senses are incapable of discerning and which can hardly be referred to the intelligible class. For it is and it is not, it is nowhere when filled, it is nothing when empty.

Hence it is said to be discerned by a kind of spurious or analogous reason, partaking so feebly of existence as to be hardly perceivable, yet always reappearing as the containing mother or nurse of all things. It had not that sort of consistency to Plato which has been given to it in modern times by geometry and metaphysics.

Neither of the Greek words by which it is described are so purely abstract as the English word 'space' or the Latin 'spatium. Neither Plato nor any other Greek would have spoken of jp(it'Of koX Toiroc^ or x^P^ ill the same manner as we speak of ' time ' and * space. Yet space is also of a very permanent or even eternal nature ;

The elements in a rude fashion pre-existed in chaos. 399 and Plato seems more willing to admit of the unreality of time Timaats. than of the unreality of space ; because, as he says, all things Introducmust necessarily exist in space. We, on the other hand, are disposed to fancy that even if space were annihilated time might still survive.

He admits indeed that our knowledge of space is of a dreamy kind, and is given by a spurious reason without the help of sense. (Cp. the hypotheses and images of Rep. vi. 511.) It is true that it does not attain to the clearness of ideas. But like them it seems to remain, even if all the objects contained in it are supposed to have vanished away. Hence it was natural for Plato to conceive of it as eternal.

We must remember further that in his attempt to realize either space or matter the two abstract ideas of weight and extension, which are familiar to us, had never passed before his mind.

Thus far God, working according to an eternal pattern, out of his goodness has created the same, the other, and the essence (compare the three principles of the Philebus — the finite, the infinite, and the union of the two), and out of them has formed the outer circle of the fixed stars and the inner circle of the planets, divided according to certain musical intervals ; he has also created time, the moving image of eternity, and space, existing by a sort of necessity and hardly distinguishable from matter.

The matter out of which the world is formed is not absolutely void, but retains in the chaos certain germs or traces of the elements. These Plato, like Empedocles, supposed to be four in number — fire, air, earth, and water. They were at first mixed together; but already in the chaos, before God fashioned them by form and number, the greater masses of the elements had an appointed place.

Into the confusion {jily^a) which preceded Plato does not attempt further to penetrate. They are called elements, but they are so far from being'elements {proix^'ui) or letters in the higher sense that they are not even syllables or first compounds. The real elements are two triangles, the rectangular isosceles which has but one form, and the most beautiful of the many forms of scalene, which is half of an equilateral triangle.

By the combination of these triangles which exist in an infinite variety of sizes, the surfaces of the four elements are constructed. That there were only five regular solids was already known to

the ancients ; and out of the surfaces which he has formed Plato proceeds to generate the four first of the five. He perhaps forgets that he is only putting together surfaces and has not provided for their transformation into solids. The first solid is a regular pyramid, of which the base and sides are formed by four equilateral or twenty-four scalene triangles.

Each of the four solid angles in this figure is a little larger than the largest of obtuse angles. The second solid is composed of the same triangles, which unite as eight equilateral triangles, and make one solid angle out of four plane angles — six of these angles form a regular octahedron. The third solid is a regular icosahedron, having twenty triangular equilateral bases, and therefore 120 rectangular scalene triangles.

The fourth regular solid, or cube, is formed by the combination of four isosceles triangles into one square and of six squares into a cube. The fifth regular solid, or dodecahedron, cannot be formed by a combination of either of these triangles, but each of its faces may be regarded as composed of thirty triangles of another kind.

Probably Plato notices this as the only remaining regular polyhedron, which from its approximation to a globe, and possibly because, as Plutarch remarks, it is composed of 12 x 30 = 360 scalene triangles (Platon. Quaest. 5), representing thus the signs and degrees of the Zodiac, as well as the months and days of the year, God may be said to have ' used in the delineation of the universe.

According to Plato earth was composed of cubes, fire of regular pyramids, air of regular octahedrons, water of regular icosahedrons. The stability of the last three increases with the number of their sides.

The elements are supposed to pass into one another, but we must remember that these transformations are not the transformations of real solids, but of imaginary geometrical figures ; in other words, we are composing and decomposing the faces of substances and not the substances themselves — it is a house of cards which we are pulling to pieces and putting together again (cp. however Laws x. 894 A).

Yet perhaps Plato may regard these sides or faces as only the forms which are impressed on pre-existent matter. It is remarkable that he should speak of each of these solids as a possible world in itself, though upon the whole he inclines to the opinion that they form one world and not five. To suppose that there is an infinite number of worlds,

Transpositio7i and transfonnation of the clcvients. 401 as Democritus (Hippolyt. Rcf. Hacr. I. 13) had said, would be, as rimaeus. he satirically observes, ' the characteristic of a very indefinite and intkoducignorant mind' (55 C, D).

'^'"'^• The twenty triangular faces of an icosahedron form the faces or sides of two regular octahedrons and of a regular pyramid (20 = 8 X 2 + 4) ; and therefore, according to Plato, a particle of v/ater when decomposed is supposed to give two particles of air and one of fire. So because an octahedron gives the sides of two pyramids (8=4 x 2), a particle of air is resolved into two particles of fire.

The transformation is effected by the superior power or number of the conquering elements. The manner of the change is (i) a separation of portions of the elements from the masses in which they arc collected ; (2) a resolution of them into their original triangles; and (3) a reunion of them in new forms. Plato himself proposes the question, Why does motion continue at all when the elements are settled in their places?

He answers that although the force of attraction is continually drawing similar elements to the same spot, still the revolution of the universe exercises a condensing power, and thrusts them again out of their natural places. Thus want of uniformity, the condition of motion, is produced (57 D if.).

In all such disturbances of matter there is an alternative for the weaker element : it may escape to its kindred, or take the form of the stronger — becoming denser, if it be denser, or rarer, if rarer. This is true of fire, air, and water, which, being composed of similar triangles, are interchangeable ; earth, however, which has triangles peculiar to itself, is capable of dissolution, but not of change (56 D ff. ).

Of the interchangeable elements, fire, the rarest, can only become a denser, and water, the densest, only a rarer: but air may become a denser or a rarer. No single particle of the elements is visible, but only the aggregates of them are seen. The subordinate species depend, not upon differences of form in the original triangles, but upon differences of size.

The obvious physical phenomena from which Plato has gathered his views of the relations of the elements seem to be the effect of fire upon air, water, and earth, and the effect of water upon earth. The particles are supposed by him to be in a perpetual process of circulation caused by inequality. This process of circulation does VOL. III. — 41

not admit of a vacuum, as he tells us in his strange account of respiration (79 B). Of the phenomena of light and heavy he speaks afterwards, when treating of sensation, but they may be more conveniently considered by us in this place.

They are not, he says, to be explained by ^ above ' and 'below,' which in the universal globe have no existence (62 D), but by the attraction of similars towards the great masses of similar substances ; fire to fire, air to air, water to water, earth to earth. Plato's doctrine of attraction implies not only (i) the attraction of similar elements to one another, but also (2) of smaller bodies to larger ones.

Had he confined himself to the latter he would have arrived, though, perhaps, without any further result or any sense of the greatness of the discovery, at the modern docljine of gravitation. He does not observe that water has an equal tendency towards both water and earth. So easily did the most obvious facts which were inconsistent with his theories escape him.

The general physical doctrines of the Timaeus may be summed up as follows: (i) Plato supposes the greater masses of the elements to have been already settled in their places at the creation : (2) they are four in number, and are formed of rectangular triangles variously combined into regular solid figures: (3) three of them, fire, air, and water, admit of transformation into one another; the fourth, earth, cannot be similarly transformed : (4) different sizes of the same triangles form the lesser species of each element: (5) there is an attraction of like to like — smaller masses of the same kind being drawn towards greater : (6) there is no void, but the particles of matter are ever pushing one another round and round {nepiuatg).

Like the atomists, Plato attributes the differences between the elements to differences in geometrical figures. But he does not explain the process by which surfaces become solids ; and he characteristically ridicules Democritus for not seeing that the worlds are finite and not infinite. § 4. The astronomy of Plato is based on the two principles of the same and the other, which God combined in the creation of the world. The soul, which is compounded of the same, the other, and the essence, is diffused from the centre to the circumference

of the heavens. We speak of a soul of the universe ; but more Timaeus. truly regarded, the universe of the Timaeus is a soul, governed by mind, and holding in solution a residuum of matter or evil, which the author of the world is unable to expel, and of which Plato cannot tell us the origin.

The creation, in Plato's sense, is really the creation of order ; and the first step in giving order is the division of the heavens into an inner and outer circle of the other and the same, of the divisible and the indivisible, answering to the two spheres, of the planets and of the world beyond them, all together moving around the earth, which is their centre.

To us there is a difficulty in apprehending how that which is at rest can also be in motion, or that which is indivisible exist in space.

But the whole description is so ideal and imaginative, that we can hardly venture to attribute to many of Plato's words in the Timaeus any more meaning than to his mythical account of the heavens in the Republic and in the Phaedrus. (Cp. his denial of the ' blasphemous opinion ' that there are planets or wandering stars; all alike move in circles — Laws vii.

821, 822.) The stars are the habitations of the souls of men, from which they come and to which they return.

In attributing to the fixed stars only the most perfect motion — that which if on the same spot or circling around the same — he might perhaps have said that to ' the spectator of all time and all existence,' to borrow once more his own grand expression, or viewed, in the language of Spinoza, 'sub specie aeternitatis,' they were still at rest, but appeared to move in order to teach men the periods of time.

Although absolutely in motion, they are relatively at rest ; or we may conceive of them as resting, while the space in which they are contained, or the whole anima mujidi, revolves. The universe revolves around a centre once in twenty-four hours, but the orbits of the fixed stars take a different direction from those of the planets.

The outer and the inner sphere cross one another and meet again at a point opposite to that of their first contact ; the first moving in a circle from left to right along the side of a parallelogram which is supposed to be inscribed in it, the second also moving in a circle along the diagonal of the same parallelogram from right to left; or, in other words, the first describing the path of the equator, the second, the path of the ecliptic. The motion of the second is controlled by the first,

and hence the obhqiie hne in which the planets are supposed to move becomes a spiral.

The motion of the same is said to be undivided, whereas the inner motion is split into seven unequal orbits — the intervals between them being in the ratio of two and three, three of either: — the Sun, moving in the opposite direction to Mercury and Venus, but with equal swiftness ; the remaining four, Moon, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, with unequal swiftness to the former three and to one another.

Thus arises the following progression: — Moon i, Sun 2, Venus 3, Mercury 4, Mars 8, Jupiter 9, Saturn 27. This series of numbers is the compound of the two Pythagorean ratios, having the same intervals, though not in the same order, as the mixture which was originally divided in forming the soul of the world. Plato was struck by the phenomenon of Mercury, Venus, and the Sun appearing to overtake and be overtaken by one another.

The true reason of this, namely, that they lie within the circle of the earth's orbit, was unknown to him, and the reason which he gives — that the two former move in an opposite direction to the latter — is far from explaining the appearance of them in the heavens.

All the planets, including the sun, are carried round in the daily motion of the circle of the fixed stars, and they have a second or oblique motion which gives the explanation of the different lengths of the sun's course in different parts of the earth.

The fixed stars have also two movements — a forward movement in their orbit which is common to the whole circle ; and a movement on the same spot around an axis, which Plato calls the movement of thought about the same. In this latter respect they are more perfect than the wandering stars, as Plato himself terms them in the Timaeus, although in the Laws (loc. cit.) he condemns the appellation as blasphemous.

The revolution of thq world around the earth, which is accomplished in a single day and night, is described as being the most perfect or intelligent. Yet Plato also speaks of an * annus magnus ' or cyclical year, in which periods wonderful for their complexity are found to coincide in a perfect number, i. e. a number which equals the sum of its factors, as 6=1+ 2 + 3.

This, although not literally contradictory, is in spirit irreconcileable with the perfect revolution of twenty-four hours. The same remark may be applied to the complexity of the appearances and

occultations of the stars, which, if the outer heaven is supposed Timaeus. to be moving around the centre once in twenty-four hours, must Introduc be confined to the effects produced by the seven planets. Plato ^'°^' seems to confuse the actual observation of the heavens with his desire to find in them mathematical perfection.

The same spirit is carried yet further by him in the passage already quoted from the Laws, in which he affirms their wanderings to be an appearance only, which a little knowledge of mathematics would enable men to correct. We have now to consider the much discussed question of the rotation or immobility of the earth.

Plato's doctrine on this subject is contained in the following words: — ' The earth, which is our nurse, compacted \or revolving] around the pole which is extended through the universe, he made to be the guardian and artificer of night and day, first and eldest of gods that are in the interior of heaven ' (40 B, C).

There is an unfortunate doubt in this passage (i) about the meaning of the word ITJiofihrjVy which is translated either 'compacted' or 'revolving,' and is equally capable of both explanations. A doubt (2) may also be raised as to whether the words * artificer of day and night ' are consistent with the mere passive causation of them, produced by the immobility of the earth in the midst of the circling universe.

We must admit, further, (3) that Aristotle attributed to Plato the doctrine of the rotation of the earth on its axis. On the other hand it has been urged that if the earth goes round with the outer heaven and sun in twenty-four hours, there is no way of accounting for the alternation of day and night ; since the equal motion of the earth and sun would have the effect of absolute immobility.

To which it may be replied that Plato never says that the earth goes round with the outer heaven and sun ; although the whole question depends on the relation of earth and sun, their movements are nowhere precisely described.

But if we suppose, with Mr. Grote, that the diurnal rotation of the earth on its axis and the revolution of the sun and outer heaven precisely coincide, it would be difficult to imagine that Plato was unaware of the consequence.

For though he was ignorant of many things which are familiar to us, and often confused in his ideas where we have become clear, we have no right to attribute to him a childish want of reasoning about very simple facts, or an

inability to understand the necessary and obvious deductions from geometrical figures or movements. Of the causes of day and night the pre-Socratic philosophers, and especially the Pythagoreans, gave various accounts, and therefore the question can hardly be imagined to have escaped him.

On the other hand it may be urged that the further step, however simple and obvious, is just what Plato often seems to be ignorant of, and that as there is no limit to his insight, there is also no limit to the blindness which sometimes obscures his intelligence (cp. the construction of solids out of surfaces in his account of the creation of the world, or the attraction of similars to similars).

Further, Mr. Grote supposes, not that \llojievr]v means * revolving,' or that this is the sense in which Aristotle understood the word, but that the rotation of the earth is necessarily implied in its adherence to the cosmical axis.

But (a) if, as Mr. Grote assumes, Plato did not see that the rotation of the earth on its axis and of the sun and outer heavens around the earth in equal times was inconsistent with the alternation of day and night, neither need we suppose that he would have seen the immobility of the earth to be inconsistent with the rotation of the axis.

And (/3) what proof is there that the axis of the world revolves at all ? (y) The comparison of the two passages quoted by Mr. Grote (see p. 19 of his pamphlet on * The Rotation of the Earth ') from Aristotle or the writer De Caelo, Book II (c, 13, EVLOL — yeypaTTTai, and c.

14, i^/nslg — fieaov), clearly shows, although this is a matter of minor importance, that Aristotle, as Proclus and Simplicius supposed, understood VklEadai in the Timaeus to mean * revolving.

For the second passage, in which motion on an axis is expressly mentioned, refers to the first, but this would be unmeaning unless IXXeadai in the first passage meant rotation on an axis. (4) The immobility of the earth is more in accordance with Plato's other writings than the opposite hypothesis. For in the Phaedo the earth is described as the centre of the world, and is not said to be in motion.

In the Republic the pilgrims appear to be looking out from the earth upon the motions of the heavenly bodies ; in the Phaedrus, Hestia, who remains immovable in the house of Zeus while the other gods go in procession, is called the first and eldest of the gods, and is probably the symbol of the earth. The silence of Plato in these and in some other passages (cp. Laws x. 893 B) in which he

Plato ^ Aristotle, and Mr. Grote. ,407 might be expected to speak of the rotation of the earth, is more rimaeus. favourable to the doctrine of its immobility than to the opposite.

Introduc- If he had meant to say that the earth revolves on its axis, he would have said so in distinct words, and have explained the relation of its movements to those of the other heavenly bodies. (5) The meaning of the words 'artificer of day and night' is literally true according to Plato's view.

For the alternation of day and night is not produced by the motion of the heavens alone, or by the immobility of the earth alone, but by both together ; and that which has the inherent force or energy to remain at rest when all other bodies are moving, may be truly said to act, equally with them. (6) We should not lay too much stress on Aristotle having adopted the other interpretation of the words, although Alexander of Aphrodisias thinks that he could not have been ignorant either of the doctrine of Plato or of the sense which he intended to give to the word IXkofievriv.

For the citations of Plato in Aristotle are frequently misinterpreted by him; and he seems hardly ever to have had in his mind the connection in which they occur. In this instance the allusion is very slight, and there is no reason to suppose that the diurnal revolution of the heavens was present to his mind. Hence we need not attribute to him the error from which we are defending Plato.

After weighing one against the other all these complicated probabilities, the final conclusion at which we arrive is that there is nearly as much to be said on the one side of the question as on the other, and that we are not perfectly certain, whether, as Bockh and the majority of commentators, ancient as well as modern, are inclined to believe, Plato thought that the earth was at rest in the centre of the universe, or, as Aristotle and Mr. Grote suppose, that it revolved on its axis.

Whether we assume the earth to be stationary in the centre of the universe, or to revolve with the heavens, no explanation is given of the variation in the length of days and nights at different times of the year.

The relations of the earth and heavens are so indistinct in the Timaeus and so figurative in the Phaedo, Phaedrus and Republic, that we must give up the hope of ascertaining how they were imagined by Plato, if he had any fixed or scientific conception of them at all.

The soul of the world is framed on the analogy of the soul of man, and many traces of anthropomorphism blend with Plato's highest flights of idealism. The heavenly bodies are endowed with thought ; the principles of the same and other exist in the universe as v^ell as in the human mind.

The soul of man is made out of the remains of the elements which had been used in creating the soul of the world; these remains, however, are diluted to the third degree ; by this Plato expresses the measure of the difference between the soul human and divine.

The human soul, like the cosmical, is framed before the body, as the mind is before the soul of either (30 B) — this is the order of the divine work — and the finer parts of the body, which are more akin to the soul, such as the spinal marrow, are prior to the bones and flesh. The brain, the containing vessel of the divine part of the soul, is (nearly) in the form of a globe, which is the image of the gods, who are the stars, and of the universe.

There is, however, an inconsistency in Plato's manner of conceiving the soul of man; he cannot get rid of the element of necessity which is allowed to enter. He does not, like Kant, attempt to vindicate for men a freedom out of space and time ; but he acknowledges him to be subject to the influence of external causes, and leaves hardly any place for freedom of the will.

The lusts of men are caused by their bodily constitution (86 C), though they may be increased by bad education and bad laws, which implies that they may be decreased by good education and good laws. He appears to have an inkling of the truth that to the higher nature of man evil is involuntary. This is mixed up with the view which, while apparently agreeing with it, is in reality the opposite of it, that vice is due to physical causes (86 D).

In the Timaeus, as well as in the Laws, he also regards vices and crimes as simply involuntary ; they are diseases analogous to the diseases of the body, and arising out of the same causes. If we draw together the opposite poles of Plato's system, we find that, like Spinoza, he combines idealism with fatalism (see infra, p. 425).

The soul of man is divided by him into three parts, answering roughly to the charioteer and steeds of the Phaedrus, and to the Myoq, 6vfi6g, and iTriOvfiia of the Republic and Nicomachean Ethics.

Tripartite division of soul and body. 409 First, there is the immortal nature of which the brain is the scat, Timaeus. and which is akin to the soul of the universe. This alone thinks Introducand knows and is the ruler of the whole. Secondly, there is the ^'°'^" higher mortal .soul which, though liable to perturbations of her own, takes the side of reason against the lower appetites.

The seat of this is the heart, in which courage, anger, and all the nobler affections are suppospd to reside. There the veins all meet ; it is their centre or house of guard whence they carry the orders of the thinking being to the extremities of his kingdom.

There is also a third or appetitive soul, which receives the commands of the immortal part, not immediately but mediately, through the liver, which reflects on its surface the admonitions and threats of the reason. * The liver is imagined by Plato to be a smooth and bright substance, having a store of sweetness and also of bitterness, which reason freely uses in the execution of her mandates.

In this region, as ancient superstition told, were to be found intimations of the future. But Plato is careful to observe that although such knowledge is given to the inferior parts of man, it requires to be interpreted by the superior. Reason, and not enthusiasm, is the true guide of man : he is only inspired when he is demented by some distemper or possession.

The ancient saying, that ' only a man in his senses can judge of his own actions,' is approved by modern philosophy too. The same irony which appears in Plato's remark, that 'the men of old time must surely have known the gods who were their ancestors, and we should believe them as custom requires,' is also manifest in his account of divination.

The appetitive soul is seated in the belly, and there imprisoned like a wild beast, far away from the council chamber, as Plato graphically calls the head, in order that the animal passions may not interfere with the deliberations of reason.

Though the soul is said by him to be prior to the body, yet we cannot help seeing that it is constructed on the model of the body — the threefold division into the rational, passionate, and appetitive corresponding to the head, heart and belly.

The human soul differs from the soul of the world in this respect, that it is enveloped and finds its expression in matter, whereas the soul of the world is not only enveloped or diffused in matter, but is the element in which matter moves. The breath of man is within him, but the air

or aether of heaven is the element which surrounds him and all things. Pleasure and pain are attributed in the Timaeus to the suddenness of our sensations — the first being a sudden restoration, the second a sudden violation, of nature (cp. Phileb. 31 D). The sensations become conscious to us when they are exceptional.

Sight is not attended either by pleasure or pain, but hunger and the appeasing of hunger are pleasant and painful because they are extraordinary. §6. I shall not attempt to connect the physiological speculations of Plato either with ancient or modern medicine. What light I can throw upon them will be derived from the comparison of them with his general system.

There is no principle so apparent in the physics of the Timaeus, or in ancient physics generally, as that of continuity. The world is conceived of as a whole, and the elements are formed into and out of one another ; the varieties of substances and processes are hardly known or noticed.

And in a similar manner the human body is conceived of as a whole, and the different substances of which, to a superficial observer, it appears to be composed — the blood, flesh, sinews — like the elements out of which they are formed, are supposed to pass into one another in regular order, while the infinite complexity of the human frame remains unobserved.

And diseases arise from the opposite process— when the natural proportions of the four elements are disturbed, and the secondary substances which are formed out of them, namely, blood, flesh, sinews, are generated in an inverse order. Plato found heat and air within the human frame, and the blood circulating in every part. He assumes in language almost unintelligible to us that a network of fire and air envelopes the greater part of the body.

This outer net contains two lesser nets, one corresponding to the stomach, the other to the lungs; and the entrance to the latter is forked or divided into two passages which lead to the nostrils and to the mouth. In the process of respiration the external net is said to find a way in and out of the pores of the skin: while the interior of it and the lesser nets move

alternately into each other. The whole description is figurative, as Timaeus. Plato himself implies (79 D) when he speaks of a * fountain of fire Introducwhich we compare to the network of a creel. He really means by ^'^'^ this what we should describe as a state of heat or temperature in the interior of the body. The ' fountain of fire * or heat is also in a figure the circulation of the blood. The passage is partly imagination, partly fact.

He has a singular theory of respiration for which he accounts solely by the movement of the air in and out of the body ; he does not attribute any part of the process to the action of the body itself. The air has a double ingress and a double exit, through the mouth or nostrils, and through the skin.

When exhaled through the mouth or nostrils, it leaves a vacuum which is filled up by other air finding a way in through the pores, this air being thrust out of its place by the exhalation from the mouth and nostrils. There is also a corresponding process of inhalation through the mouth or nostrils, and of exhalation through the pores.

The inhalation through the pores appears to take place nearly at the same time as the exhalation through the mouth ; and conversely. The internal fire is in either case the propelling cause outwards — the inhaled air, when heated by it, having a natural tendency to move out of the body to the place of fire ; while the impossibility of a vacuum is the propelling cause inwards.

Thus we see that this singular theory is dependent on two principles largely employed by Plato in explaining the operations of nature, the impossibility of a vacuum and the attraction of like to like. To these there has to be added a third principle, which is the condition of the action of the other two, — the interpenetration of particles in proportion to their density or rarity. It is this which enables fire and air to permeate the flesh.

Plato's account of digestion and the circulation of the blood is closely connected with his theory of respiration. Digestion is supposed to be effected by the action of the internal fire, which in the process of respiration moves into the stomach and minces the food. As the fire returns to its plrice, it takes with it the minced food or blood ; and in this way the veins are replenished. Plato does not enquire how the blood is separated from the faeces.

412 Analogy of the human body and of the Universe. Timaezis.

Of the anatomy and functions of the body he knew very Httle, Introduc- — e. g. of the uses of the nerves in conveying motion and sensation, which he supposed to be communicated by the bones and veins ; he was also ignorant of the distinction between veins and arteries ; — the latter term he applies to the vessels which conduct air from the mouth to the lungs; — he supposes the lung to be hollow and bloodless ; the spinal marrow he conceives to be the seed of generation ; he confuses the parts of the body with the states of the body — the network of fire and air is spoken of as a bodily organ ; he has absolutely no idea of the phenomena of respiration, which he attributes to a law of equalization in nature, the air which is breathed out displacing other air which finds a way in ; he is wholly unacquainted with the process of digestion.

Except the general divisions into the spleen, the liver, the belly, and the lungs, and the obvious distinctions of flesh, bones, and the limbs of the body, we find nothing that reminds us of anatomical facts. But we find much which is derived from his theory of the universe, and transferred to man, as there is much also in his theory of the universe which is suggested by man. The microcosm of the human body is the lesser image of the macrocosm.

The courses of the same and the other affect both ; they are made of the same elements and therefore in the same proportions. Both are intelligent natures endued with the power of self-motion, and the same equipoise is maintained in both. The animal is a sort of ' world ' to the particles of the blood which circulate in it.

All the four elements entered into the original composition of the human frame ; the bone was formed out of smooth earth ; liquids of various kinds pass to and fro ; the network of fire and air irrigates the veins. Infancy and childhood is the chaos or first turbid flux of sense prior to the establishment of order ; the intervals of time which may be observed in some intermittent fevers correspond to the density of the elements.

The spinal marrow, including the brain, is formed out of the finest sorts of triangles, and is the connecting link between body and mind. Health is only to be preserved by imitating the motions of the world in space, which is the mother and nurse of generation. The work of digestion is carried on by the superior sharpness of the triangles forming the substances of the human body to those which are introduced into it in the shape

Plato and modern doctors. 413 of food. The freshest and acutest forms of triangles are those that TUnaeus. are found in children, but they become more obtuse with ad- Introducvancing years ; and when they finally wear out and fall to pieces, ^"^'^" old age and death supervene. . As in the Republic, Plato is still the enemy of the purgative treatment of physicians, which, except in extreme cases, no man of sense will ever adopt.

For, as he adds, with an insight into the truth, ' every disease is akin to the nature of the living being and is only irritated by stimulants. He is of opinion that nature should be left to herself, and is inclined to think that physicians are in vain (cp. Laws vi. 761 C — where he says that warm baths would be more beneficial to the limbs of the aged rustic than • the prescriptions of a not over-wise doctor).

If he seems to be extreme in his condemnation of medicine and to rely too much on diet and exercise, he might appeal to nearly all the best physicians of our own age in support of his opinions, who often speak to their patients of the worthlessness of drugs. For we ourselves are sceptical about medicine, and very unwilling to submit to the purgative treatment of physicians.

May we not claim for Plato an anticipation of modern ideas as about some questions of astronomy and physics, so also about medicine ? As in the Charmides (156, 157) he tells us that the body cannot be cured without the soul, so in the Timaeus he strongly asserts the sympathy of soul and body ; any defect of either is the occasion of the greatest discord and disproportion in the other.

Here too may be a presentiment that in the medicine of the future the interdependence of mind and body will be more fully recognized, and that the influence of the one over the other may be exerted in a manner which is not now thought possible. In Plato's explanation of sensation we are struck by the fact that he has not the same distinct conception of organs of sense which is familiar to ourselves.

The senses are not instruments, but rather passages, through which external objects strike upon the mind. The eye is the aperture through which the stream of vision passes, the ear is the aperture through which the vibrations of sound pass. But that the complex structure of the eye or the

ear is in any sense the cause of sight and hearing he seems hardly to be aware. The process of sight is the most complicated (cp. Rep. vi. 507, 508), and consists of three elements — the light which is supposed to reside within the eye, the hght of the sun, and the light emitted from external objects.

When the light of the eye meets the light of the sun, and both together meet the light issuing from an external object, this is the simple act of sight. When the particles of light which proceed from the object are exactly equal to the particles of the visual ray which meet them from within, then the body is transparent. If they are larger and contract the visual ray, a black colour is produced; if they are smaller and dilate it, a white.

Other phenomena are produced by the variety and motion of light. A sudden flash of fire at once elicits light and moisture from the eye, and causes a bright colour. A more subdued light, on mingling with the moisture of the eye, produces a red colour. Out of these elements all other colours are derived. All of them are combinations of bright and red with white and black.

Plato himself tells us that he does not know in what proportions they combine, and he is of opinion that such knowledge is granted to the gods only. To have seen the affinity of them to each other and their connection with light, is not a bad basis for a theory of colours.

We must remember that they were not distinctly defined to his, as they are to our eyes ; he saw them, not as they are divided in the prism, or artificially manufactui:ed for the painter's use, but as they exist in nature, blended and confused with one another. We can hardly agree with him when he tells us that smells do not admit of kinds.

He seems to think that no definite qualities can attach to bodies which are in a state of transition or evaporation ; he also makes the subtle observation that smells must be denser than air, though thinner than water, because when there is an obstruction to the breathing, air can penetrate, but not smell. The affections peculiar to the tongue are of various kinds, and, like many other affections, are caused by contraction and dilation.

Some of them are produced by rough, others by abstergent, others by inflammatory substances, — these act upon the tasting instruments of the tongue, and produce a more or less disagreeable sensation, while other particles congenial to the tongue soften and

harmonize them. The instruments of taste reach from the tongue Timncus. to the heart. Plato has a hvely sense of the manner in which Introducsensation and motion are communicated from one part of the body ^'°^" to the other, though he confuses the affections with the organs. Hearing is a blow which passes through the car and ends in the region of the liver, being transmitted by means of the air, the brain, and the blood to the soul.

The swifter sound is acute, the sound which moves slowly is grave. A great body of sound is loud, the opposite is low. Discord is produced by the swifter and slower motions of two sounds, and is converted into harmony when the swifter motions begin to pause and are overtaken by the slower. The general phenomena of sensation are partly internal, but the more violent are caused by conflict with external objects.

Proceeding by a method of superficial observation, Plato remarks that the more sensitive parts of tlie human frame are those which are least covered by flesh, as is the case with the head and the elbows. Man, if his head had been covered with a thicker pulp of flesh, might have been a longer-lived animal than he is, but could not have had as quick perceptions.

On the other hand, the tongue is one of the most sensitive of organs ; but then this is made, not to be a covering to the bones which contain the marrow or source of life, but with an express purpose, and in a separate mass (75 A). § 8. We have now to consider how far in any of these speculations Plato approximated to the discoveries of modern science.

The modern physical philosopher is apt to dwell exclusively on the absurdities of ancient ideas about science, on the hap-hazard fancies and a priori assumptions of ancient teachers, on their confusion of facts and ideas, on their inconsistency and blindness to the most obvious phenomena. He measures them not by what preceded them, but by what has followed them.

He does not consider that ancient physical philosophy was not a free enquiry, but a growth, in which the mind was passive rather than active, and was incapable of resisting the impressions which flowed in upon it. He hardly allows to the notions of the ancients the merit of being the stepping-stones by which he has himself risen

to a higher knowledge. He never reflects, how great a thing it was to have formed a conception, however imperfect, either of the human frame as a whole, or of the world as a whole. According to the view taken in these volumes the errors of ancient physicists were not separable from the intellectual conditions under which they lived.

Their genius was their own ; and they were not the rash and hasty generalizers which, since the days of Bacon, we have been apt to suppose them. The thoughts of men widened to receive experience; at first they seemed to know all things as in a dream : after a while they look at them closely and hold them in their hands. They begin to arrange them in classes and to connect causes with effects.

General notions are necessary to the apprehension of particular facts, the metaphysical to the physical. Before men can observe the world, they must be able to conceive it.

To do justice to the subject, we should consider the physical philosophy of the ancients as a whole ; we should remember, (i) that the nebular theory was the received belief of several of the early physicists; (2) that the development of animals out of fishes who came to land, and of man out of the animals, was held by Anaximander in the sixth century before Christ (cp. Plut. Symp. Quaest. viii. 8. 4; Plac. Phil. v.

19. i) ; (3) that evenby Philolaus and the early Pythagoreans, the earth was held to be a body like the other stars revolving in space around the sun or a central fire ; (4) that the beginnings of chemistry are discernible in the * similar particles' of Anaxagoras.

Also they knew or thought (5) that there was a sex in plants as well as in animals; (6) they were aware that musical notes depended on the relative length or tension of the strings from which they were emitted, and were measured by ratios of number; (7) that mathematical laws pervaded the world ; and even qualitative differences were supposed to have their origin in number and figure ; (8) the annihilation of matter was denied by several of them, and the seeming disappearance of it held to be a transformation only.

For, although one of these discoveries might have been supposed to be a happy guess, taken together they seem to imply a great advance and almost maturity of natural knowledge. We should also remember, when we attribute to the ancients hasty generalizations and delusions of language, that physical

philosophy and metaphysical too have been guilty of similar Thnaeus. fallacies in quite recent times. We by no means distinguish Introducclearly between mind and body, between ideas and facts. Have ^'°'* not many discussions arisen about the Atomic theory in which a point has been confused with a material atom ? Have not the natures of things been explained by imaginary entities, such as life or phlogiston, which exist in the mind only ?

Has not disease been regarded, like sin, sometimes as a negative and necessary, sometimes as a positive or malignant principle? The ' idols' of Bacon are nearly as common now as ever; they are inherent in the human mind, and when they have the most complete dominion over us, we are least able to perceive them. We recognize them in the ancients, but we fail to see them in ourselves.

Such reflections, although this is not the place in which to dwell upon them at length, lead us to take a favourable view of the speculations of the Timaeus. We should consider not how much Plato actually knew, but how far he has contributed to the general ideas of physics, or supplied the notions which, whether true or false, have stimulated the minds of later generations in the path of discovery.

Some of them may seem old-fashioned, but may nevertheless have had a great influence in promoting system and assisting enquiry, while in others we hear the latest word of physical or metaphysical philosophy. There is also an intermediate class, in which Plato falls short of the truths of modern science, though he is not wholly unacquainted with them, (i) To the first class belongs the teleological theory of creation.

Whether all things in the world can be explained as the result of natural laws, or whether we must not admit of tendencies and marks of design also, has been a question much disputed of late years. Even if all phenomena are the result of natural forces, we must admit that there are many things in heaven and earth which are as well expressed under the image of mind or design as under any other.

At any rate, the language of Plato has been the language of natural theology down to our own time, nor can any description of the world wholly dispense with it. The notion of first and second or co-operative causes, which originally appears in the Timaeus, has likewise survived to our own day, and has been a great peace-maker between theology and science. Plato also approaches very near to our doctrine of the primary and VOL. III. — 42

secondary qualities of matter (6i ff. ). (2) Another popular notion which is found in the Timaeus, is the feebleness of the human intellect — ' God knows the original qualities of things ; man can only hope to attain to probability. We speak in almost the same words of human intelligence, but not in the same manner of the uncertainty of our knowledge of nature.

The reason is that the latter is assured to us by experiment, and is not contrasted with the certainty of ideal or mathematical knowledge. But the ancient philosopher never experimented : in the Timaeus Plato seems to have thought that there would be impiety in making the attempt ; he, for example, who tried experiments in colours would ' forget the difference of the human and divine natures ' (68 D).

Their indefiniteness is probably the reason why he singles them out, as especially incapable of being tested by experiment. (Compare the saying of Anaxagoras — Sext. Pyrrh. i. 33 — that since snow is made of water and water is black, snow ought to be black. ) The greatest ' divination ' of the ancients was the supremacy which they assigned to mathematics in all the realms of nature ; for in all of them there is a foundation of mechanics.

Even physiology partakes of figure and number ; and Plato is not wrong in attributing them to the human frame, but in the omission to observe how little could be explained by them. Thus we may remark in passing that the most fanciful of ancient philosophies is also the most nearly verified in fact. The fortunate guess that the world is a sum of numbers and figures has been the most fruitful of anticipations.

The ' diatonic ' scale of the Pythagoreans and Plato suggested to Kepler that the secret of the distances of the planets from one another was to be found in mathematical proportions. The doctrine that the heavenly bodies all move in a circle is known by us to be erroneous ; but without such an error how could the human mind have comprehended the heavens?

Astronomy, even in modern times, has made far greater progress by the high a priori road than could have been attained by any other. Yet, strictly speaking — and the remark applies to ancient physics generally — this Ya^ a priori road was based upon a posteriori grounds. For there were no facts of which the ancients were so well assured by experience as facts of number. Having observed that they held good in a few

Plato's doctrine of equipoise. 419 instances, they applied them everywhere ; and in the complexity, Timacus. of which they were capable, found the explanation of the equally introduccomplex phenomena of the universe. They seemed to see them in the least things as well as in the greatest; in atoms, as well as in suns and stars; in the human body as well as in external nature.

And now a favourite speculation of modern chemistry is the explanation of qualitative difference by quantitative, which is at present verified to a certain extent and may hereafter be of far more universal application. What is this but the atoms of Democritus and the triangles of Plato? The ancients should not be wholly deprived of the credit of their guesses because they were unable to prove them.

May they not have had, like the animals, an instinct of something more than they knew? Besides general notions we seem to find in the Timaeus some more precise approximations to the discoveries of modern physical science. First, the doctrine of equipoise. Plato affirms, almost in so many words, that nature abhors a vacuum. Whenever a particle is displaced, the rest push and thrust one another until equality is restored.

We must remember that these ideas were not derived from any definite experiment, but were the original reflections of man, fresh from the first observation of nature.

The latest word of modern philosophy is continuity and development, but to Plato this is the beginning and foundation of science; there is nothing that he is so strongly persuaded of as that the world is one, and that all the various existences which are contained in it are only the transformations of the same soul of the world acting on the same matter.

He would have readily admitted that out of the protoplasm all things were formed by the gradual process of creation ; but he would have insisted that mind and intelligence — not meaning by this, however, a conscious mind or person — were prior to them, and could alone have created them.

Into the workings of this eternal mind or intelligence he does not enter further; nor would there have been any use in attempting* to investigate the things which no eye has seen nor any human language can express. Lastly, there remain two points in which he seems to touch great discoveries of modern times — the law of gravitation, and the circulation of the blood. ( I ) The law of gravitation, according to Plato, is a law, not only

420

Attraction: the circulation of the blood.

Timaeiis. iNTRODaC- TION.

of the attraction of lesser bodies to larger ones, but of similar bodies to similar, having a magnetic power as well as a principle of gravitation. He observed that earth, water, and air had settled down to their places, and he imagined fire or the exterior aether to have a place beyond air. When air seemed to go upwards and fire to pierce through air — when water and earth fell downward, they were seeking their native elements. He did not remark that his own explanation did not suit all phenomena; and the simpler explanation, which assigns to bodies degrees of heaviness and lightness proportioned to the mass and distance of the bodies which attract them, never occurred to him. Yet the affinities of similar substances have some effect upon the composition of the world, and of this Plato may be thought to have had an anticipation. He may be described as confusing the attraction of gravitation with the attraction of cohesion. The influence of such affinities and the chemical action of one body upon another in long periods of time have become a recognized principle of geology. (2) Plato is perfectly aware — and he could hardly be ignorant — that blood is a fluid in constant motion. He also knew that blood is partly a solid substance consisting of several elements, which, as he might have observed in the use of 'cupping-glasses' (79 E), decompose and die, when no longer in motion. But the specific discovery that the blood flows out on one side of the heart through the arteries and returns through the veins on the other, which is commonly called the circulation of the blood, was absolutely unknown to him.

A further study of the Timaeus suggests some after-thoughts which may be conveniently brought together in this place. The topics which I propose briefly to reconsider are {a) the relation of the Timaeus to the other dialogues of Plato and to the previous philosophy ; {b) the nature of God and of creation ; {c) the morality of the Timaeus : — • (^) The Timaeus is more imaginative and less scientific than any other of the Platonic dialogues. It is conjectural astronomy, conjectural natural philosophy, conjectural medicine. The writer himself is constantly repeating that he is speaking what is probable only. The dialogue is put into the mouth of Timaeus, a

The relation of the Timaeus to the other dialogues.

421

Introduction.

Pythagorean philosopher, and therefore here, as in the Par- Timaeus menides, we are in doubt how far Plato is expressing his own sentiments. Hence the connexion with the other dialogues is comparatively slight. We may fill up the lacunae of the Timaeus by the help of the Republic or Phaedrus : we may identify the same and other with the iripaq and hirupov of the Philebus.

We may find in the Laws or in the Statesman parallels with the account of creation and of the first origin of man. It would be possible to frame a scheme in which all these various elements might have a place. But such a mode of proceeding would be unsatisfactory, because we have no reason to suppose that Plato intended his scattered thoughts to be collected in a system.

There is a common spirit in his writings, and there are certain general principles, such as the opposition of the sensible and intellectual, and the priority of mind, which run through all of them ; but he has no definite forms of words in which he consistently expresses himself. While the determinations of human thought are in process of creation he is necessarily tentative and uncertain.

And there is least of definiteness, whenever either in describing the beginning or the end of the world, he has recourse to myths. These are not the fixed modes in which spiritual truths are revealed to him, but the efforts of imagination, by which at different times and in various manners he seeks to embody his conceptions.

The clouds of mythology are still resting upon him, and he has not yet pierced * to the heaven of the fixed stars * which is beyond them. It is safer then to admit the inconsistencies of the Timaeus, or to endeavour to fill up what is wanting from our own imagination, inspired by a study of the dialogue, than to refer to other Platonic writings, — and still less should we refer to the successors of Plato, — for the elucidation of it.

More light is thrown upon the Timaeus by a comparison of the previous philosophies. For the physical science of the ancients was traditional, descending through many generations of Ionian and Pythagorean philosophers. Plato docs not look out upon the heavens and describe what he sees in them, but he builds upon the foundations of others, adding something out of the * depths of his own self-consciousness.

Socrates had already spoken of God the creator, who made all things for the best. While he ridiculed the superficial explanations of phenomena which were current in

his age, he recognised the marks both of benevolence and of design in the frame of man and in the world. The apparatus of winds and waters is contemptuously rejected by him in the Phaedo, but he thinks that there is a power greater than that of any Atlas in the ^Best' (Phaedo 97 ff.; cp. Arist, Met. i. 4, 5). Plato, following his master, affirms this principle of the best, but he acknowledges that the best is limited by the conditions of matter.

In the generation before Socrates, Anaxagoras had brought together * Chaos' and 'Mind'; and these are connected by Plato in the Timaeus, but in accordance with his own mode of thinking he has interposed between them the idea or pattern according to which mind worked. The circular impulse {Tcepiuaiq) of the one philosopher answers to the circular movement {TcepLxoyprjaiq) of the other.

But unlike Anaxagoras, Plato made the sun and stars living beings and not masses of earth or metal. The Pythagoreans again had framed a world out of numbers, which they constructed into figures. Plato adopted their speculations and improved upon them by a more exact knowledge of geometry.

The Atomists too made the world, if not out of geometrical figures, at least out of different forms of atoms, and these atoms resembled the triangles of Plato in being too small to be visible. But though the physiology of the Timaeus is partly borrowed from them, they are either ignored by Plato or referred to with a secret contempt and dislike.

He looks with more favour on the Pythagoreans, whose intervals of number applied to the distances of the planets reappear in the Timaeus. It is probable that among the Pythagoreans living in the fourth century b. c, there were already some who, like Plato, made the earth their centre. Whether he obtained his circles of the Same and Other from any previous thinker is uncertain.

The four elements are taken from Empedocles ; the interstices of the Timaeus may also be compared with his irdpoi. The passage of one element into another is common to Hcracleitus and several of the Ionian philosophers. So much of a syncretist is Plato, though not after the manner of the Neoplatonists. For the elements which he borrows from others are fused and transformed by his own genius.

On the other hand we find fewer traces in Plato of early Ionic or Eleatic speculation. He does not imagine the world of sense to be made up of opposites or to be in a perpetual flux, but to vary within

certain limits which are controlled by what he calls the principle Timaeus. of the same. Unlike the Elcatics, who relegated the world to the sphere of not-being, he admits creation to have an existence which is real and even eternal, although dependent on the will of the creator (41 A, B).

Instead of maintaining the doctrine that the void has a necessary place in the existence of the world, he rather affirms the modern thesis that nature abhors a vacuum, as in the Sophist he also denies the reality of not-being (cp. Aristot. Metaph. i. 4, $ 9).

But though in these respects he differs from them, he is deeply penetrated by the spirit of their philosophy; he differs from them with reluctance, and gladly recognizes the 'generous depth ' of Parmenides (Theaet. 183 E). There is a similarity between the Timaeus and the fragments of Philolaus, which by some has been thought to be so great as to create a suspicion that they are derived from it.

Philolaus is known to us from the Phaedo of Plato as a Pythagorean philosopher residing at Thebes in the latter half of the fifth century B. C, after the dispersion of the original Pythagorean society. He was the teacher of Simmias and Cebes, who became disciples of Socrates. We have hardly any other information about him.

The story that Plato had purchased three books of his writings from a relation is not worth repeating ; it is only a fanciful way in which an ancient biographer dresses up the fact that there was supposed to be a resemblance between the two writers. Similar gossiping stories are told about the sources of the Republic and the Phaedo. That there really existed in antiquity a work passing under the name of Philolaus there can be no doubt.

Fragments of this work are preserved to us, chiefly in Stobaeus, a few in Boethius and other writers. They remind us of the Timaeus, as well as of the Phaedrus and Philebus. When the' writer says (Stob. Eclog. i. 22, 7) that all things are either finite (definite) or infinite (indefinite), or a union of the two, and that this antithesis and synthesis pervades all art and nature, we are reminded of the Philebus (23 ff.).

When he calls the centre of the world kojla^ we have a parallel to the Phaedrus (247 A). His distinction between the world of order, to which the sun and moon and the stars belong, and the world of disorder, which lies in the region between the moon and the earth, approximates to Plato's sphere of the Same and of the Other. Like

Plato (Tim. 62 C ff. ), he denied the above and below in space, and said that all things were the same in relation to a centre. He speaks also of the world as one and indestructible ; ' for neither from within nor from without does it admit of destruction ' (cp. Tim. 33).

He mentions ten heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon, the earth and the counter-earth {avrixQurv) , and in the midst of them all he places the central fire, around which they are moving — this is hidden from the earth by the counter-earth. Of neither is there any trace in Plato, who makes the earth the centre of his system. Philolaus magnifies the virtues of particular numbers, especially of the number 10 (Stob. Eclog. i.

2, 3), and descants upon odd and even numbers, after the manner of the later Pythagoreans. It is worthy of remark that these mystical fancies are nowhere to be found in the writings of Plato, although the importance of number as a form and also an instrument of thought is ever present to his mind.

Both Philolaus and Plato agree in making the world move in certain numerical ratios according to a musical scale : though Bockh is of opinion that the two scales, of Philolaus and of the Timaeus, do not correspond ....

We appear not to be sufficiently acquainted with the early Pythagoreans to know how far the statements contained in these fragments corresponded with their doctrines; and we therefore cannot pronounce, either in favour of the genuineness of the fragments, with Bockh and Zeller, or, with Valentine Rose and Schaarschmidt, against them.

But it is clear that they throw but little light upon the Timaeus, and that their resemblance to it has been exaggerated. That there is a degree of confusion and indistinctness in Plato's account both of man and of the universe has been already acknowledged.

We cannot tell (nor could Plato himself have told) where the figure or myth ends and the philosophical truth begins; we cannot explain (nor could Plato himself have explained to us) the relation of the ideas to appearance, of which one is the copy of the other, and yet of all things in the world they are the most opposed and unlike.

This opposition is presented to us in many forms, as the antithesis of the one and many, of the finite and infinite, of the intelligible and sensible, of the unchangeable and the changing, of the indivisible and the divisible, of the fixed stars and the planets, of the creative mind and the primeval chaos.

These pairs of opposites arc so many aspects of the great opposi- Timaeus. tion between ideas and phenomena — they easily pass into one Introducanother; and sometimes the two members of the relation differ ^'"'^" in kind, sometimes only in degree.

As in Aristotle's matter and form, the connexion between them is really inseparable ; for if we attempt to separate them they become devoid of content and therefore indistinguishable ; there is no difference between the idea of which nothing can be predicated, and the chaos or matter which has no perceptible qualities — between Being in the abstract and Nothing.

Yet we are frequently told that the one class of them is the reality and the other appearance ; and one is often spoken of as the double or reflection of the other. For Plato never clearly saw that both elements had an equal place in mind and in nature ; and hence, especially when we argue from isolated passages in his writings, or attempt to draw what appear to us to be the natural inferences from them, we are full of perplexity.

There is a similar confusion about necessity and free-will, and about the state of the soul after death. Also he sometimes supposes that God is imm.anent in the world, sometimes that he is transcendent. And having no distinction of objective and subjective, he passes imperceptibly from one to the other ; from intelligence to soul, from eternity to time.

These contradictions may be softened or concealed by a judicious use of language, but they cannot be wholly got rid of. That an age of intellectual transition must also be one of inconsistency ; that the creative is opposed to the critical or defining habit of mind or time, has been often repeated by us. But, as Plato would say, * there is no harm in repeating twice or thrice ' (Laws vi.

754 C) what is important for the understanding of a great author. It has not, however, been observed, that the confusion partly arises out of the elements of opposing philosophies which are preserved in him. He holds these in solution, he brings them into relation with one another, but he does not perfectly harmonize them. They are part of his own mind, and he is incapable of placing himself outside of them and criticizing them.

They grow as he grows; they are a kind of composition with which his own philosophy is overlaid. In early life he fancies that he has mastered them : but he is also mastered by them ; and in language (cp. Sophist, 243 B) which may be compared with the

hesitating tone of the Timaeus, he confesses in his later years that they are full of obscurity to him. He attributes new meanings to the words of Parmenides and Heracleitus; but at times the old Eleatic philosophy appears to go beyond him ; then the world of phenomena disappears, but the doctrine of ideas is also reduced to nothingness.

All these philosophers are nearer to one another than they themselves supposed, and nearer to him than he supposed. All of them are antagonistic to sense and have an affinity to number and measure and a presentiment of ideas. Even in Plato they still retain their contentious or controversial character, which was developed by the growth of dialectic.

He is never able to reconcile the first causes of the pre-Socratic philosophers with the final causes of Socrates himself. . There is no intelligible account of the relation of numbers to the universal ideas, or of universals to the idea of good.

He found them all three, in the Pythagorean philosophy and in the teaching of Socrates and of the Megarians respectively; and, because they all furnished modes of explaining and arranging phenomena, he is unwilling to give up any of them, though he is unable to unite them in a consistent whole. Lastly, Plato, though an idealist philosopher, is Greek and not Oriental in spirit and feeling.

He is no mystic or ascetic ; he is not seeking in vain to get rid of matter or to find absorption in the divine nature, or in the Soul of the Universe. And therefore we are not surprised to find that his philosophy in the Timaeus returns at last to a worship of the heavens, and that to him, as to other Greeks, nature, though containing a remnant of evil, is still glorious and divine.

He takes away or drops the veil of mythology, and presents her to us in what appears to him to be the form — fairer and truer far — of mathematical figures. It is this element in the Timaeus, no less than its affinity to certain Pythagorean speculations, which gives it a character not wholly in accordance with the other dialogues of Plato. {b) The Timaeus contains an assertion perhaps more distinct than is found in any of the other dialogues (cp.

Rep. ii. 379 A ; Laws X. 901, 902) of the goodness of God. * He was good himself, and he fashioned the good everywhere. He was not 'a jealous God,' and therefore he desired that all other things should be equally good. He is the idea of good who has now become a

person, and speaks and is spoken of as God. Yet his personality Timaeus seems to appear only in the act of creation. In so far as he works with his eye fixed upon an eternal pattern he is like the human artificer in the Republic (vi. 501 B ; x. 597). Here the theory of Platonic ideas intrudes upon us. God, like man, is supposed to have an ideal of which Plato is unable to tell us the origin.

He may be said, in the language of modern philosophy, to resolve the divine mind into subject and object. The first work of creation is perfected, the second begins under the direction of inferior ministers. The supreme God is withdrawn from the world and returns to his own accustomed nature (Tim. 42 E). As in the Statesman (272 E), he retires to his place of view.

So early did the Epicurean doctrine take possession of the Greek mind, and so natural is it to the heart of man, when he has once passed out of the stage of mythology into that of rational religion. For he sees the marks of design in the world ; but he no longer sees or fancies that he sees God walking in the garden or haunting stream or mountain.

He feels also that he must put God as far as possible out of the way of evil, and therefore he banishes him from an evil world. Plato is sensible of the difficulty; and he often shows that he is desirous of justifying the ways of God to man. Yet on the other hand, in the Tenth Book of the Laws (899, 900 ff.) he passes a censure on those who say that the Gods have no care of human things.

The creation of the world is the impression of order on a previously existing chaos. The formula of Anaxagoras — ' all things were in chaos or confusion, and then mind came and disposed them ' — is a summary of the first part of the Timaeus. It is true that of a chaos without differences no idea could be formed.

AU was not mixed but one ; and therefore it was not difficult for the later Platonists to draw inferences by which they were enabled to reconcile the narrative of the Timaeus with the Mosaic account of the creation. Neither when we speak of mind or intelligence, do we seem to get much further in our conception than circular motion, which was deemed to be the most perfect.

Plato, like Anaxagoras, while commencing his theory of the universe with ideas of mind and of the best, is compelled in the execution of his design to condescend to the crudest physics. {c) The morality of the Timaeus is singular, and it is difficult to

428 The involuntariness of vice. Timaeiis. adjust thc balance between the two elements of it. The difficulty Introduc- which Plato feels, is that which all of us feel, and which is TioN. increased in our own day by the progress of physical science, how the responsibility of man is to be reconciled with his dependence on natural causes. ' And sometimes, like other men, he is more impressed by one aspect of human life, sometimes by the other.

In the Republic he represents man as freely choosing his own lot in a state prior to birth — a conception which, if taken literally, would still leave him subject to the dominion of necessity in his after life ; in the Statesman he supposes the human race to be preserved in the world only by a divine interposition ; while in the Timaeus the supreme God commissions the inferior deities to avert from him all but self-inflicted evils — words which imply that all the evils of men are really selfinflicted.

And here, like Plato ($4 B ; — the insertion of a note in the text of an ancient writer is a literary • curiosity worthy of remark), we may take occasion to correct an error which occurred at p. 408. For there we too hastily said that Plato in the Timaeus regarded all 'vices and crimes ns involuntary.

But the fact is that he is inconsistent with himself; in one and the same passage (86) vice is attributed to the relaxation of the bodily frame, and yet we are exhorted to avoid it and pursue virtue. It is also admitted that good and evil conduct are to be attributed respectively to good and evil laws and institutions.

These cannot be given by individuals to themselves ; and therefore human actions, in so far as they are dependent upon them, are regarded by Plato as involuntary rather than voluntary. Like other writers on this subject, he is unable to escape from some degree of self-contradiction.

He had learned from Socrates that vice is ignorance, and suddenly the doctrine seems to him to be confirmed by observing how much of the good and bad in human character depends on the bodily constitution. So in modern times the speculative doctrine of necessity has often been supported by physical facts. The Timaeus also contains an anticipation of the stoical life according to nature.

Man contemplating the heavens is to regulate his erring life according to them. He is to partake of the repose of nature and of the order of nature, to bring thc variable principle in himself into harmony with the principle of thc same. The ethics of the Timaeus may be summed up in the single idea

The legend of Atlantis.

429

of Maw.' To feci habitually that he is part of the order of the Timaeus. universe, is one of the highest ethical motives of which man is Introduccapable. Something like this is what Plato means when he ^^^^' speaks of the soul ' moving about the same in unchanging thought of the same.' He does not explain how man is acted upon by the lesser influences of custom or of opinion ; or how the commands of the soul watching in the citadel arc conveyed to the bodily organs. But this perhaps, to use once more expressions of his own, * is part of another subject ' (87 B) or * may be more suitably discussed on some other occasion ' (38 B). There is no difficulty, by the help of Aristotle and later writers, in criticizing the Timaeus of Plato, in pointing out the inconsistencies of the work, in dwelling on the ignorance of anatomy displayed by the author, in showing the fancifulness or unmeaningness of some of his reasons. But the Timaeus still remains the greatest effort of the human mind to conceive the world as a whole which the genius of antiquity has bequeathed to us.

One more aspect of the Timaeus remains to be considered — the mythological or geographical. Is it not a wonderful thing that a few pages of one of Plato's dialogues have grown into a great legend, not confined to Greece only, but spreading far and wide over the nations of Europe and reaching even to Egypt and Asia ? Like the tale of Troy, or the legend of the Ten Tribes (cp. Evvald, Hist, of Isr., vol. v), which perhaps originated in a few verses of II Esdras, c. xiii, it has become famous, because it has coincided with a great historical fact. Like the romance of King Arthur, which has had so great a charm, it has- found a way over the seas from one country and language to another. It inspired the navigators of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; it foreshadowed the discovery of America. It realized the fiction so natural to the human mind, because it answered the enquiry about the origin of the arts, that there had somewhere existed an ancient primitive civilization. It might find a place wherever men chose to look for it; in North, South, East, or West; in the Islands of the Blest; before the entrance of the Straits of Gibraltar, in Sweden or in Palestine. It mattered little whether the description in Plato agreed with the locality assigned to it or not. It

430

The various lights in which it has been regarded.

Timaeus. Introduction,

was a legend so adapted to the human mind that it made a habitation for itself in any country. It was an island in the clouds, which might be seen anywhere by the eye of faith. It was a subject especially congenial to the ponderous industry of certain French and Swedish writers, who delighted in heaping up learning of all sorts but were incapable of using it. M.

Martin has written a valuable dissertation on the opinions entertained respecting the Island of Atlantis in ancient and modern times. It is a curious chapter in the history of the human mind. The tale of Atlantis is the fabric of a vision, but it has never ceased to interest mankind. It was variously regarded by the ancients themselves.

The stronger heads among them, like Strabo and Longinus, were as little disposed to believe in the truth of it as the modern reader in Gulliver or Robinson Crusoe. On the other hand there is no kind or degree of absurdity or fancy in which the more foolish writers, both of antiquity and of modern times, have not indulged respecting it.

The Neo-Platonists, loyal to their master, like some commentators on the Christian Scriptures, sought to give an allegorical meaning to what they also believed to be an historical fact. It was as if some one in our own day were to convert the poems of Homer into an allegory of the Christian religion, at the same time maintaining them to be an exact and veritable history.

In the Middle Ages the legend seems to have been half-forgotten until revived by the discovery of America. It helped to form the Utopia of Sir Thomas More and the New Atlantis of Bacon, although probably neither of those great men were at all imposed upon by the fiction.

It was most prolific in the seventeenth or in the early part of the eighteenth century, when the human mind, seeking for Utopias or inventing them, -was glad to escape out of the dulness of the present into the romance of the past or some ideal of the future.

The later forms of such narratives contained features taken from the Edda, as well as from the Old and New Testament ; also from the tales of missionaries and the experiences of travellers and of colonists. The various opinions respecting the Island of Atlantis have no interest for us except in so far as they illustrate the extravagances of which men are capable. But this is a real interest and a serious lesson, if we remember that now as formerly the

human mind is liable to be imposed upon by the illusions of the past, which are ever assuming some new form. When we have shaken off the rubbish of ages, there remain one or two questions of which the investigation has a permanent value : — i. Did Plato derive the legend of Atlantis from an Egyptian source?

It may be replied that there is no such legend in any writer previous to Plato; neither in Homer, nor in Pindar, nor in Herodotus is there any mention of an Island of Atlantis, nor any reference to it in Aristotle, nor any citation of an earlier writer by a later one in which it is to be found. Nor have any traces been discovered hitherto in Egyptian monuments of a connexion between Greece and Egypt older than the eighth or ninth century B. c.

It is true that Proclus, writing in the fifth century after Christ, tells us of stones and columns in Egypt on which the history of the Island of Atlantis was engraved.

The statement may be false — there are similar tales about columns set up 'by the Canaanites whom Joshua drove out' (Procop.); but even if true, it would only show that the legend, 800 years after the time of Plato, had been transferred to Egypt, and inscribed, not, like other forgeries, in books, but on stone.

Probably in the Alexandrian age, when Egypt had ceased to have a history and began to appropriate the legends of other nations, many such monuments were to be found of events which had become famous in that or other countries. The oldest witness to the story is said to be Grantor, a Stoic philosopher who lived a generation later than Plato, and therefore may have borrowed it from him.

The statement is found in Proclus ; but we require better assurance than Proclus can give us before we accept this or any other statement which he makes. Secondly, passing from the external to the internal evidence, we may remark that the story is far more likely to have been invented by Plato than to have been brought by Solon from Egypt. That is another part of his legend which Plato also seeks to impose upon us.

The verisimilitude which he has given to the tale is a further reason for suspecting it; for he could easily ' invent Egyptian or any other tales ' (Phaedrus 275 B). Are not the words, 'The truth of the story is a great advantage,' if we read between the lines, an indication of the fiction? It is only a

legend that Solon went to Egypt, and if he did he could not have conversed with Egyptian priests or have read records in their temples. The truth is that the introduction is a mosaic work of small touches which, partly by their minuteness, and also by their seeming probability, win the confidence of the reader.

Who would desire better cvddence than that of Critias, who had heard the narrative in youth when the memory is strongest (26 B) at the age of ten from his grandfather Critias, an old maji of ninety, who in turn had heard it from Solon himself? Is not the famous expression — ' You Hellenes are ever children and there is no knowledge among you hoary with age,' really a compliment to the Athenians who are described in these words as ' ever young ' ?

And is the thought expressed in them to be attributed to the learning of the Egyptian priest, and not rather to the genius of Plato ? Or when the Egyptian says — ' Hereafter at our leisure we will take up the written documents and examine in detail the exact truth about these things ' — what is this but a literary trick by which Plato sets off his narrative ?

Could any war between Athens and the Island of Atlantis have really coincided with the struggle between the Greeks and Persians, as is sufficiently hinted though not expressly stated in the narrative of Plato ? And whence came the tradition to Egypt ? or in what does the story consist except in the war between the two rival powers and the submersion of both of them ? And how was the tale transferred to the poem of Solon?

'It is not improbable,' says Mr. Grote, ' that Solon did leave an unfinished Egyptian poem ' (Plato, vol. iii. p. 295). But are probabilities for which there is not a tittle of evidence, and which are without any parallell to be deemed worthy of attention by the critic ? How came the poem of Solon to disappear in antiquity? or why did Plato, if the whole narrative was known to him, break off almost at the beginning of it?

While therefore admiring the diligence and erudition of M. Martin, we cannot for a moment suppose that the tale was told to Solon by an Egyptian priest, nor can we believe that Solon wrote a poem upon the theme which was thus suggested to him — a poem which disappeared in antiquity ; or that the Island of Atlantis or the antediluvinn Athens ever had any existence except in the imagination of Plato. Martin is of opinion that Plato would have

TION.

Did the legend itijiuence early voyagers? 433 been terrified if he could have foreseen the endless fancies to Timaeus. which his Island of Atlantis has given occasion. Rather he would Introduchave been infinitely amused if he could have known that his gift of invention would have deceived M. Martin himself into the belief that the tradition was brought from Egypt by Solon and made the subject of a poem by him (Tome i. p. 323). M. Martin may also be gently censured for citing without sufficient discrimination ancient authors having very different degrees of authority and value. ii. It is an interesting and not unimportant question which is touched upon by Martin, whether the Atlantis of Plato in any degree held out a guiding light to the early navigators. He is inclined to think that there is no real connexion between them. But surely the discovery of the New World was preceded by a prophetic anticipation of it, which, like the hope of a Messiah, was entering into the hearts of men ? And this hope was nursed by ancient tradition, which had found expression from time to time in the celebrated lines of Seneca and in many other places. This tradition was sustained by the great authority of Plato, and therefore the legend of the Island of Atlantis, though not closely connected with the voyages of the early navigators, may be truly said to have contributed indirectly to the great discovery.

The Timaeus of Plato, like the Protagoras and several portions of the Phaedrus and Republic, was translated by Cicero into Latin. About a fourth, comprehending with lacunae the first portion of the dialogue, is preserved in several MSS. These generally agree, and therefore may be supposed to be derived from a single original. The version is very faithful, and is a remarkable monument of Cicero's skill in managing the difficult and intractable Greek. In his treatise De Natura Deorum, i. 8. 12, ii. 12, he also refers to the Timaeus, which, speaking in the person of Velleius the Epicurean, he severely criticises. The commentary of Proclus (fl. c. 440 A.D.) on the Timaeus is a wonderful monument of the silliness and prolixity of the Alexandrian Age. It extends to about thirty pages of the book, and is thirty times the length of the original. It is surprising that this VOL. III. — 43

HON.

434 Proclus and Timaeus Locrus. Timaeus. voluminous work should have found a translator (Thomas Taylor, Introduc- a kindred spirit, who was himself a Neo-Platonist, after the fashion, not of the fifth or sixteenth, but of the nineteenth century A.D. ). The commentary is of little or no value, either in a philosophical or philological point of view.

The writer is unable to explain particular passages in any precise manner, and he is equally incapable of grasping the whole. He does not take words in their simple meaning or sentences in their natural connexion. He is thinking, not of the context in Plato, but of the contemporary Pythagorean philosophers and their wordy strife. He finds nothing in the text which he does not bring to it.

He is full of Porphyry, lamblichus and Plotinus, of misapplied logic, of misunderstood grammar, and of the Orphic theology.

Although such a work can contribute little or nothing to the understanding of Plato, it throws an interesting light on the Alexandrian times; it realizes how a philosophy made up of words only may create a deep and widespread enthusiasm, how the forms of logic and rhetoric may usurp the place of reason and truth, how all philosophies grow faded and discoloured, and are patched and made up again like worn-out garments, and retain only a second-hand existence.

He who would study this degeneracy of philosophy and of the Greek mind in the original cannot do better than devote a few of his days and nights to the commentary of Proclus on the Timaeus. A very different account must be given of the short work entitled 'Timaeus Locrus,' which is a brief but clear analysis of the Timaeus of Plato, omitting the introduction or dialogue and making a few small additions.

It does not allude to the original from which it is taken ; it is quite free from mysticism and Neo-Platonism. In length it does not exceed a fifth part of the Timaeus. It is written in the Doric dialect, and contains several words which do not occur in classical Greek. No other indication of its date, except this uncertain one of language, appears in it.

In several places the writer has simplified the language of Plato, in a few others he has embellished and exaggerated it. He generally preserves the thought of the original, but does not copy the words. On the whole this little tract faithfully reflects the meaning and spirit of the Timaeus.

From the garden of the Timaeus, as from the other dialogues Timaeus. of Plato, we may still gather a few flowers and present them at introducparting to the reader. There is nothing in Plato grander and ^'"'^" simpler than the conversation between Solon and the Egyptian priest, in which the youthfulncss of Hellas is contrasted with the antiquity of Egypt.

Here are to be found the famous words, ' O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are ever young, and there is not an old man among you' — which may be compared to the lively saying of Hegel, that * Greek history began with the youth Achilles and left off with the youth Alexander.* The numerous arts of verisimilitude by which Plato insinuates into the mind of the reader the truth of his narrative have been already referred to.

Here occur a sentence or two not wanting in Platonic irony {<l>uvdvTa awerdiac — a word to the wise). 40 D fif. : 'To know or tell the origin of the other divinities is beyond us, and we must accept the traditions of the men of old time who affirm themselves to be the offspring of the Gods — that is what they say — and they must surely have known their own ancestors. How can we doubt the word of the children of the Gods ?

Although they give no probable or certain proofs, still, as they declare that they are speaking of what took place in their own family, we must conform to custom and believe them. 76 E: 'Our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men, and they further knew that many animals would require the use of nails for many purposes ; wherefore they fashioned in men at their first creation the rudiments of nails.

Or once more, let us reflect on two serious passages in which the order of the world is supposed to find a place in the human soul and to infuse harmony into it.

37 A ff. : ' The soul, when touching anything that has essence, whether dispersed in parts or undivided, is stirred through all her powers to declare the sameness or difference of that thing and some other ; and to what individuals are related, and by what affected, and in what way and how and when, both in the world of generation and in the world of immutable being.

And when reason, which works with equal truth, whether she be in the circle of the diverse or of the same, — in voiceless silence holding her onward course in the sphere of the self-moved, — when reason, I say, is hovering around the sensible world, and when the circle of the diverse also moving truly imparts the intimations of sense

to the whole soul, then arise opinions and beliefs sure and certain. But when reason is concerned with the rational, and the circle of the same moving smoothly declares it, then intelligence and knowledge are necessarily perfected;' where, proceeding in a similar path of contemplation, he supposes the inward and the outer world mutually to imply each other.

And 47 B : * God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed to the perturbed; and that we, learning them and partaking of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries.

Or let us weigh carefully some other profound thoughts, such as the following. 44 C : • He who neglects education walks lame to the end of his life, and returns imperfect and good for nothing to the world below. 28 C : ' The father and maker of all this universe is past finding out ; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. Or, lastly, 29 D : ' Let me tell you then why the Creator made this world of generation.

He was good, and the good can never have jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable.

This is the leading thought in the Timaeus, just as the idea of Good is the leading thought of the Republic, the one expression describing the personal, the other the impersonal Good or God, differing in form rather than in substance, and both equally implying to the mind of Plato a divine reality.

The slight touch, perhaps ironical, contained in the words, * as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men,' is very characteristic of Plato.

T I M A E U S.

PEKSOXS OF THE DIALOGUE. Socrates. Critias. TiMAEUS. Hermocrates. steph. Socrates. One, two, three ; but where, my dear Timaeus, rimaeus. ^ 7 is the fourth of those who were yesterday my guests and are Socrates, to be my entertainers to-day? Timaeus. Timaeus. He has been taken ill, Socrates ; for he would Jppointed not willingly have been absent from this gathering. meeting. Soc. Then, if he is not coming, you and the two others must supply his place. Tim. Certainly, and we will do all that we can ; having been handsomely entertained by you yesterday, those of us who remain should be only too glad to return your hospitality. Soc. Do you remember what were the points of which I The chief required you to speak? ^^7^^'" Tim. We remember some of them, and you will be here pubUc:— to remind us of anything which we have forgotten : or rather, if we are not troubling you, will you briefly recapitulate the whole, and then the particulars will be more firmly fixed in our memories? Soc. To be sure I will : the chief theme of my yesterday's discourse was the State — how constituted and of what citizens composed it would seem likely to be most perfect. Tim. Yes, Socrates ; and what you said of it was very much to otu* mind. Soc. Did we not begin by separating the husbandmen and (i) Separation the artisans from the class of defenders of the State? " c asses.

438

Summary of the Republic.

'J'imaeies. Socrates, TiMAEUS. (2) Division of labour.

(3) The double character of the guardians.

(4) Their education.

(5) Community of goods.

(6) The women to share in the pursuits of the men.

(7) Community of wives and children.

Tim. Yes. Soc. And when we had given to each one that single employment and particular art which was suited to his nature, we spoke of those who were intended to be our warriors, and said that they were to be guardians of the city against attacks from within as well as from without, and to have no other employment ; they were to ^be merciful in judging their subjects, of whom they were by nature friends, but fierce to their enemies, when they came across them in battle. Ti?n. Exactly. Soc. We said, if I am not mistaken, that the guardians should be gifted with a temperament in a high degree both passionate and philosophical ; and that then they would be as they ought to be, gentle to their friends and fierce with their enemies. Ti?n. Certainly. Soc. And what did we say of their education? Were they not to be trained in gymnastic, and music, and all other sorts of knowledge which were proper for them 1 ? Tim. Very true. Soc. And being thus trained they were not to consider gold or silver or anything else to be their own private property ; they were to be like hired troops, receiving pay for keeping guard from those who were protected by them — the pay was to be no more than would suffice for men of simple Hfe ; and they were to spend in common, and to live together in the continual practice of virtue, which was to be their sole pursuit. Ti7n. That was also said. Soc. Neither did we forget the women ; of whom we declared, that their natures should be assimilated and brought into harmony with those of the men, and that common pursuits should be assigned to them both in time of war and in their ordinary life. Tim. That, again, was as you say. Soc. And what about the procreation of children? Or rather was not the proposal too singular to be forgotten? for

18

The State has to be exhibited in life and action. 439 all wives and children were to be in common, to the intent rimaeus. that no one should ever know his own child, but they were Socrates, to imagine that they were all one family ; those who were ^'•"^''^^^■swithin a suitable limit of age were to be brothers and sisters, those who were of an elder generation parents and grandparents, and those of a younger, children and grandchildren. Tim.

Yes, and the proposal is easy to remember, as you say. Soc.

And do you also remember how, with a view of (8) The securing as far as we could the best breed, we said that the ""p^'^' '"^^ chief magistrates, male and female, should contrive secretly, by the use of certain lots, so to arrange the nuptial meeting, that the bad of either sex and the good of either sex might pair with their like ; and there was to be no quarrelling on this account, for they would imagine that the union was a mere accident, and was to be attributed to the lot?

Tun. I remember. Soc.

And you remember how we said that the children of (9) Trans- 19 the good parents were to be educated, and the children of ^ood'3"ji°b a the bad secretly dispersed among the inferior citizens ; and citizens, while they were all growing up the rulers were to be on the look-out, and to bring up from below in their turn those who were worthy, and those among themselves who were unworthy were to take the places of those who came up? Tim. True. Soc.

Then have I now given you all the heads of our yesterday's discussion? Or is there anything more, my dear Timaeus, which has been omitted? Tim. Nothing, Socrates ; it was just as you have said. Soc. I should like, before proceeding further, to tell you Socrates how I feel about the State which we have described.

I mip;ht '^^'^""^ '" '^ breathe hfe compare myself to a person who, on beholding beautiful into his sute: animals either created by the painter's art, or, better still, J^^ J^"Jfbe'*"^ ahve but at rest, is seized with a desire of seeing them its infant in motion or engaged in some struggle or conflict to which i||,"^^ ^.^s their forms appear suited; this is my feeling about the State not the gift which we have been describincr.

There are conflicts which " ^^"''^ u o tion himself, all cities undergo, and I should like to hear some one tell of and he finds our own city carrying on a struggle against her neighbours, ' ^p**^^ and how she went out to war in a becoming manner, and

440

W/io can speak in a manner worthy of the theme ?

Tiinaeus. Socrates. equally incapable. The Sophists have no state of their own, and therefore are not politicians.

He turns to Timaeus, Critias, and Hermocrates.

when at war showed by the greatness of her actions and the magnanimity of her words in dealing with other cities a result worthy of her training and education.

Now I, Critias and Hermocrates, am conscious that I myself should never be able to celebrate the city and her citizens in a befitting manner, and I am not surprised at my own incapacity ; to me the wonder is rather that the poets present as well as past are no better — not that I mean to depreciate them ; but every one can see that they are a crowd of imitators, and will imitate best and most easily the life in which they have been brought up ; while that which is beyond the range of a man's education he finds hard to carry out in action, and still harder adequately to represent in language.

I am aware that the Sophists have plenty of brave words and fair conceits, but I am afraid that being only wanderers from one city to another, and having never had habitations of their own, they may fail in their conception of philosophers and statesmen, and may not know what they do and say in time of war, when they are fighting or holding parley with their enemies.

And thus people of your class are the only ones remaining who are fitted by nature and education to take part at once both in politics and philosophy.

Here is Timaeus, of Locris in Italy, a city which has admirable laws, and who is himself in wealth and rank the equal of any of his fellow-citizens ; he has- held the most important and honourable offices in his own state, and, as I believe, has scaled the heights of all philosophy ; and here is Critias, whom every Athenian knows to be no novice in the matters of which we are speaking ; and as to Hermocrates, I am assured by many witnesses that his genius and education qualify him to take part in any speculation of the kind.

And therefore yesterday when I saw that you wanted me to describe the formation of the State, I readily assented, being very well aware, that, if you only would, none were better qualified to carry the discussion further, and that when you had engaged our city in a suitable war, you of all men living could best exhibit her playing a fitting part. When I had completed my task, I in return imposed this other task upon you.

You. conferred together and agreed to entertain me to-day, as I had entertained you, with a feast of discourse. Here am I in festive

The 'vera historia' of ancient Athens. 441 array, and no man can be more ready for the promised Timaeus. banquet. Sockates, Her. And we too, Socrates, as Timaeus savs, will not be ^'"'^^^■=^» ' ' •' ' Hermowanting in enthusiasm ; and there is no excuse for not com- crates, plying with your request.

As soon as we arrived yesterday ^'*'"^^- at the guest-chamber of Critias, with whom we are staying, Hermocrates or rather on our way thither, we talked the matter over, and how cHtias he told us an ancient tradition, which I wish, Critias, that '^^'^ narrated a story which you would repeat to Socrates, so that he may help us to may satisfy judge whether it will satisfy his requirements or not. his demands. Grit.

I will, if Timaeus, who is our other partner, approves. Critias Tim. I quite approve. ^°"^"! '^ *■ ^ ^ repeat it. Crit. Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, He had heard is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the ^^^ ^^le from wisest of the seven sages.

He was a relative and a dear father, who friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says received it ... , , 111 irom Solon. m many passages of his poems; and he told the story to it told of the Critias, my grandfather, who .remembered and repeated it to g'o"es of . ancient us. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions Athens.

2 1 of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse. It w^ill be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival. Soc. Very good.

And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians ^, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact^? Crit. I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man ; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was, as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten.

Now the day was that day of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of fashion.

One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not ' Or ' which, though unrecorded in history, Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be an actual fact? '

442 * You Hellenes are ever cJiildreii. ' Timaeus. Only the wiscst of men, but also the noblest of poets.

The Ckitias. old man, as I very well remember, brightened up at hearing Solon brought this and said, smiHng : Yes, Amynander, if Solon had only, It from jjj^g other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had Egypt, — . completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

And what was the tale about, Critias? said Amynander. About the greatest action which the Athenians ever did, and which ought to have been the most famous, but, through the lapse of time and the destruction of the actors, it has not come down to us.

Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom Solon heard this veritable tradition, from Sais, a He replied : — In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which u"^J*'"u'^^u the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is by Neith, the _ ' Greek Called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is ' ®"^' also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came.

The citizens have a deity for their foundress ; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene ; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them.

To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour; he asked the priests who 22 were most skilful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old.

On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world — about Phoroneus, who is called * the first man,' and about Niobe ; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha ; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened.

Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said : O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among

you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young ; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.

There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes ; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.

Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals ; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who. dwell by rivers or on the seashore.

And from this calamity the Nile, who is our neverfailing saviour, delivers and preserves us. When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, hke you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea.

Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below ; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient. The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in 23 lesser numbers.

And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed — if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.

Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interv^al, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are

Timaeits. Critias. The priests of Sais declared the traditions of Egypt to be far older than those of Hellas,

because Greek history had been frequently interrupted by deluges.

444

The antediluvian Athens,

Titnneits. Critias.

Athens one thousand years more ancient than Sais. The goddess Athene was the foundress of both : this explains the similarity of their institutions.

destitute of letters and education ; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones ; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word.

For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, and is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven. Solon marvelled at his words, and earnestly requested the priests to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens.

You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities.

She founded your city a thousand years before ours ^, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be 8000 years old.

As touching your citizens of 9000 years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of their most famous action ; the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves. If you compare these very laws with ours you will find that many of ours are the counterpart of yours as they were in the olden time.

In the first place, there is the caste of priests, which is separated from all the others ; next, there are the artificers, who ply their several crafts by themselves and do not intermix ; and ' Observe that Plato gives the same date (9000 years ago) for the foundation of Athens and for the repulse of the invasion from Atlantis. (Crit. 108 E.)

and the great isla?id of Atlantis.

445 also there is the class of shepherds and of hunters ', as well rimaeus. as that of husbandmen ; and you will observe, too, that the Ckitias. warriors in Egypt are distinct from all the other classes, and are commanded by the law to devote themselves solely to military pursuits ; moreover, the weapons which they carry are shields and spears, a style of equipment which the goddess taught of Asiatics first to us, as in your part of the world first to you.

Then as to wisdom, do you observe how our law from the very first made a study of the whole order of things, extending even to prophecy and medicine which gives health ; out of these divine elements deriving what was needful for human life, and adding every sort of knowledge which was akin to them.

All this order and arrangement the goddess first imparted to you when establishing your city ; and she chose the spot of earth in which you were bom, because she saw that the happy temperament of the seasons in that land would produce the wisest of men. Wherefore the goddess, who was a lover both of war and of wisdom, selected and first of all settled that spot which was the most likely to produce men likest herself.

And there you dwelt, having such laws as these and still better ones, and excelled all mankind in all virtue, as became the children and disciples of the gods. Many great and wonderful deeds are recorded of your The most state in our histories. But one of them exceeds all the rest glorious act . iir •! of ancient m greatness and valour.

For these histories tell of a mighty Athens was power which unprovoked made an expedition against the '^"^ deiuerwhole of Europe and Asia, and to which your city put an Europe and end.

This power came forth out of the Atlantic Ocean, for ^'^^^^ ^'■°'" , the power of in those days the Atlantic was navigable ; and there was an Atlantis, island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the pillars of Heracles ; the island was larger than Libya and 25 Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean ; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent. ' Reading rh toxv drfpevruv.

Now in this island of Atlantis there was a great and wonderful empire which had rule over the whole island and several others, and over parts of the continent, and, furthermore, the men of Atlantis had subjected the parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.

This vast power, gathered into one, endeavoured to subdue at a blow our country and yours and the whole of the region within the straits ; and then, Solon, your country shone forth, in the excellence of her virtue and strength, among all mankind. She was preeminent in courage and military skill, and was the leader of the Hellenes.

And when the rest fell off from her, being compelled to stand alone, after having undergone the very extremity of danger, she defeated and triumphed over the invaders, and preserved from slavery those who were not yet subjugated, and generously liberated all the rest of us who dwell within the pillars.

But afterwards there occurred violent earthquakes and floods ; and in a single day and night of misfortune all your warlike men in a body sank into the earth, and the island of Atlantis in like manner disappeared in the depths of the sea. For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way ; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island.

I have told you briefly, Socrates, what the aged Critias heard from Solon and related to us. And when you were speaking yesterday about your city and citizens, the tale which I have just been repeating to you came into my mind, and I remarked with astonishment how, by some mysterious coincidence, you agreed in almost every particular with the narrative of Solon ; but I did not like to speak at the moment.

For a long time had elapsed, and I had forgotten too much ; I thought that I must first of all run over the narrative in my own mind, and then I would speak. And so I readily assented to your request yesterday, considering that in all such cases the chief difficulty is to find a tale suitable to our purpose, and that with such a tale we should be fairly well provided. And therefore, as Hermocrates has told you, on my way home yesterday I at once communicated the tale to my com-

The order of the entertainment. 447 panions as I remembered it ; and after I left them, during the rimaeus. night by thinking I recovered nearly the whole of it.

Truly, Socrates. as is often said, the lessons of our childhood make a wonder- ^'"''"''^'^• ful impression on our memories ; for I am not sure that I could remember all the discourse of yesterday, but I should be much surprised if I forgot any of these things which I have heard very long ago.

I listened at the time with childlike interest to the old man's narrative ; he was very ready to teach me, and I asked him again and again to repeat his words, so that like an indelible picture they were branded into my mind. As soon as the day broke, I rehearsed them as he spoke them to my companions, that they, as well as myself, might have something to say. And now, Socrates, to make an end of my preface, I am ready to tell you the whole tale.

I will give you not only the general heads, but the particulars, as they were told to me. The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality.

It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke ; they will perfectly harmonize, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. Let us divide the subject among us, and all endeavour according to our ability gracefully to execute the task which you have imposed upon us.

Consider then, Socrates, if this narrative is suited to the purpose, or whether we should seek for some other instead. Soc, And what other, Critias, can we find that will be Socrates is better than this, which is natural and suitable to the festival ^T^'^f' ^^^* ' the rehearsal of the goddess, and has the very great advantage of being a ofthisnan-afact and not a fiction? How or where shall we find another ^"tK,' ^^ suitable conif we abandon this?

We cannot, and therefore you must tell tinuationof 27 the tale, and good luck to you; and I in return for my yesterday's discourse will now rest and be a listener. Crit. Let me proceed to explain to you, Socrates, the order Rut Timaeus in which we have arranged our entertainment.

Our in- ^^'J^'^b^'" ^^^ tention is, that Timaeus, who is the most of an astronomer describing amongst us, and has made the nature of the universe his I'^^T.r^ o ' tion of the special study, should speak first, beginning with the generation of the world and going down to the creation of man ;

448

The prelude.

Timaeus. Socrates, Timaeus. Universe down to the creation of man: Critias will follow him.

At the commencement Timaeus invokes the gods.

The world was created, and is therefore apprehended by sense.

next, I am to receive the men whom he has created, and of whom some will have profited by the excellent education which you have given them ; and then, in accordance with the tale of Solon, and equally with his law, we will bring them into court and make them citizens, as if they were those very Athenians whom the sacred Egyptian record has recovered from oblivion, and thenceforward we will speak of them as Athenians and fellow-citizens. Soc.

I see that I shall receive in my turn a perfect and splendid feast of reason. And now, Timaeus, you, I suppose, should speak next, after duly caUing upon the Gods. Titii. All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God.

And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation, if we be not altogether out of our w^its, must invoke the aid of Gods and Goddesses and pray that our words may be acceptable to them and consistent with themselves.

Let this, then, be our invocation of the Gods, to which I add an exhortation of myself to speak in such manner as will be most intelligible to you, and will most accord with my own intent. First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask. What is that which always is and has no becoming ; and what is that which is always becoming and never is?

That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state ; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.

The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect ; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect.

Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name — assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything — was the world.

I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible ; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause.

But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out ; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him : Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world, — the pattern of the unchange- 29 able, or of that which is created?

If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal ; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to the eternal ; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes.

And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature.

And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe ; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable — nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words.

As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised.

Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others ; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further. Soc. Excellent, Timaeus ; and we will do precisely as you VOL. III. — 44

Tinmetis. SOCRATKS, TlMAKlS

God was the cause of it, and he fashioned it after the eternal pattern.

The eternal pattern can be spoken of with certainty ; the created copy can only be described in the language of probability.

450

The idea of the perfect animal.

Tintaeus. Socrates, TiMAEUS. God made the world good, •wishing everything to be like himself. To this end he brought order into it and endowed it with soul and intelligence.

The original of the universe is a perfect animal, which comprehends all intelligible animals, just as the copy contains all visible animals.

bid US. The prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us — may we beg of you to proceed to the strain ? Tim. Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be.

This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of 30 the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men : God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering that this was in every way better than the other.

Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other than the fairest ; and the creator, reflecting on the things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a whole was fairer than the inteUigent taken as, a whole ; and that intelhgence could jiQt be present in anything which was devoid of soul.

For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelhgence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a hving creature truly endowed with soul and inteUigence by the providence of God.

This being supposed, let us proceed to the next stage : In the likeness of what animal did the Creator make the world? It would be an unworthy thing to liken it to any nature which exists as a part only ; for nothing can be beautiful which is like any imperfect thing ; but let us suppose the world to be the very image of that whole of which all other animals both individually and in their tribes are portions.

For the original of the universe contains in itself all intelligible beings, just as this world comprehends us and all other visible creatures. For the Deity, intending to make this world like the fairest and most perfect of intelligible beings, framed one visible animal comprehending within itself all other animals of a kindred nature. Are we right in saying 31 that there is one world, or that they are many and infinite? There must be one only, if the created copy is to accord with

the original. For that which includes all other intelligible creatures cannot have a second or companion ; in that case there would be need of another living being which would include both, and of which they would be parts, and the likeness would be more truly said to resemble not them, but that other which included them.

In order then that the world might be solitary, like the perfect animal, the creator made not two worlds or an infinite number of them ; but there is and ever will be one only-begotten and created heaven. Now that which is created is of necessity corporeal, and also visible and tangible. And nothing is visible where there is no fire, or tangible which has no solidity, and nothing is solid without earth.

Wherefore also God in the beginning of creation made the body of the universe to consist of fire and earth. But two things cannot be rightly put together without a third ; there must be some bond of union between them. And the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines ; and proportion is best adapted to effect such a union.

For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term 32 is to it ; and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean, — then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one.

If the universal frame had been created a surface only and having no depth, a single mean would have sufficed to bind together itself and the other terms ; but now, as the world must be solid, and solid bodies are always compacted not by one mean but by two, God placed water and air in the mean between fire and earth, and made them to have the same proportion so far as was possible (as fire is to air so is air to water, and as air is to water so is water to earth) ; and thus he bound and put together a visible and tangible heaven.

And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonized by proportion, and therefore has the spirit of friendship ; and having been reconciled to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the framer.

Tintaeus. TiMAEUS.

Y.

The world is visible and tangible, and therefore composed of fire and earth. These elements, being solids, required two means to unite them, water and air.

452

TJie circular or perfect figure of the world.

'J'imaeus. TiMAEUS. All the four elements were included entire in the composition of the world, which was therefore perfect and not subject to decay ; for nothing was left outside which could hurt or destroy it.

It received a spherical form, — without eyes, ears, mouth, hands, feet, and was made to revolve in a circle on the same spot.

fi

Now the creation took up the whole of each of the four elements ; for the Creator compounded the world out of all the lire and all the water and all the air and all the earth, leaving no part of any of them nor any power of them outside.

His intention was, in the first place, that the animal should be as far as possible a perfect whole and of perfect parts : secondly, that it should be one, leaving no remnants 33 out of which another such world might be created : and also that it should be free from old age and unaffected by disease.

Considering that if heat and cold and other powerful forces which unite bodies surround and attack them from without when they are unprepared, they decompose them, and by ' bringing diseases and old age upon them, make them wasteaway — for this cause and on these grounds he made the world one whole, having every part entire, and being therefore perfect and not liable to old age and disease.

And he gave to the world the figure which was suitable and also natural. Now to the animal which was to comprehend all animals, that figure was suitable which comprehends within itself all other figures.

Wherefore he made the world in the form of a globe, round as from a lathe, having its extremes in every direction equidistant from the centre, the most perfect and the most like itself of all figures ; for he considered that the like is infinitely fairer than the unlike.

This he finished off, making the surface smooth all round for many reasons ; in the first place, because the living being had no need of eyes when there was nothing remaining outside him to be seen ; nor of ears when there was nothing to be heard ; and there was no surrounding atmosphere to be breathed ; nor would there have been any use of organs by the help of which he might receive his food or get rid of what he had already digested, since there was nothing which went from him or came into him : for there was nothing beside him.

Of design he was created thus, his own waste providing his own food, and all that he did or suffered taking place in and by himself. For the Creator conceived that a being which was self-sufficient would be far more excellent than one which lacked anything ; and, as he had no need to take anything or defend himself against any one, the Creator did not think it necessary to bestow upon him hands : nor had he any need

34 of feet, nor of the whole apparatus of walking ; but the movement suited to his spherical form was assigned to him, being of all the seven that which is most appropriate to mind and intelligence ; and he was made to move in the same manner and on the same spot, within his own hmits revolving in a circle. All the other six motions were taken away from him, and he was made not to partake of their deviations.

And as this circular movement required no feet, the universe was created without legs and without feet. Such was the whole plan of the eternal God about the god that was to be, to whom for this reason he gave a body, smooth and even, having a surface in every direction equidistant from the centre, a body entire and perfect, and formed out of perfect bodies.

And in the centre he put the soul, which he diffused throughout the body, making it also to be the exterior environment of it ; and he made the universe a circle moving in a circle, one and solitary, yet by reason of its excellence able to converse with itself, and needing no other friendship or acquaintance. Having these purposes in view he created the world a blessed god.

Now God did not make the soul after the body, although we are speaking of them in this order ; for having brought them together he would never have allowed that the elder should be ruled by the younger ; but this is a random manner of speaking which we have, because somehow we ourselves too are very much under the dominion of chance.

Whereas he made the soul in origin and excellence prior to and older than the body, to be the ruler and mistress, of whom the body was to be the subject.

And he made her out of the 35 following elements and on thiswise: Out of the indivisible and unchangeable, and also out of that which is divisible and has to do with material bodies, he compounded a third and intermediate kind of essence, partaking of the nature of the same ^ and of the other, and this compound he placed accordingly in a mean between the indivisible, and the divisible and material.

He took the three elements of the same, the other, and the essence, and mingled them into one form, compressing by force the reluctant and unsociable nature of the other into

Timaeus. TiMAEUS.

In the centre was placed the soul, which pervaded the whole, and even surrounded it.

Though posterior to the body in the order of our exposition, in the order of creation it is prior to it.

It was created thus. First out of the indivisible (i. e. the Same) and the divisible (i. c. the Other) CJod made Kssence. He then mingled

^ Omitting av Trkpt

454

^ From harmony y from heavenly harmony.^

Tivtaeus. TiMAEUS. these three elements and divided the whole mixture into parts, accordmg to the proportions of the Pythagorean Tetractys and of the Diatonic scale.

The compound was cut into two strips, which were crossed and then bent round into an outer circle, revolving to the right (i. e. the circle of the Same), and an inner, revolving diagonally

the same.

When he had mingled them with the essence and out of three made one, he again divided this whole into as many portions as was fitting, each portion being a compound of the same, the other, and the essence^ And he proceeded to divide after this manner : — First of all, he took away one part of the whole [i], and then he separated a second part which was double the first [2], and then he took away a third part which was half as much again as the second and three times as much as the first [3], and then he took a fourth part which was twice as much as the second [4], and a fifth part which was three times the third [9], and a sixth part which was eight times the first [8], and a seventh part which was twenty-seven times the first [27].

After this he filled up the double intervals [ i. e. between i, 2, 4, 8] and 36 the triple [i.e. between i, 3, 9, 27], cutting off yet other portions from the mixture and placing them in the intervals, so that in each interval there were two kinds of means, the one exceeding and exceeded by equal parts -of its extremes [as for example i, -|, 2, in which the mean \ is one-third of I more than i, and one-third of 2 less than 2], the other being that kind of mean which exceeds and is exceeded by an equal number ^ Where there were intervals of f and of f and of f, made by the connecting terms in the former intervals, he filled up all the intervals of |- with the interval of f, leaving a fraction over; and the interval which this fraction expressed was in the ratio of 256 to 243"^.

And thus the whole mixture out of which he cut these portions was all exhausted by him.

This entire compound he divided lengthways into two parts, which he joined to one another at the centre like the letter X, and bent them into a circular form, connecting them with themselves and each other at the point opposite to their original meeting-point ; and, comprehending them in a uniform revolution upon the same axis, he made the one the outer and the other the inner circle.

Now the motion of the outer circle he called the motion of the same, le. g. I, 4, |, 2, f, 8, 4, y-, 6, 8; and I, i 2, 3, |, 6, 9, y-, 18, 27. ^e. g. 243 : 256 : : tl: t : : f|i : 2 : : t| : f : : W ^ 4 = : f i : ¥ = = V/ = »• (Martin.)

and the motion of the inner circle the motion of the other or diverse. The motion of the same he carried round by the side ^ to the right, and the motion of the diverse diagonally 2 to the left.

And he gave dominion to the motion of the same and like, for that he left single and undivided ; but the inner motion he divided in six places and made seven unequal circles having their intervals in ratios of two and three, three of each, and bade the orbits proceed in a direction opposite to one another ; and three [Sun, Mercury, Venus] he made to move with equal swiftness, and the remaining four [Moon, Saturn, Mars, Jupiter] to move with unequal swiftness to the three and to one another, but in due proportion.

Now when the Creator had framed the soul according to his will, he formed within her the corporeal universe, and brought the two together, and united them centre to centre. The soul, interfused everywhere from the centre to the circumference of heaven, of which also she is the external envelopment, herself turning in herself, began a divine beginning of never-ceasing and rational hfe enduring through- 37 out all time..

The body of heaven is visible, but the soul is invisible, and partakes of reason and harmony, and being made by the best of intellectual and everlasting natures, is the best of things created.

'^^ And because she is composed of the same and of the other and of the essence, these three, and is divided and united in due proportion, and in her revolutions returns upon herself, the soul, when touching anything which has essence, whether dispersed in parts or undivided, is stirred through all her powers, to declare the sameness or difference of that thing and some other ; and to what individuals are related, and by what affected, and in what way and how and when, both in the world of generation and in the world of immutable being.

And when reason, which works with equal truth, whether she be in the circle of the diverse or of the same — in voiceless silence holding her onward course in the sphere of the self-moved — when reason, I say, is hovering around the sensible world and when the circle of the diverse also moving truly imparts the intimations ^ i. e. of the rectangular figure supposed to be inscribed in the circle of the Same. ' i. e. across the rectangular figure from corner to corner.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. to the left (i. e. the circle of the Other). The latter was subdivided into seven unequal circles (i. e. the orbits of the seven planets).

After framing 'v^ the soul, God formed within her the body of the

The soul, being compounded of the Same, the Other, and the Essence, is moved to utter the sameness or otherness of any essence which she touches. When contemplating the sensible world, she attains to true opinion ; when the rational, to knowledge.

456

' Non in tempore, sed cum tempore, finxit Deus mundum.''

Timaeus. TlMAEUS.

God, to make creation more perfect, endowed it with the immortality of which it is capable. To this end he made time, — a moving image of eternity, which ife immovable. Ihe modes of time are not to' be applied to the eternal essence.

of sense to the whole soul, then arise opinions and beliefs sure and certain. But when reason is concerned with the rational, and the circle of the same moving smoothly declares I it, then intelligence and knowledge are necessarily perfected^ And if any one affirms that in which these two are found to be other than the soul, he will say the very opposite of the truth.

When the father and creator saw the creature which he had made moving and living, the created image of the eternal gods, he rejoiced, and in his joy determined to make the copy still more like the original ; and as this was eternal, he sought to make the universe eternal, so far as might be. Now the nature of the ideal being was everlasting, but to bestow this attribute in its fulness upon a creature was impossible.

Wherefore he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heaven, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity ; and this image we call time. For there were no days and nights and months and years before the heaven was created, but when he constructed the heaven he created them also.

They are all parts of time, and the past and future are created species of time, which we unconsciously but wrongly transfer to the eternal essence ; for we say that he * was,' he ' is,' he * w^ll be,' but the truth is that ' is ' alone is properly attributed to him, and that ' was ' 38 and 'will.be' are only to be spoken of becoming in time, for they are motions, but that which is immovably the same cannot become older or younger by time, nor ever did or has become, or hereafter will be, older or younger, nor is subject at all to any of those states which affect moving and sensible things and of which generation is the cause.

These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to a law of number. Moreover, when we say that what has become is become and what becomes is becoming, and that what will become is about to become and that the nonexistent is non-existent, — all these are inaccurate modes of expression ^ But perhaps this whole subject will be more suitably discussed on some other occasion.

The appearances of the heavens. 457 Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same nmaeus. instant in order that, having been created together, if ever Timaeus. there was to be a dissoUition of them, they might be dissolved together.

It was framed after the pattern of the eternal nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible ; for the pattern exists from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time. Such was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time.

The sun and moon and five other stars, which are The seven called the planets, were created by him in order to dis- fntTndertr tinguish and preserve the numbers of time ; and when he preserve the had made their several bodies, he placed them in the orbits [)|JJ^ ^^^ in which the circle of the other was revolving (cp. 36 D), — in seven orbits seven stars.

First, there was the moon in the orbit nearest the earth, and next the sun, in the second orbit above the earth ; then came the morning star and the star sacred to Hermes, moving in orbits which have an equal swiftness with the sun, but in an opposite direction ; and this is the reason why the sun and Hermes and Lucifer overtake and are overtaken by each other.

To enumerate the places which he assigned to the other stars, and to give all the reasons why he assigned them, although a secondary matter, would give more trouble than the primary. These things at some future time, when we are at leisure, may have the consideration which they deserve, but not at present.

Now, when all the stars which were necessary to the The circle of creation of time had attained a motion suitable to them, and '^^s^["« ' controls the had become living creatures having bodies fastened by vital circle of the chains, and learnt their appointed task, moving in the motion ^^•^^'■' ^^^'^ ' ^'^ JO moves diago- 39 of the diverse, which is diagonal, and passes through and is naiiy to it. governed by the motion of the same, they revolved, some in lanets,^^ a larger and some in a lesser orbit, — those which had the their rcvoiulesser orbit revolving faster, and those which had the larger spi"ai-^and ^ more slowly.

Now by reason of the motion of the same, the slowest those which revolved fastest appeared to be overtaken by ^^Tthe"^" those which moved slower although they really overtook fastest, them ; for the motion of the .same made them all turn in a spiral, and, because some went one way and some another, that which receded most .slowly from the .sphere of the same, which was the swiftest, appeared to follow it mo.st nearly.

458

Four classes of animals ideal and also created.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. The sun was created to afford a visible measure of the swiftness of the planets. Night and day. The month and year.

The cyclic year.

After the creation of lime God fashions in the created animal four species like those which exist in the ideal: e. g. the gods of heaven (i. e. fixed stars and planets), birds, sea and land animals.

That there might be some visible measure of their relative swiftness and slowness as they proceeded in their eight courses, God lighted a fire, which we now call the sun, in the second from the earth of these orbits, that it might give light to the whole of heaven, and that the animals, as many as nature intended, might participate in number, learning arithmetic from the revolution of the same and the like.

Thus, then, and for this reason the night and the day were created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution. And the month is accompHshed w^hen the moon has completed her orbit and overtaken the sun, and the year when the sun has completed his own orbit.

Mankiftd, with hardly an exception, have not remarked the periods of the other stars, and they have no name for them, and do not measure them against one another by the help of number, and hence they can scarcely be said to know that their wanderings, being infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time.

And yet there is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time fulfils the perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together and attain their completion at the same time, measured by the rotation of the same and equally moving.

After this manner, and for these reasons, came into being such of the stars as in their heavenly progress received reversals of motion, to the end that the created heaven might imitate the eternal nature, and be as like as possible to the perfect and intelligible animal.

Thus far and until the birth of time the created universe was made in the likeness of the original, but inasmuch as all animals were not yet comprehended therein, it was still unlike. What remained, the creator then proceeded to fashion after the nature of the pattern.

Now as in the ideal animal the mind perceives ideas or species of a certain nature and number, he thought that this created animal ought to have species of a like nature and number. There are four such ; one of them is the heavenly race of the gods ; 40 another, the race of birds whose way is in the air ; the third, the watery species ; and the fourth, the pedestrian and land creatures. Of the heavenly and divine, he created the greater part out of fire, that they might be the brightest of

all things and fairest to behold, and he fashioned them after the hkeness of the universe in the figure of a circle, and made them follow the intelligent motion of the supreme, distributing them over the whole circumference of heaven, which was to be a true cosmos or glorious world spangled with them all over.

And he gave to each of them two movements : the first, a movement on the same spot after the same manner, whereby they ever continue to think consistently the same thoughts about the same things ; the second, a forward movement, in which they are controlled by the revolution of the same and the like ; but by the other five motions they were unaffected (cp. 43 B), in order that each of them might attain the highest perfection.

And for this reason the fixed stars were created, to be divine and eternal animals, ever-abiding and revolving after the same manner and on the same spot ; and the other stars which reverse their motion and are subject to deviations of this kind, were created in the manner already described.

The earth, which is our nurse, clinging ^ around the pole which is extended through the universe, he framed to be the guardian and artificer of night and day, first and eldest of gods that are in the interior of heaven.

Vain would be the attempt to tell all the figures of them circling as in dance, and their juxtapositions, and the return of them in their revolutions upon themselves, and their approximations, and to say which of these deities in their conjunctions meet, and which of them are in opposition, and in what order they get behind and before one another, and when they are severally ecHpsed to our sight and again reappear, sending terrors and intimations of the future to those who cannot calculate their movements — to attempt to tell of all this without a visible representation of the heavenly system 2 would be labour in vain.

Enough on this head ; and now let what we have said about the nature of the created and visible gods have an end. To know or tell the origin of the other divinities is beyond us, and we must accept the traditions of the men of old time who affirm themselves to be the offspring of the gods — that

Timaeus. TiMAEUS.

The fixed stars revolve on their axes and are carried round in the sphere of the Same.

The motions of the planets have been already (38 ff) described.

The earth is the immovable(?) centre of the universe.

As for the Gods of mythology, we must

' Or ' circling.'

' Reading rolq ov dvi>. and tovtcjv avruv.

460

Address of the Creator to his ministers.

Thnaeus. TiMAEUS. accept the statements of their children about them.

The creator of the universe bids the created gods fashion the mortal bodies of man and of the lower animals : he himself will furnish the immortal principle of the soul.

is what they say — and they must surely have known their own ancestors. How can we dou^t the word of the children of the gods? Although they give^anrobable or certain proofs, still, as they declare that they are speaking of what took place in their own family, we must conform to custom and believe them. In this manner, then, according to them, the genealogy ^of these gods is to be received and set forth.

Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven, and from these sprang Phorcys and Cronos and Rhea, and all that generation ; and from Cronos and Rhea sprang Zeus and Here, and all those who are said to be their brethren, and others who were the children of these.

Now, when all of them, both those who visibly appear in their revolutions as well as those other gods who are of a more retiring nature, had come into being, the creator of the universe addressed them in these words : ' Gods, children of gods, who are my works, and of whom I am the artificer and father, my creations are indi.ssoluble, if so I will.

All that is bound may be undone, but only an evil being would wish to undo that which is harmonious and happy. Wherefore, since ye are but creatures, ye are not altogether immortal and indissoluble, but ye shall certainly not be dissolved, nor be liable to the fate of death, having in my will a greater and mightier bond than those with which ye were bound at the time of your birth.

And now listen to my instructions : — Three tribes of mortal beings remain to be created — without them the universe will be incomplete, for it will not contain every kind of animal which it ought to contain, if it is to be perfect. On the other hand, if they were created by me and receiv^ed hfe at my hands, they would be on an equality with the gods.

In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe may be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by me in creating you.

The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you — of that divine part I will myself sow the seed, and having made a beginning, 1 will hand the work over to you. And

do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal, and make and beget hving creatures, and give them food, and make them to grow, and receive them again in death. Thus he spake, and once more into the cup in which he had previously mingled the soul of the universe he poured the remains of the elements, and mingled them in much the same manner; they were not, however, pure as before, but diluted to the second and third degree.

And having made it he divided the whole mixture into souls equal in number to the stars, and assigned each soul to a star ; and having there placed them as in a chariot, he showed them the nature of the universe, and declared to them the laws of destiny, according to which their first birth would be one and the same for all, — no one .should suffer a disadvantage at .his hands ; they were to be sown in the instruments of time severally adapted to them, and to come forth the most re- 42 ligious of animals; and as human nature was of two kinds, the superior race would hereafter be called man.

Now, when they should be implanted in bodies by necessity, and be always gaining or losing some part of their bodily substance, then in the first place it would be necessary that they should all have in them one and the same faculty of sensation, arising out of irresistible impres.sions ; in the second place, they mu.st have love, in which pleasure and pain mingle ; also fear and anger, and the feelings which are akin or opposite to them ; if they conquered these they would live righteously, and if they were conquered by them, unrighteously.

He who lived well during his appointed time was to return and dwell in his native star, and there he would have a blessed and congenial existence.

But if he failed in attaining this, at the second birth he would pass into a woman, and if, when in that state of being, he did not desist from evil, he would continually be changed into some brute who resembled him in the evil nature which he had acquired, and would not cease from his toils and transformations until he followed the revolution of the same and the Hke within him, and overcame by the help of re.-ison the turbulent and irrational mob of later accretions, made up of fire and air and water and earth, and returned to the form of his first and better state. / Having given all these laws to his creatures, that he might be guiltless of

Timaeus. TlMAhlLS.

He ni.ikes the human soul of the same elements as the universal; and having distributed it into souls equal in number to the stars, sets one soul in each star and reveals to them their future life on the planets, when they will have mortal bodies.

Those who then live well will return from the planets to their original star ; those who live badly will take a lower form at their next birth.

462

The construction of the human frame.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS.

The created gods provide for the human soul bodies compounded of earth, air, fire and water.

The courses of the soul, when placed in them, are so disturbed by the ebbing and flowing stream of nutriment and by external sensations, that the revolution of the same is stopped.

future evil in any of them, the creator sowed some of them in the earth, and some in the moon, and some in the other instruments of time ; and when he had sown them he committed to the younger gods the fashioning of their mortal bodies, and desired them to furnish what was still lacking to the human soul, and having made all the suitable additions, to rule over them, and to pilot the mortal animal in the best and wisest manner which they could, and avert from him all buX self-inflicted evils. : When the creator had made all these ordinances he remained in his own accustomed nature, and his children heard and were obedient to their father's word, and^ receiving from him the immortal principle of a mortal creature, in imitation of .their own creator they borrowed portions of fire, and earth, and water, and air from the world, which were hereafter to be restored — these they took and welded them together, not with the indissoluble chains by which they w^ere themselves bound, but with little pegs too small to be visible, making up out of all the four elements each separate body, and fastening the courses of the immortal soul in a body which was in a state of perpetual influx and efllux. .

Now these courses, detained as in a vast river, neither overcame nor were overcome ; but were hurrying and hurried to and fro, so that the whole animal was moved and progressed, irregularly however and irrationally and anyhow/ in all the six directions of motion, wandering backwards and forwards, and right and left, and up and down, and in all the six directions.

For great as was the advancing and retiring flood which provided nourishment, the aft'ections produced by external contact caused still greater tumult — when the body of any one met and came into collision with some external fire, or with the solid earth or the gliding waters, or was caught in the tempest borne on the air, and the motions produced by any of these impulses were carried through the body to the soul.

All such motions have consequently received the general name of * sensations,' which they still retain. And they did in fact at that time create a very great and mighty movement ; uniting with the ever-flowing stream in stirring up and violently shaking the courses of the soul, they completely stopped the revolution of the same by their

opposing current, and hindered it from predominating and advancing ; and they so disturbed the nature of the other or diverse, that^the three double intervals [i. e. between i, 2, 4, 8], and the three triple intervals [i. e. between 1,3, 9, 27], together with the mean terms and connecting links which are expressed by the ratios of 3 : 2, and 4 : 3, and of 9 : 8, — these, although they cannot be wholly undone except by him who united them, were twisted by them in all sorts of ways, and^he circles were broken and disordered in every possible manney so that when they moved they were tumbling to pieces, and moved irrationally, at one time in a reverse direction, and then again obliquely, and then upside down, as you might imagine a person who is upside down and has his head leaning upon the ground and his feet up against something in the air ; and when he is in such a position, both he and the spectator fancy that the right of either is his left, and the left right./ If, when powerfully experiencing these and similar effects, the revolutions of the soul come in contact 44 with some external thing, either of the class of the same or of the other, they speak of the same or of the other in a manner the very opposite of the truth ; and they become false and foolish, and there is no course or revolution in them which has a guiding or directing power ; and if again any sensations enter in violently from without and drag after them the whole vessel of the soul, then the courses of the soul, though they seem to conquer, are really conquered.

And by reason of all these affections, the soul, when encased in a mortal body, now, as in the beginning, is at first without intelligence ; but when the flood of growth and nutriment abates, and the courses of the soul, calming down, go their own way and become .steadier as time goes on, then the several circles return to their natural form, and their revolutions are corrected, and they call the same and the other by their right names, and make the possessor of them to become a rational being.

And if these combine in him with any true nurture or education, he attains the fulness and health of the perfect man, and escapes the worst disease of all ; but if he neglects education he walks lame to the end of his life, and returns imperfect and good for nothing to the world below. ' This, however, is a later stage ; at present we

Ti'maeus. TlMAEUS. .nnd the mean terms which unite the sphere of the other are disordered. Thus at first the soul does not attain to truth and wisdom.

As the stream jof nutriment libates, the (courses of the soul regain thoir proper motions, and the man becomes a rational creature.

True education renders him perfect.

464

The head the divine part of us.

Timaeus. TlMAEUS.

These courses were encased in the head, which, like the universe, is in the form of a sphere. The body, with its four limbs, is the vehicle of the head ; it moves forward because the frontpart of us is the more honourable.

In the front part of the head the face was inserted, and in the face, eyes. Sight arises thus : — The light from the eyes and the light of day, which is akin to it, combine; and when they meet with the

must treat more exactly the subject before us, which involves a preliminary enquiry into the generation of the body and its members, and as to how the soul was created, — for what reason and by what providence of the gods ; and holding fast to probability, we must pursue our way.

First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us : to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants, considering that it partook of every sort of motion.

In order then that it might not tumble about among the high and deep places of the earth, but might be able to get over the one and out of the other, they provided the body to be its vehicle and means of locomotion ; which consequently had length and was furnished with four hmbs extended and flexible ; these God contrived to be instruments of locomotion with which it might take hold and find support, and so be able to pass through all places, carrying 45 on high the dwelling-place of the most sacred and divine part of us.

Such was the origin of legs and hands, which for this reason were attached to every man ; and the gods, deeming the front part of man to be more honourable and more fit to command than the hinder part, made us to move mostly in a forward direction. Wherefore man must needs have his front part unhke and distinguished from the rest of his body.

And so in the vessel of the head, they first of all put a face in which they inserted organs to minister in all things to the providence of the soul, and they appointed this part, which has authority, to be by nature the part which is in front.

And of the organs they first contrived the eyes to give light, and the principle according to which they were inserted was as follows : So much of fire as would not burn, but gave a gentle light, they formed into a substance akin to the light of every-day life ; and the pure fire which is within us and related thereto they made to flow through the eyes in a stream smooth and dense, compressing the whole eye, and especially the centre part, so that it kept out everything of a coarser nature, and allowed to pass only this pure element. When the light of day surrounds the stream of vision, then like falls

The phenomena of sight, 465 upon like, and they coalesce, and one body is formed by Thnaeus. ' natural affinity in the line of vision, wherever the light that timaeus. 'falls from within meets with an external object.

And the light from an whole stream of vision, beincr similarly affected in virtue of object aii . . three form similarity, diffuses the motions of what it touches or what one body, touches it over the whole body, until they reach the soul, ^^'*^'* . '' _ ■' transmits to causing that perception which we call sight.

But when night the soul the comes on and the external and kindred fire departs, then the stream of vision is cut off ; for going forth to an unlike element it is changed and extinguished, being no longer of one nature with the surrounding atmosphere which is now deprived of fire : and so the eye no longer sees, and we feel disposed to sleep.

For when the eyelids, which the gods invented for the preservation of sight, are closed, they keep in the internal fire ; and the power of the fire diffuses and equalizes the inward motions ; when they are equalized, there is rest, and when the rest is profound, sleep comes over us 46 scarce disturbed by dreams ; but where the greater motions still remain, of whatever nature and in whatever locality, they engender corresponding visions in dreams, which are remembered by us when we are awake and in the external world.

And now there is no longer any difficulty in understanding the creation of images in mirrors and all smooth and bright surfaces.

For from the communion of the internal and ^"'^1^ case of " _ _ . reflections in external fires, and again from the union of them and their plane mirrors, numerous transformations when they meet in the mirror, all f^ietrans- ■' position of these appearances of necessity arise, when the fire from the right and left face coalesces with the fire from the eve on the bright and '^''"e to the " fact that the smooth surface.

And right appears left and left right, be- light from the cause the visual rays come into contact with the rays emitted ^y^. ^'^^ '^^ . -' -' object meet in by the object in a manner contrary to the usual mode of an unusual meeting ; but the right appears right, and the left left, when "|j^"""nj.3,.g the position of one of the two concurring lights is reversed; mirror, if held and this happens when the mirror is concave and its smooth ihe"ris^o^ surface repels the right stream of vision to the left side, and transposition; the left to the right ^ Or if the mirror be turned vertically, heiVvertU then the concavity makes the countenance appear to be all caiiy, * He is speaking of two kinds of mirrors, first the plane, secondly the concave ; and the latter is supposed to be placed, first horizontally, and then vertically. VOL. III. — 45

466

The purpose of sight, speech^ hearing.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. the image is inverted. Enough of the secondary or irrational causes of sight; the first or intelligent cause is the purpose for which God gave it.

From sight we derive number and philosophy ;

and the observation of the intelligent motions of the heavens

upside down, and the lower rays are driven upwards and the upper downwards. All these are to be reckoned among the second and co- i operative causes which God, carrying into execution the idea j of the best as far as possible, uses as his ministers. They j are thought by most men not to be the second, but the prime / causes of all things, because they freeze and heat, and contract ' and dilate, and the like.

But they are not so, for they are incapable of reason or intellect ; the only being which can properly have mind is the invisible soul, whereas fire and water, and earth and air, are all of them visible bodies. The lover of intellect and knowledge ought to explore causes of intelligent nature first of all, and, secondly, of those things which, being moved by others, are compelled to move others. And this is what we too must do.

Both kinds of causes should be acknowledged by us, but a distinction should be made between those which are endowed with mind and are the workers of things fair and good, and those which are deprived of intelligence and always produce chance effects without order or design. Of the second or co-operative causes of sight, which help to give to the eyes the power which they now possess, enough has been said.

I will therefore now proceed to speak of the higher use and purpose for which God has given them to us. The sight in my opinion 47 is the source of the greatest benefit to us, for had we never seen the stars, and the sun, and the heaven, none of the words which we have spoken about the universe would ever have been uttered.

But now the sight of day and night, and the months and the revolutions of the years, have created number, and have given us a conception of time, and the power of enquiring about the nature of the universe ; and from this source we have derived philosophy, than which no ' greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to mortal man.

This is the greatest boon of sight : and of the lesser benefits why should I speak? even the ordinary man if he were deprived of them would bewail his loss, but in vain. Thus much let me say however: God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed

to the perturbed ; and that we, learning them and partaking of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries. The same may be affirmed of speech and hearing : they have been given by the gods to the same end and for a like reason. For this is the principal end of speech, whereto it most contributes.

Moreover, so much of music as is adapted to the sound of the voice ^ and to the sense of hearing is granted to us for the sake of harmony ; and harmony, which has motions akin to the revolutions of our souls, is not regarded by the intelligent votary of the Muses as given by them with a view to irrational pleasure, which is deemed to be the purpose of it in our day, but as meant to correct any discord which may have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally in bringing her into harmony and agreement with herself ; and rhythm too was given by them for the same reason, on account of the irregular and graceless ways which prevail among mankind generally, and to help us against them.

Thus far in what we have been saying, with small exceptions, the works of intelligence have been set forth ; and now we must place by the side of them in oiu: discourse the things which come into being through necessity — for the 48 creation is mixed, being made up of necessity and mind.

Mind, the ruling power, persuaded necessity to bring the greater part of created things to perfection, and thus and after this manner in the beginning, when the influence of reason got the better of necessity, the universe was created. But if a person will truly tell of the way in which the work was accomplished, he must include the other influence of the variable cause as well.

Wherefore, we must return again and find another suitable beginning, as about the former matters, so also about these. To which end we must consider the nature of fire, and water, and air, and earth, such as they were prior to the creation of the heaven, and what was happening to them in this previous state '^ ; for no one has as yet explained the manner of their generation, but we speak of fire and the rest of them, whatever they mean, as

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. enables us to correct the erring courses of our souls.

Speech, hearing, harmony, and rhythm have the same object in view.

So far we have spoken chiefly of the works of mind ; now we must tell of the works of necessity and of the variable cause.

Thus we arc led to consider the nature of the four elements.

' Reading ^v^ and placing the comma after aKorjv. * Cp. iu/ra, 53 A.

468

Space — the nurse of generation.

Tunaeus. TiMAEUS.

At the beginning of our discourse we assumed two natures : (i) an intelligible pattern ; (2) a created copy. Now we must add a third — (3) the receptacle of all generation, i. e. space.

though men knew their natures, and we maintain them to be the first principles and letters or elements of the whole, when they cannot reasonably be compared by a man of any sense even to syllables or first compounds.

And let me say thus much : I will not now speak of the first principle or principles of all things, or by whatever name they are to be called, for this reason, — because it is difficult to set forth my opinion according to the method of discussion which we are at present employing. Do not imagine, any more* than I can bring myself to imagine, that I should be right in undertaking so great and difficult a task.

Remembering what I said at first about probability, I will do my best to give as , probable an explanation as any other, — or rather, more probable ; and I will first go back to the beginning and try to speak of each thing and of all ^ Once more, then, at the commencement of my discourse, I call upon God, and beg him to be our saviour out of a strange and unwonted enquiry, and to bring us to the haven of probabihty. So now let us begin again.

This new beginning of our discussion of the universe requires a fuller division than the former ; for then we made two classes, now a third must be revealed. The two sufficed for the former discussion : one, which we assumed, was a pattern intelhgible and always the same ; and the second was only the imitation of the pattern, generated and visible.

49 There is also a third kind which we did not distinguish at the time, conceiving that the two would be enough. But now the argument seems to require that we should set forth in words another kind, which is difficult of explanation and dimly seen. What nature are we to attribute to this new kind of being? We reply, that it is the receptacle, and in a manner the nurse, of all generation.

I have spoken the truth ; but I must express myself in clearer language, and this will be an arduous task for many reasons, and in particular because I must first raise questions concerning fire and the other elements, and determine what each of them is ; for to say, with any probability or certitude, which of them ' Putting the comma after iiaXkov f)l\ or, following Stallbaum and omitting the comma, ' or rather, before entering on this probable discussion, we will begin again, and try to speak of each thing and of all.'

should be called water rather than fire, and which should be called any of them rather than all or some one of them, is a difficult matter. How, then, shall we settle this point, and what questions about the elements may be fairly raised? In the first place, we see that what we just now called water, by condensation, I suppose, becomes stone and earth ; and this same element, when melted and dispersed, passes into vapour and air.

Air, again, when inflamed, becomes fire ; and again fire, when condensed and extinguished, passes once more into the form of air ; and once more, air, when collected and condensed, produces cloud and mist ; and from these, when still more compressed, comes flowing water, and from water comes earth and stones once more ; and thus generation appears to be transmitted from one to the other in a circle.

Thus, then, as the several elements never present themselves in the same form, how can any one have the assurance to assert positively that any of them, whatever it may be, is one thing rather than another? No one can.

But much the safest plan is to speak of tliem as follows: — Anything which we see to be continually changing, as, for example, fire, we must not call ' this ' or ' that,' but rather say that it is ' of such a nature ; ' nor let us speak of water as ' this,' but always as * such ; ' nor must we imply that there is any stability in any of those things which we indicate by the use of the words * this ' and ' that,' supposing ourselves to signify something thereby ; for they are too volatile to be detained in any such expressions as ' this,' or * that,' or ' relative to this,' or any other mode of speaking which represents them as permanent.

We ought not to apply ' this ' to any of them, but rather the word ' such ; ' which expresses the similar principle circulating in each and all of them ; for example, that should be called ' fire ' which is of such a nature always, and so of everything that has generation.

That in which the elements severally grow up, and appear, and decay, is alone to be called by the name ' this ' or * that ; ' but that which is of a certain nature, hot or white, or anything which admits of opposite qualities, and all things that are compounded of them, ought not to be so denominated. Let me make another attempt to explain my meaning more clearly. Suppose a person to make all kinds

T imams. TiMAEUS.

Since the elements are perpetually changing into and out of one another and have in them nothing permanent, they should be called, not ' this ' or 'that,' but always 'such.' Unchanging space is the only fixed nature.

An illustration.

470

The nature of space.

Ttmaeus. TiMAEUS.

Space is that which, being without form, can receive any form, i. e. the impress of any idea.

The three natures which have been assumed may be likened to a father, child, and mother.

of figures of gold and to be always transmuting one form into all the rest; — somebody points to one of them and asks what it is.

By far the safest and truest answer is, That is gold ; and not to call the triangle or any other figures which are formed in the gold ' these,' as though they had existence, since they are in process of change while he is making the assertion; but if the questioner be willing to take the safe and indefinite expression, 'such,' we should be satisfied.

And the same argument applies to the universal nature which receives all bodies — that must be always called the same ; for, while receiving all things, she never departs at all from her own nature, and never in any way, or at any time, assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her ; she is the natural recipient of all impressions, and is stirred and informed by them, and appears different from time to time by reason of them.

But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the hkenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner, which we will hereafter investigate. For the present we have only to conceive of three natures : first, that which is in process of generation ; secondly, that in which the generation takes place ; and thirdly, that of which the thing generated is a resemblance.

And we may liken the receiving principle to a mother, and the source or spring to a father, and the intermediate nature to a child ; and may remark further, that if the model is to take every variety of form, then the matter in which the model is fashioned will not be duly prepared, unless it is formless, and free from the impress of any of those shapes which it is hereafter to receive from without.

For if the matter were like any of the supervening forms, then whenever any opposite or entirely different nature was stamped upon its surface, it would take the impression badly, because it would intrude its own shape.

Wherefore, that which is to receive all forms should have no form ; as in making perfumes they first contrive that the liquid substance which is to receive the scent shall be as inodorous as possible ; or as those who wish to impress figures on soft substances do not allow any previous impression to remain, but begin by making the surface as even and smooth as possible. 5 1 In the same way that which is to receive perpetually and

through its whole extent the resemblances of all eternal beings ought to be devoid of any particular form.

Wherefore, the mother and receptacle of all created and visible and in any way sensible things, is not to be termed earth, or air, or fire, or water, or any of their compounds, or any of the elements from which these are derived, but is an invisible and formless being which receives all things and in some mysterious way partakes of the intelligible, and is most incomprehensible.

In saying this we shall not be far wrong ; as far, however, as we can attain to a knowledge of her from the previous considerations, we may truly say ^hat fire is that part of her nature which from time to time is inflamed, and water that which is moistened, and that the mother substance becomes earth and air, in so far as she receives the impressions of them. Let us consider this question more precisely.

Is there any self-existent fire? and do all those things which we call self-existent exist? or are only those things which we see, or in some way perceive through the bodily organs, tnily existent, and nothing whatever besides them? And is all that which we call an intelligible essence nothing at all, and only a name?

Here is a question which we must not leave unexamined or undetermined, nor must we affirm too confidently that there can be no decision ; neither must we interpolate in our present long discourse a digression equally long, but if it is possible to set forth a great principle in a few words, that is just what we want.

Thus I state my view : — If mind and true opinion are two distinct classes, then I say that there certainly are these selfexistent ideas unperceived by sense, and apprehended only by the mind ; if, however, as some say, true opinion differs in no respect from mind, then everything that we perceive through the body is to be regarded as most real and certain.

But we must affirm them to be distinct, for they have a distinct origin and are of a different nature ; the one is implanted in us by instruction, the other by persuasion ; the one is always accompanied by true reason, the other is without reason ; the one cannot be overcome by persuasion, but the other can : and lastly, ever)'^ man may be said to share in true opinion, but mind is the attribute of the gods and of very few

Tintaeus. TlMAEUS.

The elements are only affections of space, produced by the impression of ideas.

But have ideas any existence ?

We must admit that they have, if, as is the case, mind and true opinion differ; for corresponding to the difference between these mental states, there mu^t be a difference

472 Thrtaeus. TiMAEUS. between the objects apprehended by them.

Space is not perceived by sense, but by a kind of spurious reason.

Space, being, and generation existed before the heaven. Space, on taking the forms of the elements, was filled with dissimilar

The three original natures — being, space, generation. men. Wherefore alsopve must acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the same, uncreated and indestructible, never receiving anything into itself from without, nor itself going out to any other, but invisible and imperceptible by any sense, and of which the contemplation is granted to intelligence only.

And there is another nature of the same name with it; and like to it, perceived by sense, created, always in motion, becoming in place and again vanishing out of place, which is apprehended by opinion and sense.

And there is a third nature, which is space, and is eternal, and admits not of destruction and provides a home for all created things, and is apprehended without the help of sense, by a kind of spurious reason, and is hardly real ; which we beholding as in a dream, say of all existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy a space, but that what is neither in heaven nor in earth has no existence.

Of these and other things of the same kind, relating to the true and waking reality of nature, we have only this dreamlike sense, and we are unable to cast off sleep and determine the truth about them.

For an image, since the reality, after which it is modelled, does not belong to it ^, and it exists ever as the fleeting shadow of some other, must be inferred to be in another [i. e. in space], grasping existence in some way or other, or it could not be at all.

But true and exact reason, vindicating the nature of true being, maintains that while two things [i. e. the image and space] are different they cannot exist one of them in the other and so be one and also two at the same time.

Thus have I concisely given the result of my thoughts ; and my verdict is that being and space and generation, these three, existed in their three ways before the heaven ; and that the nurse of generation, moistened by water and inflamed by fire, and receiving the forms of earth and air, and experiencing all the affections which accompany these, presented a strange variety of appearances ; and being full of powers .which were neither similar nor equally balanced, was never in any part in a state of equipoise, but swaying un-

evenly hither and thither, was shaken by them, and by its motion again shook them ; and the elements when moved were separated and carried continually, some one way, some another ; as, when grain is shaken and winnowed by fans and other instruments used in the threshing of corn, the 53 close and heavy particles are borne away and settle in one direction, and the loose and light particles in another.

In this manner, the four kinds or elements were then shaken by the receiving vessel, which, moving like a winnowing machine, scattered far away from one another the elements most unlike, and forced the most similar elements into close contact. Wherefore also the various elements had different places before they were arranged so as to form the universe. At first, they were all without reason and measure.

But when the world began to get into order, fire and water and earth and air had only certain faint traces of themselves, and were altogether such as everything might be expected to be in the absence of God ; this, I say, was their nature at that time, and God fashioned them by form and number.

Let it be consistently maintained by us in all that we say that God made them as far as possible the fairest and best, out of things which were not fair and good. And now I will endeavour to show you the disposition and generation of them by an unaccustomed argument, which I am compelled to use ; but I believe that you will be able to follow me, for your education has made you familiar with the methods of science.

In the first place, then, as is evident to all, fire and earth and water and air are bodies.

And every sort of body possesses solidity, and every solid must necessarily be contained in planes ; and every plane rectilinear figure is composed of triangles ; and all triangles are originally of two kinds, both of which are made up of one right and two acute angles ; one of them has at either end of the base the half of a divided right angle, having equal sides, while in the other the right angle is divided into unequal parts, having ! unequal sides.

These, then, proceeding by a combination of probability with demonstration, we assume to be the original elements of fire and the other bodies ; but the principles which are prior to these God only knows, and he of men

Tiviaeus. TlMAEUS. forces, which swayed her to .-xnd fro. Thus earth, air, fire and water, were sifted into their proper places, while they were yet in a rudimentary state, before Clod perfected them by form and number.

The manner of their generation was as follows: — The four elements are solid bodies, and all solids are made up of plane surfaces, and all plane surfaces of triangles. All triangles

474

The two component elements of space.

Timaeus. \ TiMAEUS. are ultimately of two kinds, — i. e. the rectangular isosceles, and the rectangular scalene.

The rectangular isosceles, which has but one form, and that one of the many forms of scalene which is half of an equilateral triangle were chosen for making the elements.

Three of them are generated out of the latter: the fourth alone from the former. Therefore only three can pass into each other.

who is the friend of God. And next we have to determine what are the four most beautiful bodies which are unlike one another, and of which some are capable of resolution into one another ; for having discovered thus much, we shall know the true origin of earth and fire and of the proportionate and intermediate elements. And then we shall not be willing to allow that there are any distinct kinds of visible bodies fairer than these.

Wherefore we must endeavour to construct the four forms of bodies which excel in beauty, and then we shall be able to say that we have sufficiently apprehended their nature. Now of the two triangles, the isosceles 54 has one form only ; the scalene or unequal-sided has an infinite number.

Of the infinite forms we must select the most beautiful, if we are to proceed in due order, and any \ one who can point out a more beautiful form than ours for I the construction of these bodies, shall carry off the palm, not • as an enemy, but as a friend.

Now, the one which we maintain to be the most beautiful of all the many triangles (and we need not speak of the others) is that of which the double forms a third triangle which is equilateral ; the reason of this would be long to tell ; he who disproves what we are saying, and shows that we are mistaken, may claim a friendly victory.

Then let us choose two triangles, out of which fire and the other elements have been constructed, one isosceles, the other having the square of the longer side equal to three times the square of the lesser side.

Now is the time to explain what was before obscurely said : there was an error in imagining that all the four elements might be generated by and into one another ; this, I say, was an erroneous supposition, for there are generated from the triangles which we have selected four kinds — three from the one which has the sides unequal ; the fourth alone is framed out of the isosceles triangle.

Hence they cannot all be resolved into one another, a great number of small bodies being combined into a few large ones, or the converse. But three of them can be thus resolved and compounded, for they all spring from one, and when the greater bodies are broken up, many small bodies will spring up out of them and take their own proper figures ; or, again, when many small bodies are dissolved into their triangles, if they become

The construction of surfaces and solids. one, they will form one large mass of another kind. So much for their passage into one another. I have now to speak of their several kinds, and show out of what combinations of numbers each of them was formed. The first will be the simplest and smallest construction, and its element is that triangle which has its hypothenuse twice the lesser side.

When two such triangles are joined at the diagonal, and this is repeated three times, and the triangles rest their diagonals and shorter sides on the same point as a centre, a single equilateral triangle is formed out of six triangles ; and four equilateral triangles, if put together, make out of every three plane angles one sohd angle, being 55 that which is nearest to the most obtuse of plane angles; and out of the combination of these four angles arises the first solid form which distributes into equal and similar parts the whole circle in which it is inscribed.

The second species of solid is formed out of the same triangles, which unite as eight equilateral triangles and form one solid angle out of four plane angles, and out of six such angles the second body is completed. And the third body is made up of 120 triangular elements, forming twelve solid angles, each of them included in five plane equilateral triangles, having altogether twenty bases, each of which is an equilateral triangle.

The one element [that is, the triangle which has its hypothenuse twice the lesser side] having generated these figures, generated no more ; but the isosceles triangle produced the fourth elementary figure, which is compounded of four such triangles, joining their right angles in a centre, and forming one equilateral quadrangle.

Six of these united form eight solid angles, each of which is made by the combination of three plane right angles ; the figure of the body thus composed is a cube, having six plane quadrangular equilateral bases. There was yet a fifth combination which God used in the delineation of the universe.

Now, he who, duly reflecting on all this, enquires whether the worlds are to be regarded as indefinite or definite in number, will be of opinion that the notion of their indefiniteness is characteristic of a sadly indefinite and ignorant mind. He, however, who raises the question whether they are to be truly regarded as one or five, takes up a more reasonable

475 Timaeus. TiMAEUS. The first and simplest solid, the pyramid, has four equilateral triangular surfaces, each formed by the union of six rectangular scalene triangles.

The second species, the octahedron, has eight such surfaces, and the third, the icosahedron, twenty.

The fourth, the cube, has six square surfaces, each formed of four rectangular isosceles triangles.

There is also a fifth species. Although there are five elementary solids, there is but one world.

476

The figures of earth, air, fire, water

Tiviaeus. TiMAEUS.

We have now to assign to the four elements their respective forms, — to earth the cube, to water the icosahedron, to air the octahedron, to fire the pyramid.

Individual particles cannot be seen : masses of each kind are visible.

position. Arguing from probabilities, I am of opinion that they are one ; another, regarding the question from another point of view, will be of another mind. But, leaving this enquiry, let us proceed to distribute the elementary forms, which have now been created in idea, among the four elements.

To earth, then, let us assign the cubical form ; for earth is the most immovable of the four and the most plastic of all bodies, and that which has the most stable bases must of necessity be of such a nature.

Now, of the triangles which we assumed at first, that which has two equal sides is by nature more firmly based than that which has unequal sides ; and of the compound figures which are formed out of either, the plane equilateral quadrangle has necessarily a more stable basis than the equilateral triangle, both in the whole and in the parts.

Wherefore, in assigning this figure to earth, we 56 adhere to probability ; and to water we assign that one of the remaining forms which is the least movable ; and the most movable of them to fire ; and to air that which is intermediate. Also we assign the smallest body to fire, and the greatest to water, and the intermediate in size to air ; and, again, the acutest body to fire, and the next in acuteness to air, and the third to water.

Of all these elements, that which has the fewest bases must necessarily be the most movable, for it must be the acutest and most penetrating in every way, and also the lightest as being composed of the smallest number of similar particles : and the second body has similar properties in a second degree, and the third body in the third degree.

Let it be agreed, then, both according to strict reason and according to probability, that the pyramid is the solid which is the original element and seed of fire ; and let us assign the element whi'ch was next in the order of generation to air, and the third to water.

We must imagine all these to be so small that no single particle of any of the four kinds is seen by us on account of their smallness : but when many of them are collected together their aggregates are seen. And the ratios of their numbers, motions, and other properties, everywhere God, as far as necessity allowed or gave consent, has exactly perfected, and harmonized in due proportion.

From all that we have just been saying about the elements or kinds, the most probable conclusion is as follows: — earth, when meeting with fire and dissolved by its sharpness, whether the dissolution take place in the fire itself or perhaps in some mass of air or water, is borne hither and thither, until its parts, meeting together and mutually harmonizing, again become earth ; for they can never take any other form.

But water, when divided by fire or by air, on re-forming, may become one part fire and two parts air ; and a single volume of air divided becomes two of fire.

Again, when a small body of fire is contained in a larger body of air or water or earth, and both are moving, and the fire struggling is overcome and broken up, then two volumes of fire form one volume of air ; and when air is overcome and cut up into small pieces, two and a half parts of air are condensed into one part of water. Let us consider the matter in another way.

When one of the other elements is 57 fastened upon by fire, and is cut by the sharpness of its angles and sides, it coalesces with the fire, and then ceases to be cut by them any longer. For no element which is one and the same with itself can be changed by or change another of the same kind and in the same state. But so long as in the process of transition the weaker is fighting against the stronger, the dissolution continues. .

Again, when a few small particles, enclosed in many larger ones, are in process of decomposition and extinction, they only cease from their tendency to extinction when they consent to pass into the conquering nature, and fire becomes air and air water.

But if bodies of another kind go and attack them |i. e. the small particles], the latter continue to be dissolved until, being completely forced back and dispersed, they make their escape to their ow^n kindred, or else, being overcome and assimilated to the conquering power, they remain where they are and dwell with their victors, and from being many become one.

And owing to these affections, all things are changing their place, for by the motion of the receiving vessel the bulk of each class is distributed into its proper place ; but those things which become unlike themselves and like other things, are hurried by the shaking into the place of the things to which they grow like.

Titntuus. TiMAEUS. Of the three elements, fire, air, water, a denser, if overpowered by a rarer, is forced to change into a rarer, and xiice versa. Earth, however, which is the densest of all, cannot change, because its component triangles are unlike those of the other elements.

Change of nature is accompanied by change of place.

478

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. The varieties of the four elements are due to differences in the size of the elementary triangles.

How is it that the elements are perpetually moving? — i. e. How is absence of uniformity, the condition of motion, secured for them?

We have seen that there is a continual tendency to produce uniformity, due to the motion of the receiving vessel. There is also a tendency to destroy it, due to the revolution of the universe, which thrusts the elements into each other.

The perpetual motion of them explained. Now all unmixed and primary bodies are produced by such causes as these. As to the subordinate species which are included in the greater kinds, they are to be attributed to the varieties in the structure of the two original triangles.

For either structure did not originally produce the triangle of one size only, but some larger and some smaller, and there are as many sizes as there are species of the four elements. Hence when they are mingled with themselves and with one another there is an endless variety of them, which those who would arrive at the probable truth of nature ought duly to consider.

Unless a person comes to an understanding about the nature and conditions of rest and motion, he will meet with many difficulties in the discussion which follows. Something has been said of this matter already, and something more remains to be said, which is, that motion never exists in what is uniform.

For to conceive that anything can be moved without a mover is hard or indeed impossible, and equally impossible to conceive that there can be a mover unless there be something which can be moved; — motion cannot exist where either of these are wanting, and for these to be uniform is impossible ; wherefore we must assign rest to uniformity and motion to the want of uniformity.

Now 58 inequality is the cause of the nature which is wanting in uniformity ; and of this we have already described the origin. But there still remains the further point — why things when divided after their kinds do not cease to pass through one another and to change their place — which we will now proceed to explain.

In the revolution of the universe are comprehended all the four elements, and this being circular and having a tendency to come together, compresses everything and will not allow any place to be left void. Wherefore, also, fire above all things penetrates everywhere, and air next, as being next in rarity of the elements ; and the two other elements in hke manner penetrate according to their degrees of rarity.

For those things which are composed of the largest particles have the largest void left in their compositions, and those which are composed of the smallest particles have the least. And the contraction caused by the compression thrusts the smaller particles into the interstices

Wij'ictics of fire y air, water. 479 of the larger. And thus, when the small parts are placed Tmiaeus. side by side with the larger, and the lesser divide the greater Timaeus. and the greater unite the lesser, all the elements are borne up and down and hither and thither towards their own places ; for the change in the size of each changes its position in space. And these causes generate an inequality which is always maintained, and is continually creating a perpetual motion of the elements in all time. In the next place we have to consider that there are divers Kinds of kinds of fire. There are, for example, first, flame; and J-'v'^fl^g. secondly, those emanations of flame which do not burn but 00 light; only give light to the eyes ; thirdly, the remains of fire, which Kiidstf'^^* are seen in red-hot embers after the flame has been extin- air:— guished. There are similar differences in the air; of which illx^n^-^t^*^ ' the brightest part is called the aether, and the most turbid There are also sort mist and darkness ; and there are various other name- '^^.ijhout" ^ less kinds which arise from the inequality of the triangles, names. Water, again, admits in the first place of a division into two

water: —

kinds; the one liquid and the other fusile. The liquid kind (OHquid; is composed of the small and unequal particles of water ; The "former is and moves itself and is moved by other bodies owing to the mobile; the ..-. Ill c • • ^ 1 latter is solid, want of uniformity and the shape or its particles ; whereas but melts the fusile kind, being formed of large and uniform particles, is ^^^^ heated, more stable than the other, and is heavy and compact by again as reason of its uniformity. But when fire gets in and dissolves '' '^°°'^- the particles and destroys the uniformity, it has greater mobility, and becoming fluid is thrust forth by the neighbouring air and spreads upon the earth ; and this dissolution of the solid masses is called melting, and their spreading out 59 upon the earth flowing. Again, when the fire goes out of the fusile substance, it does not pass into a vacuum, but into the neighbouring air ; and the air which is displaced forces together the Hquid and still movable mass into the place which was occupied by the fire, and unites it with itself. Thus compressed the mass resumes its equability, and is again at unity with itself, because the fire which was the author of the inequality has retreated ; and this departure of the fire is called cooling, and the coming together which follows upon it is termed congealment. Of all the kinds Of the fusile termed fusile, that which is the densest and is formed out of '^'"'^ ^""^

48o

Various kir^ds of fusile and liquid substances.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. (1) gold, ' (2) adamant, (3) copper.

The phenomenon of rust.

To natural science the student of the eternal may turn for recreation.

From water of the liquid kind are formed

(i)hail or ice, (2) snow, (3) hoar-frost,

(4) juices in general and four in particular,— i. e.

the finest and most uniform parts is that most precious possession called gold, which is hardened by filtration through rock ; this is unique in kind, and has both a glittering and a yellow colour. A shoot of gold, which is so dense as to be very hard, and takes a black colour, is termed adamant.

There is also another kind which has parts nearly like gold, and of which there are several species ; it is denser than gold, and it contains a small and fine portion of earth, and is therefore harder, yet also hghter because of the great interstices which it has within itself ; and this substance, which is one of the bright and denser kinds of water, when solidified is called copper.

There is an alloy of earth mingled with it, which, when the two parts grow old and are disunited, shows itself separately and is called rust. The remaining phenomena of the same kind there will be no difficulty in reasoning out by the method of probabiHties.

A man may sometimes set aside meditations about eternal things, and for recreation turn to consider the truths of generation which are probable only ; he will thus gain a pleasure not to be repented of, and secure for himself while he lives a wise and moderate pastime. Let us grant ourselves this indulgence, and go through the probabilities relating to the same subjects which follow next in order.

Water which is mingled with fire, so much as is fine and liquid (being so called by reason of its motion and the way in which it rolls along the ground), and soft, because its bases give way and are less stable than those of earth, when separated from fire and air and isolated, becomes more uniform, and by their retirement is compressed into itself ; and if the condensation be very great, the water above the earth becomes hail, but on the earth, ice ; and that which is congealed in a less degree and is only half solid, when above the earth is called snow, and when upon the earth, and condensed from dew, hoar-frost.

Then, again, there are the numerous kinds of water which have been mingled with one another, and are distilled through plants which grow in the earth ; and this whole class is called by the name of juices or saps. The unequal admixture of these fluids creates 60 a variety of species ; most of them are nameless, but four which are of a fiery nature are clearly distinguished and have

Various kiftds of earth. 48 1 names.

First, there is wine, which warms the soul as well nmaeus. as the body : secondly, there is the oily nature, which is timaeus. smooth and divides the visual ray, and for this reason is (a) wine, bright and shining and of a glistening appearance, including (b) oil, pitch, the juice of the castor berry, oil itself, and other things of a like kind : thirdly, there is the class of substances which (c) honey, expand the contracted parts ^ of the mouth, until they return to their natural state, and by reason of this property create sweetness; — these are included under the general name of honey : and, lastly, there is a frothy nature, which differs (d) vegetable from all juices, having a burning quality which dissolves *^' " the flesh ; it is called opos (a vegetable acid).

As to the kinds of earth, that which is filtered through Kinds of water passes into stone in the following manner : — The water ?.^'^'*^'~ , ^ ^ (1) rock, of which mixes with the earth and is broken up in the process which there chancres into air, and taking this form mounts into its own ^^^^T'^ o ' o ^ species; place.

But as there is no surrounding vacuum it thrusts away the neighbouring air, and this being rendered heavy, and, when it is displaced, having been poured around the mass of earth, forcibly compresses it and drives it into the vacant space whence the new air had come up ; and the earth when compressed by the air into an indissoluble union with water becomes rock.

The fairer sort is that which is made up of equal and similar parts and is transparent ; that which has the opposite qualities is inferior. But when all the watery (ii) earthenpart is suddenly drawn out by fire, a more brittle substance ^^^^' is formed, to which we give the name of pottery. Sometimes (iii) a ceruin also moisture may remain, and the earth which has been f°"f ° ^ .

' . black colour ; fused by fire becomes, when cool, a certain stone of a black colour.

A like separation of the water which had been copiously mingled with them may occur in two substances composed of finer particles of earth and of a briny nature ; out of either of them a half-solid body is then formed, soluble in water — the one, soda, which is used for purging (iv)soda; away oil and earth, the other, salt, which harmonizes so well (v)sait: in combinations pleasing to the palate, and is, as the law testifies, a substance dear to the gods.

The compounds of (^') '^Q'"- pounds of earth and water are not soluble by water, but by fire only, earth and I Cp. 65 C, 66 C. VOL. III. — 46

482

Compounds of earth and water — their dissohUion.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. water, including a. glass and fusile stones, and b. wax and incense. — These compounds, like compressed earth or water, are soluble by fire only, which penetrates the water in them. Earth and water, however, in their natural state are soluble, the former by water only, the latter by fire and air.

From objects of sense we pass on to consider flesh, which perceives sensations, and sensations themselves.

and for this reason: — Neither fire nor air melt masses of earth ; for their particles, being smaller than the interstices in its structure, have plenty of room to move without forcing their way, and so they leave the earth unmelted and undissolved ; but particles of water, which are larger, force a passage, and dissolve and melt the earth.

Wherefore 6i earth when not consolidated by force is dissolved by water only ; when consolidated, by nothing but fire ; for this is the only body which can find an entrance. The cohesion of water again, when very strong, is dissolved by fire only — when weaker, then either by air or fire — the former entering the interstices, and the latter penetrating even the triangles.

But nothing can dissolve air, when strongly condensed, which does not reach the elements or triangles ; or if not strongly condensed, then only fire can dissolve it.

As to bodies composed of earth and water, while the water occupies the vacant interstices of the earth in them which are compressed by force, the particles of water which approach them from without, finding no entrance, flow around the entire mass and leave it undissolved ; but the particles of fire, entering into the interstices of the water, do to the water what water does to earth and fire to air^, and are the sole causes of the compound body of earth and water liquefying and becoming fluid.

Now these bodies are of two kinds ; some of them, such as glass and the fusible sort of stones, have less water than they have earth ; on the other hand, substances of the nature of wax and incense have more of water entering into their composition.

I have thus shown the various classes of bodies as they are diversified by their forms and combinations and changes into one another, and now I must endeavour to set forth their affections and the causes of them. In the first place, the bodies which I have been describing are necessarily objects of sense. But we have not yet considered the origin of flesh, or what belongs to flesh, or of that part of the soul which is mortal.

And these things cannot be adequately explained without also explaining the affections which are concerned with sensation, nor the latter without the former :

The cause of heat ajid cold, hardness and softjicss. 483 and yet to explain them together is hardly possible ; for which nmaeus. reason we must assume first one or the other and afterwards Timaeus. examine the nature of our hypothesis ^ In order, then, that the affections may follow regularly after the elements, let us presuppose the existence of body and soul. First, let us enquire what we mean by saying that fire is i.

Sensations hot ; and about this we may reason from the dividing or ♦^o"''""" '° cutting power which it exercises on our bodies.

We all of body:— us feel that fire is sharp ; and we may further consider the ^^^ ^^^'; ^"'^ fineness of the sides, and the sharpness of the angles, and the nessoffire, smallness of the particles, and the swiftness of the motion ; ^g'^g^h"''' — all this makes the action of fire violent and sharp, so that 62 it cuts whatever it meets.

And we must not forget that the original figure of fire [i. e. the pyramid], more than any other form, has a dividing power which cuts our bodies into small pieces {KepfiaTi^ei), and thus naturally produces that affection which we call heat ; and hence the origin of the name {Oepiibg, KEpfia). Now, the opposite of this is sufficiently manifest; (a) Coid, due nevertheless we will not fail to describe it.

For the larger ^° <^°"^''^'=*'0" particles of moisture which surround the body, entering in and driving out the lesser, but not being able to take their places, compress the moist principle in us ; and this from being unequal and disturbed, is forced by them into a state of rest, which is due to equability and compression.

But things which are contracted contrary to nature are by nature at war, and force themselves apart ; and to this- war and convulsion the name of shivering and trembling is given ; and the whole affection and the cause of the affection are both termed cold.

That is called hard to which our (3) Hardness, flesh yields, and soft which yields to our flesh; and things ness,the°' are also termed hard and soft relatively to one another, qualities in That which yields has a small base ; but that which rests on ^ake them quadrangular bases is firmly posed and belongs to the class "■^'^'^^ ^^ y*'*' which offers the greatest resistance ; so too does that which is the most compact and therefore most repellent.

The nature of the hght and the heavy will be best understood (5) Lightness, when examined in connexion with our notions of above and ^^^.^^ ^^^ \^'^^' below ; for it is quite a mistake to suppose that the universe to be ' Omitting varcpa.

484

Explanation of lightness and heaviness.

Titnaeus. TiMAEUS. explained by dividing the world into an upper and a lower region. For the universe is shaped like a globe, and its extremes, being similarly related to the centre, cannot have opposite predicates applied to them.

Lightness and heaviness are really due to attraction. Bodies are drawn towards the mass of their kindred with a force proportionate to their size. The greater this force, the greater the weight.

is parted into two regions, separate from and opposite to each other, the one a lower to which all things tend which have any bulk, and an upper to which things only ascend against their will. For as the universe is in the form of a sphere, all the extremities, being equidistant from the centre, are equally extremities, and the centre, which is equidistant from them, is equally to be regarded as the opposite of them all.

Such being the nature of the world, when a person says that any of these points is above or below, may he not be justly charged with using an improper expression? For the centre of the world cannot be rightly called either above or below, but is the centre and nothing else ; and the circumference is not the centre, and has in no one part of itself a different relation to the centre from what it has in any of the opposite parts.

Indeed, when it is in every direction similar, how can one rightly give to it names which imply opposition ?

For if there were any solid body in equipoise at the centre of the 63 universe, there would be nothing to draw it to this extreme rather than to that, for they are all perfectly similar ; and if a person were to go round the world in a circle, he would often, when standing at the antipodes of his former position, speak of the same point as above and below ; for, as I was saying just now, to speak of the whole which is in the form of a globe as having one part above and another below is not like a sensible man.

The reason why these names are used, and the circumstances under which they are ordinarily applied by us to the division of the heavens, may be elucidated by the following supposition: — If a person were to stand in that part of the universe which is the appointed place of fire, and where there is the great mass of fire to which fiery bodies gather — if, I say, he were to ascend thither, and, having the power to do this, were to abstract particles of fire and put them in scales and weigh them, and then, raising the balance, were to draw the fire by force towards the uncongenial element of the air, it would be very evident that he could compel the smaller mass more readily than the larger ; for when two things are simultaneously raised by one and the same power, the smaller body must necessarily yield to the superior power with less reluctance than the larger ; and the larger body is called heavy and said to tend downwards, and the smaller

They are the effects of attraction. 485 body is called light and said to tend upwards. And we may nmacus. detect ourselves who are upon the earth doing precisely the timaeus. same thing. For we often separate earthy natures, and sometimes earth itself, and draw them into the uncongenial element of air by force and contrary to nature, both clinging to their kindred elements.

But that which is smaller yields to the impulse given by us towards the dissimilar element more easily than the larger ; and so we call the former light, and the place towards which it is impelled we call above, and the contrary state and place we call heavy and below respectively.

Now the relations of these must necessarily vary, because the principal masses of the different elements hold opposite positions ; for that which is light, heavy, below or above in one place will be found to be and become contrary and transverse and every way diverse in relation to that which is light, heavy, below or above in an opposite place.

And about all of them this has to be considered: — that the tendency of each towards its kindred element makes the body which is moved heavy, and the place towards which the motion tends below, but things which have an opposite tendency we call by an opposite name. Such are the causes which we assign to these phenomena. As to the smooth and the rough, any one who sees them can explain the reason of (7) Roughthem to another.

For roughness is hardness mingled with ""^' ^" 64 irregularity, and smoothness is produced by the joint effect (8)Smoothof uniformity and density.

The most important of the affections which concern the How is it that whole body remains to be considered, — that is, the cause of ^^"^^^'°"'^ ^J"*-" ^ ' ' accompanied pleasure and pain in the perceptions of which I have been by pleasure speaking, and in all other things which are perceived by ^^^^l^^^^^ sense through the parts of the body, and have both pains arise thus, and pleasures attendant on them.

Let us imagine the causes " ° ^^^)^ r o comes into of every affection, whether of sense or not, to be of the fol- contact with lowing nature, remembering that we have already distin- sense^xhl if guished between the nature which is easy and which is hard composed of to move ; for this is the direction in which we must hunt the ^JJ^ ^^^^'^ ^''' prey which we mean to take.

A body which is of a nature to <^ye or car, be easily moved, on receiving an impression however slight, spreads abroad the motion in a circle, the parts communicating with each other, until at last, reaching the principle of

486

The cause of pleasure and pain.

Titnaeus. TiMAEUS. readily transmits the motion to the soul; if of larger, like the bones, less readily. The result is sensation. — As regards pleasure and pain — an organ consisting of large particles is more liable to them than an organ of the opposite kind. Pain arises when the particles are suddenly disturbed, pleasure when they are suddenly restored to their natural state.

mind, they announce the quahty of the agent. But a body of the opposite kind, being immobile, and not extending to the surrounding region, merely receives the impression, and does not stir any of the neighbouring parts ; and since the parts do not distribute the original impression to other parts, it has no effect of motion on the whole animal, and therefore produces no effect on the patient.

This is true of the bones and hair and other more earthy parts of the human body ; whereas what was said above relates mainly to sight and hearing, because they have in them the greatest amount of fire and air. Now we must conceive of pleasure and pain in this way.

An impression produced in us contrary to nature and violent, if sudden, is painful ; and, again, the sudden return to nature is pleasant ; but a gentle and gradual return is imperceptible and vice versa.

On the other hand the impression of sense which is most easily produced is most readily felt, but is not accompanied by pleasure or pain ; such, for example, are the affections of the sight, which, as we said above, is a body naturally uniting with our body in the day-time (45) ; for cuttings and burnings and other affections which happen to the sight do not giv.e pain, nor is there pleasure when the sight returns to its natural state ; but the sensations are clearest and strongest according to the manner in which the eye is affected by the object, and itself strikes and touches it ; there is no violence either in the contraction or dilation of the eye.

But bodies formed of larger particles yield to the agent only with a struggle ; and then they impart their motions to the whole and cause pleasure and pain — pain when alienated from their natural conditions, and pleasure when restored to them.

Things which ex- 65 perience gradual withdrawings and emptyings of their nature, and great and sudden replenishments, fail to perceive the emptying, but are sensible of the replenishment ; and so they occasion no pain, but the greatest pleasure, to the mortal part of the soul, as is manifest in the case of perfumes.

But things which are changed all of a sudden, and only gradually and with difficulty return to their own nature, have effects in every way opposite to the former, as is evident in the case of burnings and cuttings of the body. Thus have we discussed the general affections of the whole

TJic affections of tJic iotignc. 487 body, and the names of the agents which produce them. And Thnaeus. now I will endeavour to speak of the affections of particular Timaeus. parts, and the causes and agents of them, as far as I am able. ii. Affections In the first place let us set forth what was omitted when we ofpanicuiar organs : — were speakmg of juices, concerning the affections peculiar to (o of the the tongue.

These too, like most of the other affections, ^°"b"*^ — . produced by appear to be caused by certain contractions and dilations, but contraction they have besides more of roughness and smoothness than is ^"^. '^''''*""" "' ^ , of the veins found in other affections ; for whenever earthy particles enter They are as into the small veins which are the testing instruments of the '"""^^• " a.

Astnntongue, reaching to the heart, and fall upon the moist, delicate gency. portions of flesh — when, as they are dissolved, they contract and dry up the little veins, they are astringent if they are i>. Harshness, rougher, but if not so rough, then only harsh. Those of c.

Bitterness, them which are of an abstergent nature, and purge the whole surface of the tongue, if they do it in excess, and so encroach as to consume some part of the flesh itself, like potash and soda, are all termed bitter. But the particles d. SaUness. which are deficient in the alkaline quality, and which cleanse only moderately, are called salt, and having no bitterness or roughness, are regarded as rather agreeable than otherwise.

Bodies which share in and are made smooth by the heat of e. Pungency, the mouth, and which are inflafned, and again in turn inflame that which heats them, and which are so light that they are carried upwards to the sensations of the head, and cut all 66 that comes in their way, by reason of these qualities in them, are all termed pungent.

But when these same particles, / Acidity. refined by putrefaction, enter into the naiTow veins, and are duly proportioned to the particles of earth and air which are there, they set them whirling about one another, and while they are in a whirl cause them to dash against and enter into one another, and so form hollows surrounding the particles that enter — which watery vessels of air (for a film of moisture, sometimes earthy, sometimes pure, is spread around the air) are hollow spheres of water ; and those of them which are pure, are transparent, and are called bubbles, while those composed of the earthy liquid, which is in a state of general agitation and effervescence, are said to boil or ferment; — of all these affections the cause is termed acid. And there is e- Sweetness. the opposite affection arising from an opposite cause, when

488

Smells and sounds.

Tintaeus. TiMAEUS.

(2) Of the nostrils. Smells can only be distinguished as pleasant or the reverse. The substances which emit them, vapour and mist, are halfformed, being intermediate between water and air.

(3) Of the ear. Hounds are blows which pass through the ears to the soul. They are acute and grave, smooth and harsh, &c.

the mass of entering particles, immersed in the moisture of the mouth, is congenial to the tongue, and smooths and oils over the roughness, and relaxes the parts which are unnaturally contracted, and contracts the parts which are relaxed, and disposes them all according to their nature; — that sort of remedy of violent affections is pleasant and agreeable to every man, and has the name sweet. But enough of this.

The faculty of smell does not admit of differences of kind ; for all smells are of a half-formed nature, and no element is so proportioned as to have any smell.

The veins about the nose are too narrow to admit earth and water, and too wide to detain fire and air ; and for this reason no one ever perceives the smell of any of them ; but smells always proceed from bodies that are damp, or putrefying, or liquefying, or evaporating, and are perceptible- only in the intermediate state, when water is changing into air and air into water ; and all of them are either vapour or mist.

That which is passing out of air into water is mist, and that which is passing from water into air is vapour ; and hence all smells are thinner than water and thicker than air. The proof of this is, that when there is any obstruction to the respiration, and a man draws in his breath by force, then no smell filters through, but the air without the smell alone penetrates.

Wherefore the varieties of smell have no name, and they 67 have not many, or definite and simple kinds ; but they are distinguished only as painful and pleasant, the one sort irritating and disturbing the whole cavity which is situated between the head and the navel, the other having a soothing influence, and restoring this same region to an agreeable and natural condition.

In considering the third kind of sense, hearing, we must speak of the causes in which it originates. We may in general assume sound to be a blow which passes through the ears, and is transmitted by means of the air, the brain, and the blood, to the soul, and that hearing is the vibration of this blow, which begins in the head and ends in the region of the liver.

The sound which moves swiftly is acute, and the sound which moves slowly is grave, and that which is regular is equable and smooth, and the reverse is harsh. A

Varieties of colour. 489 great body of sound is loud, and a small oody of sound the Timaeus. reverse. Respecting the harmonies of sound I must hereafter Timaeus. speak. There is a fourth class of sensible things, having many (4) Of the eye. intricate varieties, which must now be distinguished.

They flan°en^^tted are called by the general name of colours, and are a flame by objects. which emanates from every sort of body, and has particles corresponding to the sense of sight. 1 have spoken already, in what has preceded, of the causes which generate sight, and in this place it will be natural and suitable to give a rational theory of colours.

Of the particles coming from other bodies which fall upon simple the sight, some are smaller and some are larger, and some are '^°'o"''s are = equal to the parts of the sight itself. Those which are equal a Transare imperceptible, and we call them transparent.

The larger p^""^"'- produce contraction, the smaller dilation, in the sight, exercising a power akin to that of hot and cold bodies on the flesh, or of astringent bodies on the tongue, or of those heating bodies which we termed pungent. White and black are similar effects of contraction and dilation in another sphere, and for this reason have a different appearance.

Wherefore, we ought to term white that which dilates the b. white. visual ray, and the opposite of this black. There is also c. Black. a swifter motion of a different sort of fire which strikes and d.

Bright, dilates the ray of sight until it reaches the eyes, forcing a 68 way through their passages and melting them, and eliciting from them a union of fire and water which we call tears, being itself an opposite fire which comes to them from an opposite direction — the inner fire flashes forth like lightning, and the outer finds a way in and is extinguished in the moisture, and all sorts of colours are generated by the mixture.

This affection is termed dazzling, and the object which produces it is called bright and flashing. There is e. Red. another sort of fire which is intermediate, and which reaches and mingles with the moisture of the eye without flashing ; and in this, the fire mingling with the ray of the moisture, produces a colour like blood, to which we give the name of red.

A bright hue mingled with red and white gives the The com. colour called auburn {^avOdv). The law of proportion, how- ^°i""^areever, according to which the several colours are formed, a. Auburn.

490

Componnd colours — how produced from simple.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS. b. Purple. c. Umber.

(i. Flamecolour. e. Dun. /. Pale yellow. g. Dark blue. h. Light blue. i. Leek green.

These are the necessary causes which God used in creating the universe. They are subservient to the divine, which we must seek, if we wish to attain bliss.

We must complete our account of creation.

even if a man knew he would be foolish in telling, for he could not give any necessary reason, nor indeed any tolerable or probable explanation of them. Again, red, when mingled with black and white, becomes purple, but it becomes umber [op(pvivov) when the colours are burnt as well as mingled and the black is more thoroughly mixed with them.

Flamecolour [TTvppbv) is produced by a union of auburn and dun {(l)aibv), and dun by an admixture of black and white ; pale yellow {(hxpbv), by an admixture of white and auburn. White and bright meeting, and falling upon a full black, become dark blue {fcvavovv), and when dark blue mingles with white, a light blue (yXavKov) colour is formed, as flame-colour with black makes leek green {npdoLov).

There will be no difficulty in seeing how and by what mixtures the colours derived from these are made according to the rules of probability. He, however, who should attempt to verify all this by experiment, would forget the difference of the human and divine nature. For God only has the knowledge and also the power which are able to combine many things into one and again resolve the one into many.

But no man either is or ever will be able to accomplish either the one or the other operation. These are the elements, thus of necessity then subsisting, which the creator of the fairest and best of created things associated with himself, when he made the self-sufficing and most perfect God, using the necessary causes as his ministers in the accompHshment of his work, but himself contriving the good in all his creations.

Wherefore we may distinguish two sorts of causes, the one divine and the other necessary, and may seek for the divine in all things, as far as our nature admits, with a view to the blessed life ; but the necessary 69 kind only for the sake of the divine, considering that without them and when isolated from them, these higher things for Avhich we look cannot be apprehended or received or in any way shared by us.

Seeing, then, that we have now prepared for our use the various classes of causes which are the material out of which the remainder of our discourse must be woven, just as wood is the material of the carpenter, let us revert in a few words to the point at which we began, and then endeavour to add on a suitable ending to the beginning of our tale.

The creation of tJic mortal soul. 491 As I said at first, when all things were in disorder God Timaeus. created in each thing in relation to itself, and in all things in Timaeus. relation to each other, all the measures and harmonies which as we have they could possibly receive. For in those days nothincr had f ^"' ^°^*' •' \ . .

"^ .by reducing any proportion except by accident ; nor did any of the things chaos to order, which now have names deserve to be named at all — as, for '"'^'|«;'^^ world-animal, example, fire, water, and the rest of the elements.

All these which conthe creator first set in order, and out of them he constructed '''""^ f ' °'^*^'^ ' animals, the universe, which was a single animal comprehending in mortal and itself all other animals, mortal and immortal. Now of the ""'^°'"'^'- ' Ihe immortal divine, he himself was the creator, but the creation of the souiofm.an mortal he committed to his offspring.

And they, imitating ^^G^oTthe him, received from him the immortal principle of the soul ; mortal by his and around this they proceeded to fashion a mortal body, former was ^ and made it to be the vehicle of the soul, and constructed set in the within the body a soul of another nature which was mortal, la^t^erinthe subject to terrible and irresistible affections, — first of all, breast and pleasure, the greatest incitement to evil ; then, pain, which deters from good ; also rashness and fear, two foolish counsellors, anger hard to be appeased, and hope easily led astray; — these they mingled with irrational sense and with all-daring love * according to necessary laws, and so framed man.

Wherefore, fearing to pollute the divine any more than was absolutely unavoidable, they gave to the mortal nature a separate habitation in another part of the body, placing the neck between them to be the isthmus and boundary, which they constructed between the head and breast, to keep them apart.

And in the breast, and in what is termed Of the mortal the thorax, they encased the mortal soul ; and as the one part ^°" ' ^^^ ^"^^ ' •' ' ^ two parts : — of this was superior and the other inferior they divided the (1) Passion, 70 cavity of the thorax into two parts, as the women's and men's ^^^^^^^ ^^^ apartments are divided in houses, and placed the midriff to midriff and be a wall of partition between them.

That part of the in- int^ended'to" ferior soul which is endowed with courage and passion "and assist reason loves contention they settled nearer the head, midway be- ^^^'"^ tween the midriff and the neck, in order that it might be under the rule of reason and might join with it in controlling and restraining the desires when they are no longer willing ' Putting a colon after evTrapdyuyov and reading alaSriaei dt d?^y(f).

492

Passion and desire.

Ttmaeus. TlMAEUS. The heart acts as herald and executive of reason, carrying its commands throughout the body.

It is sustained and refreshed by the softness and coolness of the lung.

(2) Desire, chained up between the midriff and the navel, far away from the councilchamber.

Knowing that this part would be guided

of their own accord to obey the word of command issuing from the citadel.

The heart, the knot^ of the veins and the fountain of the blood which races through all the hmbs, was set in the place of guard, that when the might of passion was roused byreason making proclamation of any wrong assailing them from without or being perpetrated by the desires within, quickly the whole power of feeling in the body, perceiving these commands and threats, might obey and follow through every turn and alley, and thus allow the principle of the best to have the command in all of them.

But the gods, foreknowing that the palpitation of the heart in the expectation of danger and the sweUing and excitement of passion was caused by fire, formed and implanted as a supporter to the heart the lung, which was, in the first place, soft and bloodless, and also had within hollows like the pores of a sponge, in order that by receiving the breath and the drink, it might give coolness and the power of respiration and alleviate the heat.

Wherefore they cut the air-channels leading to the lung, and placed the lung about the heart as a soft spring, that, when passion was rife within, the heart, beating against a yielding body, might be cooled and suffer less, and might thus become more ready to join with passion in the service of reason.

The part of the soul which desires meats and drinks and the other things of which it has need by reason of the bodily nature, they placed between the midriff and the boundary of the navel, contriving in all this region a sort of manger for the food of the body ; and there they bound it down like a wild animal which was chained up with man, and must be nourished if man was to exist.

They appointed this lower creation his place here in order that he might be always feeding at the manger, and have his dwelling as far as might be from the council-chamber, making as Httle noise and disturbance as possible, and permitting the best part to , 7J, advise quietly for the good of the whole. And knowing that this lower principle in man would not comprehend reason, and even if attaining to some degree of perception would

The purpose of the liver.

493 never naturally care for rational notions, but that it would rimaeus. be led away by phantoms and visions night and day, — to be timaeus. a remedy for this, God combined with it the liver, and placed by images it in the house of the lower nature, contrivint^ that it should ^'°"'^' *^'°^ constructed be solid and smooth, and bright and sweet, and should also the liver with have a bitter quality, in order that the power of thought, •'« '^"''■or-iike ^ J ' i o 7 surface, in which proceeds from the mind, might be reflected as in a which are mirror which receives likenesses of objects and gives back |'"';^g^'^ '^'^ •' *=" intimations images of them to the sight; and so might strike terror into of reason. the desires, when, making use of the bitter part of the liver, to which it is akin, it comes threatening and invading, and diffusing this bitter element swiftly through the whole liver produces colours like bile, and contracting every part makes it wrinkled and rough ; and twisting out of its right place and contorting the lobe and closing and shutting up the vessels and gates, causes pain and loathing.

And the converse happens when some gentle inspiration of the understanding pictures images of an opposite character, and allays the bile and bitterness by refusing to stir or touch the nature opposed to itself, but by making use of the natural sweetness of the liver, corrects all things and makes them to be right and smooth and free, and renders the portion of the soul which resides about the liver happy and joyful, enabling it to pass the night in peace, and to practise divination in sleep, inasmuch as it has no share in mind and reason.

For the authors of our being, remembering the command of their father when he bade them create the human race as good as they could, that they might correct our inferior parts and make them to attain a measure of truth, placed in the liver the seat of divination. And herein is a proof that God has These imigiven the art of divination not to the wisdom, but to the '"^"o"^^''^ '-' ' given to men foolishness of man.

No man, when in his wits, attains pro- when asleep phetic truth and inspiration ; but when he receives the °'' d^'"^"^^^' \ X- ' but can only inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep, be interpreted or he is demented by some distemper or possession. And ^y'^^esane -' ^ ^ man who is he who would understand what he remembers to have been awake.

7 2 said, whether in a dream or when he was awake, by the prophetic and inspired nature, or would determine by reason the meaning of the apparitions which he has seen, and what indications they afford to this man or that, of past, present or

494

The spleen, bowels.

Tiviaeus. TiMAEUS.

The spleen, like a napkin, keeps the liver clean.

Our account of the soul is probable : God only knows if it is true.

The bowels intended to prevent the food from passing

future good and evil, must first recover his wits. But, while he continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he sees or the words which he utters ; the ancient saying is very true, that * only a man who has his wits can act or judge about himself and his own affairs. And for this rea.son it is customary to appoint interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration.

Some persons call them prophets ; they are quite unaware that they are only the expositors of dark sayings and visions, and are not to be called prophets at all, but only interpreters of prophecy. Such is the nature of the liver, which is placed as we have described in order that it may give prophetic intimations.

During the life of each individual these intimations are plainer, but after his death the liver becomes blind, and delivers oracles too obscure to be intelligible. The neighbouring organ [the spleen] is situated on the left-hand side, and is constructed with a view of keeping the liver bright and pure, — like a napkin, always ready prepared and at hand to clean the mirror.

And hence, when any impurities arise in the region of the liver by reason of disorders of the body, the loose nature of the spleen, which is composed of a hollow and bloodless tissue, receives them all and clears them away, and when filled with the unclean matter, swells and festers, but, again, when the body is purged, settles down into the same place as before, and is humbled.

Concerning the soul, as to which part is mortal and which divine, and how and why they are separated, and where located, if God acknowledges that we have spoken the truth, then, and then only, can we be confident ; still, we may venture to assert that what has been said by us is probable, and will be rendered more probable by investigation. Let us assume thus much.

The creation of the rest of the body follows next in order, and this we may investigate in a similar manner. And it appears to be very meet that the body should be framed on the following principles: — The authors of our race were aware that we should be intemperate in eating and drinking, and take a good deal more than was necessary or proper, by reason of gluttony. In order then that disease might not quickly destroy us, and lest

73 our mortal race should perish without fulfilling its end — intending to provide against this, the gods made what is called the lower belly, to be a receptacle for the superfluous meat and drink, and formed the convolution of the bowels, so that the food might be prevented from passing quickly through and compelling the body to require more food, thus producing insatiable gluttony, and making the whole race an enemy to philosophy and music, and rebellious against the divinest element within us.

The bones and flesh, and other similar parts of us, were made as follows. The first principle of all of them was the generation of the marrow. For the bonds of life which unite the soul with the body are made fast there, and they are the root and foundation of the human race.

The marrow itself is created out of other materials : God took such of the primary triangles as were straight and smooth, and were adapted by their perfection to produce fire and water, and air and earth — these, I say, he separated from their kinds, and mingling them in due proportions with one another, made the marrow out of them to be a universal seed of the whole race of mankind ; and in this seed he then planted and enclosed the souls, and in the original distribution gave to the marrow as many and various forms as the different kinds of souls were hereafter to receive.

That which, like a field, was to receive the divine seed, he made round every way, and called that portion of the marrow, brain, intending that, when an animal was perfected, the vessel containing this substance should be the head ; but that which was intended to contain the remaining and mortal part of the soul he distributed into figures at once round and elongated, and he called them all by the name ' marrow ; ' and to these, as to anchors, fastening the bonds of the whole soul, he proceeded to fashion around them the entire framework of our body, constructing for the marrow, first of all, a complete covering of bone.

Bone was composed by him in the following manner. Having sifted pure and smooth earth he kneaded it and wetted it with marrow, and after that he put it into fire and then into water, and once more into fire and again into water — in this' way by frequent transfers from one to the other he made it insoluble by either. Out of this he fashioned, as in a lathe,

Timneus. TlMAEl'S. away too quickly, that men might not be perpetually occupied in eating and drinking.

Marrow is composed of the most perfect of the elementary triangles, mingled in due proportion. To the marrow of the head the divine soul is fastened, to the marrow of the spine the mortal soul.

Bone is made of fine earth, kneaded with marrow, and dipped repeatedly

496

The flesh and sinews.

Tiniaeus. TiMAEUS. in fire and water. Of bone were fashioned coverings for the brain and the spinal marrow, i.e. the skull and vertebrae. Joints were inserted to give flexion ; the sinews were intended to hold the bones together, the flesh to protect them.

Flesh was formed by blending earth, fire and water, and then mingling with them a ferment of acid and salt ; the sinews by mixing bone and unfermented flesh.

The most sensitive of the bones, as well as the joints, are thinly

a globe made of bone, which he placed around the brain, and 74 in this he left a narrow opening ; and around the marrow of the neck and back he formed vertebrae which he placed under one another like pivots, beginning at the head and extending through the whole of the trunk.

Thus wishing to preserve the entire seed, he enclosed it in a stone-Hke casing, inserting joints, and using in the formation of them the power of the other or diverse as an intermediate nature, that they might have motion and flexure.

Then again, considering that the bone would be too brittle and inflexible, and when heated and again cooled would soon mortify and destroy the seed within — having this in view, he contrived the sinews and the flesh, that so binding all the members together by the sinews, which admitted of being stretched and relaxed about the vertebrae, he might thus make the body capable of flexion and extension, while the flesh would serve as a protection against the summer heat and against the winter cold, and also against falls, softly and easily yielding to external bodies, like articles made of felt ; and containing in itself a warm moisture which in summer exudes and makes the surface damp, would impart a natural coolness to the whole body ; and again in winter by the help of this internal warmth would form a very tolerable defence against the frost which surrounds it and attacks it from without.

He who modelled us, considering these things, mixed earth with fire and water and blended them ; and making a ferment of acid and salt, he mingled it with them and formed soft and succulent flesh.

As for the sinews, he made them of a mixture of bone and unfermented flesh, attempered so as to be in a mean, and gave them a yellow colour ; wherefore the sinews have a firmer and more glutinous nature than flesh, but a softer and moister nature than the bones. With these God covered the bones and marrow, binding them together by sinews, and then enshrouded them all in an upper covering of flesh.

The more living and sensitive of the bones he enclosed in the thinnest film of flesh, and those which had the least life within them in the thickest and most solid flesh. So again on the joints of the bones, where reason indicated that no more was required, he placed only a thin covering of flesh, that it might not interfere with the flexion of our bodies and

make them unwieldy because difficult to move ; and also that it might not, by being crowded and pressed and matted together, destroy sensation by reason of its hardness, and 75 impair the memory and dull the edge of intelligence.

Wherefore also the thighs and the shanks and the hips, and the bones of the arms and the forearms, and other parts which have no joints, and the inner bones, which on account of the rarity of the soul in the marrow are destitute of reason — all these are abundantly provided with flesh ; but such as have mind in them are in general less fleshy, except where the creator has made some part solely of flesh in order to give sensation, — as, for example, the tongue.

But commonly this is not the case. For the nature which comes into being and grows up in us by a law of necessity, does not admit of the combination of solid bone and much flesh with acute perceptions.

More than any other part the framework of the head would have had them, if they could have co-existed, and the human race, having a strong and fleshy and sinewy head, would have had a life twice or many times as long as it now has, and also more healthy and free from pain.

But our creators, considering whether they should make a longerlived race which was worse, or a shorter-lived race which was better, came to the conclusion that every one ought to prefer a shorter span of life, which was better, to a longer one, which was worse ; and therefore they covered the head with thin bone, but not with flesh and sinews, since it had no joints ; and thus the head was added, having more wisdom and sensation than the rest of the body, but also being in every man far weaker.

For these reasons and after this manner God placed the sinews at the extremity of the head, in a circle round the neck, and glued them together by the principle of likeness and fastened the extremities of the jawbones to them below the face, and the other sinews he dispersed throughout the body, fastening limb to limb.

The framers of us framed the mouth, as now arranged, having teeth and tongue and lips, with a view to the necessary and the good, contriving the way in for necessary purposes, the way out for the best purposes ; for that is necessary which enters in and gives food to the body ; but the river of speech, which flows out of a man and ministers to the intelligence, is the fairest VOL. III. — 47

Timaeus. TlMAEUS. covered with flesh: the least sensitive are thickly covered.

Flesh, however, without bone, is sometimes highly sensitive: e. g. the tongue. But this is exceptional; for the chief purpose of the flesh is to give protection, not sensation. And because God wished us to live a rational and not a long life, the head was not covered with flesh.

The mouth was constructed with a view to the necessary and the good.

498

The formation of skin, hair, and nails.

Thnaeus. TiMAEUS. The skull was not left bare, but enveloped with skin (= the film which forms on flesh as it dries).

The sutures and their diversity.

Out of punctures in the skin of the head grew the hair.

Nails are compounded of sinew, skin and bone; they were made with a view to the time when women and animals should

and noblest of all streams. Still the head could neither be left a bare frame of bones, on account of the extremes of heat and cold in the different seasons, nor yet be allowed to be wholly covered, and so become dull and senseless by reason of an overgrowth of flesh. The fleshy nature was not therefore wholly dried up, but a large sort of peel was parted off 7^ and remained over, which is now called the skin.

This met and grew l>y the help of the cerebral moisture, and became the circular envelopment of the head. And the moisture, rising up under the sutures, watered and closed in the skin upon the crown, forming a sort of knot. The diversity of the sutures was caused by the power of the courses of the soul and of the food, and the more these struggled against one another the more numerous they became, and fewer if the struggle were less violent.

This skin the divine power pierced all round with fire, and out of the punctures which were thus made the moisture issued forth, and the liquid and heat which was pure came away, and a mixed part which was composed of the same material as the skin, and had a fineness equal to the punctures, was borne up by its own impulse and extended far outside the head, but being too slow to escape, was thrust back by the external air, and rolled up underneath the skin, where it took root.

Thus the hair sprang up in the skin, being akin to it because it is like threads of leather, but rendered harder and closer through the pressure of the cold, by which each hair, while in process of separation from the skin, is compressed and cooled.

Wherefore the creator formed the head hairy, making use of the causes which I have mentioned, and reflecting also that instead of flesh the brain needed the hair to be a light covering or guard, which would give shade in summer and shelter in winter, and at the same time would not impede our quickness of* perception.

From the combination of sinew, skin, and bone, in the structure of the finger, there arises a triple compound, which, when dried up, takes the form of one hard skin partaking of all three natures, and was fabricated by these second causes, but designed by mind which is the principal cause with an eye to the future.

For our creators well knew that women and other animals would some day be framed out of men, and they further knew that many animals would require the

use of nails for many purposes ; wherefore they fashioned in men at their first creation the rudiments of nails. For this purpose and for these reasons they caused skin, hair, and nails to grow at the extremities of the limbs.

And now that all the parts and members of the mortal 77 animal had come together, since its life of necessity consisted of fire and breath, and it therefore wasted away by dissolution and depletion, the gods contrived the following remedy : They mingled a nature akin to that of man with other forms and perceptions, and thus created another kind of animal.

These are the trees and plants and seeds which have been improved by cultivation and are now domesticated among us ; anciently there were only the wild kinds, which are older than the cultivated.

For everything that partakes of life may be truly called a living being, and the animal of which we are now speaking partakes of the third kind of soul, which is said to be seated between the midriff and the navel, having no part in opinion or reason or mind, but only in feelings of pleasure and pain and the desires which accompany them.

For this nature is always in a passive state, revolving in and about itself, repelling the motion from without and using its own, and accordingly is not endowed by nature with the power of observing or reflecting on its own concerns. Wherefore it lives and does not differ from a living being, but is fixed and rooted in the same spot, having no power of self-motion.

Now after the superior powers had created all these natures to be food for us who are of the inferior nature, they cut various channels through the body as through a garden, that it might be watered as from a running stream. In the first place, they cut two hidden channels or veins down the back where the skin and the flesh join, which answered severally to the right and left side of the body.

These they let down along the backbone, so as to have the marrow of generation between them, where it was most likely to flourish, and in order that the stream coming down from above might flow freely to the other parts, and equalize the irrigation. In the next place, they divided the veins about the head, and interlacing them, they sent them in opposite directions ; those coming from the right side they

Timaeus. TiMAEl'S. spring from man. Seeing that mankind would need food, trees and plants were created. These are animals and have life, being endowed with the lower mortal soul.

Next the gods cut two channels down the back, one on either side of the spine. After this they diverted the veins on the right of the head to the left of the body, and vice versa.

500

The illustration of the fish -trap.

Timaeus. TlMAEUS.

The underlying principle of the irrigation of the body is that finer elements can penetrate larger, but not larger elements finer.

So the surface of the trunk was made lik«; a weel of fire and air, containing within itself two Cesser weels (the chest and belly) of air. Alternately the interior of the greater weel which consists of fire flows into the lesser weels, and the lesser weels into it. The outer weel also finds its way in and out of the body, — the fire within

sent to the left of the body, and those from the left they diverted towards the right, so that they and the skin might together form a bond which should fasten the head to the body, since the crown of the head was not encircled by sinews ; and also in order that the sensations from both sides might be distributed over the whole body.

And next, they ordered the water-courses of the body in a manner which I will describe, and which will be more easily understood if we begin by admitting that all things which have lesser parts retain the greater, but the greater cannot retain the lesser. Now of all natures fire has the smallest parts, and therefore penetrates through earth and water and air and their compounds, nor can anything hold it.

And a similar principle applies to the human belly ; for when meats and drinks enter it, it holds them, but it cannot hold air and fire, because the particles of which they consist are smaller than its own structure.

These elements, therefore, God employed for the sake of distributing moisture from the belly into the veins, weaving togetner a network of fire and air like a weel, having at the entrance two lesser weels ; further he constructed one of these with two openings, and from the lesser weels he extended cords reaching all round to the extremities of the network.

All the interior of the net he made of fire, but the lesser weels and their cavity, of air. The network he took and spread over the newly-formed animal in the following manner: — He let the lesser weels pass into the mouth; there were two of them, and one he let down by the air-pipes into the lungs, the other by the side of the air-pipes into the belly.

The former he divided into two branches, both of which he made to meet at the channels of the* nose, so that when the way through the mouth did not act, the streams of the mouth as well were replenished through the nose.

With the other cavity (i. e. of the greater weel) he enveloped the hollow parts of the body, and at one time he made all this to flow into the lesser weels, quite gently, for they are composed of air, and at another time he caused the lesser weels to flow back again ; and the net he made to find a way in and out through the pores of the body, and the rays of fire which are bound fast within followed the passage of the air either way,

never at any time ceasing so long as the mortal being holds together. This process, as we affirm, the name-giver named inspiration and expiration.

And all this movement, active as well as passive, takes place in order that the body, being watered and cooled, may receive nourishment and life ; for when the respiration is going in and out, and the fire, which is fast bound within, follows it, and ever and anon moving to 79 and fro, enters through the belly and reaches the meat and drink, it dissolves them, and dividing them into small portions and guiding them through the passages where it goes, pumps them as from a fountain into the channels of the veins, and makes the stream of the veins flow through the body as through a conduit.

Let us once more consider the phenomena of respiration, and enquire into the causes which have made it what it is.

They are as follows: — Seeing that there is no such thing as a vacuum into which any of those things which are moved can enter, and the breath is carried from us into the external air, the next point is, as will be clear to every one, that it does not go into a vacant space, but pushes its neighbour out of its place, and that which is thrust out in turn drives out its neighbour ; and in this way everything of necessity at last comes round to that place from whence the breath came forth, and enters in there, and following the breath, fills up the vacant space ; and this goes on like the rotation of a wheel, because there can be no such thing as a vacuum.

Wherefore also the breast and the lungs, when they emit the breath, are replenished by the air which surrounds the body and which enters in through the pores of the flesh and is driven round in a circle ; and again, the air which is sent away and passes out through the body forces the breath inwards through the passage of the mouth and the nostrils. Now the origin of this movement may be supposed to be as follows.

In the interior of every animal the hottest part is that which is around the blood and veins ; it is in a manner an internal fountain of fire, which we compare to the network of a creel, being woven all of fire and extended through the centre of the body, while the outer parts are composed of air. Now we must admit that heat naturally proceeds outward to its own place and to its kindred

Tunaeus. TiMAEUS. following the air in either direction. The motion of the fire into and out of the belly dissolves the food and pumps the blood into the veins.

Expiration and inspiration take place through the pores as well as through the mouth and nostrils. Expiration is due to the attraction of similars: the air on entering the body is heated, and then moves outward, seeking the place of fire. Inspiration is due to the impossibility of a vacuum ; thus while air is breathed out of the body, other air must enter to fill the vacancy.

502

The harmony of sounds.

Tijitaeus. TiMAEUS.

Other phenomena to be explained on a similar principle: — Cuppingglasses, swallowing of drink, projection of bodies, sounds swift and slow, flowing of water, fall of thunderbolts, magnetic stones.

element ; and as there are two exits for the heat, the one out through the body, and the other through the mouth and nostrils, when it moves towards the one, it drives round the air at the other, and that which is driven round falls into the fire and becomes warm, and that which goes forth is cooled.

But when the heat changes its place, and the particles at the other exit grow warmer, the hotter air inclining in that direction and carried towards its native element, fire, pushes round the air at the other; and this being affected in the same way and communicating the same impulse, a circular motion swaying to and fro is produced by the double process, which we call inspiration and expiration.

The phenomena of medical cupping-glasses and of the swallowing of drink and of the projection of bodies, whether 80 discharged in the air or bowled along the ground, are to be investigated on a similar principle ; and swift and slow sounds, which appear to be high and low, and are sometimes discordant on account of their inequality, and then again harmonical on account of the equality of the motion which they excite in us.

For when the motions of the antecedent swifter sounds begin to pause and the two are equalized, the slower sounds overtake the swifter and then propel them.

When they overtake them they do not intrude a new and discordant motion, but introduce the beginnings of a slower, which answers to the swifter as it dies away, thus producing a single mixed expression out of high and low, whence arises a pleasure which even the unwise feel, and which to the wise becomes a higher sort of delight, being an imitation of divine harmony in mortal motions.

Moreover, as to the flowing of water, the fall of the thunderbolt, and the marvels that are observed about the attraction of amber and the Heraclean stones, — in none of these cases is there any attraction ; but he who investigates rightly, will find that such wonderful phenomena are attributable to the combination of certain conditions, — the non-existence of a vacuum, the fact that objects push one another round, and that they change places, passing severally into their proper positions as they are divided or combined. Such, as we have seen, is the nature and such are the causes of respiration, — the subject in which this discussion

The formation of blood : digestion. 503 originated. For the fire cuts the food and following the Timaeus. breath surges up within, fire and breath rising together and Timaeus. filling the veins by drawing up out of the belly and pouring into them the cut portions of the food ; and so the streams of food are kept flowing through the whole body in all animals.

And fresh cuttings from kindred substances, whether the fruits of the earth or herb of the field, which God planted to be our daily food, acquire all sorts of colours by their intermixture ; but red is the most pervading of them, being The red coicreated by the cutting action of fire and by the impression oi"" of blood ■' ^ , -^ ^ is due to the which it makes on a moist substance; and hence the liquid action of fire. which circulates in the body has a colour such as we have described.

The liquid itself we call blood, which nourishes I the flesh and the whole body, whence all parts are watered and empty places filled. Now the process of repletion and evacuation is effected The bodily after the manner of the universal motion by which all kin- p''°J=^^^^s of •' repletion and dred substances are drawn towards one another.

For the evacuation are external elements which surround us are always causing us attraction to consume away, and distributing and sending off like to like ; the particles of blood, too, which are divided and contained within the frame of the animal as in a sort of heaven, are compelled to imitate the motion of the universe. Each, therefore, of the divided parts within us, being carried to its kindred nature, replenishes the void.

When more is taken away than flows in, then we decay, and when less, we grow and increase. The frame of the entire creature when young has the when the triangles of each kind new, and may be compared to the ^°^J['^jhe keel of a vessel which is just off the stocks; they are locked triangles of firmly together and yet the whole mass is soft and delicate, ^^^pose^^ being freshly formed of marrow and nurtured on milk.

Now are new and when the triangles out of which meats and drinks are com- oJ°"com^e"the posed come in from without, and are comprehended in the trianpiesof body, being older and weaker than the triangles already \^J'^^'^^ there, the frame of the body gets the better of them and its they are ovcr- , , 1 1 • 1 J. come by them. newer tnangles cut them up, and so the animal grows great, being nourished by a multitude of similar particles. But when the roots of the triangles are loosened by having undergone many conflicts with many things in the course

504

The causes of disease in the body.

Tiiuaeus. TiMAEUS.

Death takes place when the triangles of the marrow, becoming disunited, loosen the soul's bonds. A natural death is pleasant, a violent,

painful.

Diseases of the body arise (i) when any of the four elements is out of place or there is too much or too little of them in any part;

and (ii) when blood, flesh, and sinews are produced in a wrong order.

of time, they are no longer able to cut or assimilate the food which enters, but are themselves easily divided by the bodies which come in from without. In this way every animal is overcome and decays, and this affection is called old age.

And at last, when the bonds by which the triangles of the marrow are united no longer hold, and are parted by the strain of existence, they in turn loosen the bonds of the soul, and she, obtaining a natural release, flies away with joy. For that which takes place according to nature is pleasant, but that which is contrary to nature is painful.

And thus death, if caused by disease or produced by wounds, is painful and violent ; but that sort of death which comes with old age and fulfils the debt of nature is the easiest of deaths, and is accompanied with pleasure rather than with pain. Now every one can see whence diseases arise.

There are four natures out of which the body is compacted, earth and 82 fire and water and air, and the unnatural excess or defect of these, or the change of any of them from its own natural place into another, or — since there are more kinds than one of fire and of the other elements — the assumption by any of these of a wrong kind, or any similar irregularity, produces disorders and diseases ; for when any of them is produced or changed in a manner contrary to nature, the parts which were previously cool grow warm, and those which were dry become moist, and the light become heavy, and the heavy light ; all sorts of changes occur.

For, as we affirm, a. thing can only remain the same with itself, whole and sound, when the same is added to it, or subtracted from it, in the same respect and in the same manner and in due proportion ; and whatever comes or goes away in violation of these laws causes all manner of changes and infinite diseases and corruptions.

Now there is a second class of structures which are also natural, and this affords a second opportunity of observing diseases to him who would understand them.

For whereas marrow and bone and flesh and sinews aje composed of the four elements, and the blood, though after another manner, is likewise formed out of them, most diseases originate in the way which I have described ; ])ut the worst of all owe their severity to the fact that the generation of these substances proceeds in a wrong order ; they are then destroyed. For the natural order is that the flesh

and sinews should be made of blood, the sinews out of the fibres to which they are akin, and the flesh out of the clots which are formed when the fibres are separated.

And the glutinous and rich matter which comes away from the sinews and the flesh, not only glues the flesh to the bones, but nourishes and imparts growth to the bone which surrounds the marrow ; and by reason of the solidity of the bones, that which filters through consists of the purest and smoothest and oiliest sort of triangles, dropping like dew from the bones and watering the marrow.

Now when each process takes place in this order, health commonly results ; when in the opposite order, disease. For when the flesh becomes decomposed and sends back the wasting substance into the veins, then an oversupply of blood of diverse kinds, mingling with air in the veins, having variegated colours and bitter properties, as well as acid and saline qualities, contains all sorts of bile and serum and phlegm.

For all things go the wrong way, and having ^2i become corrupted, first they taint the blood itself, and then ceasing to give nourishment to the body they are carried along the veins in all directions, no longer preserving the order of their natural courses, but at war with themselves, because they receive no good from one another, and are hostile to the abiding constitution of the body, which they corrupt and dissolve.

The oldest part of the flesh which is corrupted, being hard to decompose, from long burning grows black, and from being everywhere corroded becomes bitter, and is injurious to every part of the body which is still uncorrupted.

Sometimes, when the bitter element is refined away, the black part assumes an acidity which takes the place of the bitterness; at other times the bitterness being tinged with blood has a redder colour ; and this, when mixed with black, takes the hue of grass ' ; and again, an auburn colour mingles with the bitter matter when new flesh is decomposed by the fire which surrounds the internal flame; — to all which symptoms some physician perhaps, or rather some philosopher, who had the power of seeing in many dissimilar things one nature deserving of a name, has assigned the common name of bile. But the other kinds of

Timaens. TlMAEUS. The proper order is that flesh and sinew should be formed from blood, flesh from the liquid and sinew from the fibrous part of it ; and that from these should exude a glutinous matter which nourishes bone and marrow. When this order is reversed, all sorts of bile and phlegm are generated. The various kinds of bile.

' Reading xAoii^t^.

5o6

Degrees of degeneration.

Timaeus, TiMAEUS. Of phlegm there is an acid and a white sort.

Stages of the disease : — (i) When the flesh is attacked, if the foundations remain sound, there is less danger. • (2) There is more when the flesh falls away from the sinews and bones.

(3) Worse still are the prior disorders, such as crumbling away and gangrene of the bones ; and (4) worst of all is disease of the spinal marrow.

bile are variously distinguished by their colours. As for serum, that sort which is the watery part of blood is innocent, but that which is a secretion of black and acid bile is malignant when mingled by the power of heat with any salt substance, and is then called acid phlegm.

Again, the substance which is formed by the liquefaction of new and tender flesh when air is present, if inflated and encased in liquid so as to form bubbles, which separately are invisible owing to their small size, but when collected are of a bulk which is visible, and have a white colour arising out of the generation of foam — all this decomposition of tender flesh when intermingled with air is termed by us white phlegm.

And the whey or sediment of newly-formed phlegm is sweat and tears, and includes the various daily discharges by which the body is purified. Now all these become causes of disease when the blood is not replenished in a natural manner by food and drink but gains bulk from opposite sources in violation of the laws of nature.

When the several 84 parts of the flesh are separated by disease, if the foundation remains, the power of the disorder is only half as great, and there is still a prospect of an easy recovery ; but when that which binds the flesh to the bones is diseased, and no longer being separated from the muscles and sinews ^, ceases to give nourishment to the bone and to unite flesh and bone, and from being oily and smooth and glutinous becomes rough and salt and dry, owing to bad regimen, then all the substance thus corrupted crumbles away under the flesh and the sinews, and separates from the bone, and the fleshy parts fall away from their foundation and leave the sinews bare and full of brine, and the flesh again gets into the circulation of the blood and makes the previously-mentioned disorders still greater.

And if these bodily affections be severe, still worse are the prior disorders ; as when the bone itself, by reason of the density of the flesh, does not obtain sufficient air, but becomes mouldy and hot and gangrened and receives no nutriment, and the natural process is inverted, and the bone crumbling passes into the food, and the food into the flesh, and the flesh again faUing into the blood makes

Disorders produced by wind a?id phlegm. 507 all maladies that may occur more virulent than those already nmaeus. mentioned. But the worst case of all is when the marrow is Timaeus. diseased, either from excess or defect ; and this is the cause of the very greatest and most fatal disorders, in which the • whole course of the body is reversed.

There is a third class of diseases which may be conceived (Hi) a third of as arising in three ways ; for they are produced sometimes diseased is by wind, and sometimes by phlegm, and sometimes by bile, produced When the lung, which is the dispenser of the air to the body, ^j ^^'^^^. is obstructed by rheums and its passages are not free, some orders of of them not acting, while through others too much air enters, '^ ""^'^' then the parts which are unrefreshed by air corrode, while in other parts the excess of air forcing its way through the veins distorts them and decomposing the body is enclosed in the midst of it and occupies the midriff ; thus numberless painful diseases are produced, accompanied by copious sweats.

And tetanus and oftentimes when the flesh is dissolved in the body, wind, °^'^^ otonus ; generated within and unable to escape, is the source of quite as much pain as the air coming in from without ; but the greatest pain is felt when the wind gets about the sinews and the veins of the shoulders, and swells them up, and so twists back the great tendons and the sinews which are connected with them.

These disorders are called tetanus and opisthotonus, by reason of the tension which accompanies them. The cure of them is difficult ; relief is in most cases 85 given by fever supervening.

The white phlegm, though ^. by phlegm dangerous when detained within by reason of the air-bubbles, ~' ''• ''-'P''°sy' yet if it can communicate with the outside air, is less severe, and only discolours the body, generating leprous eruptions and similar diseases.

When it is mingled with black bile and dispersed about the courses of the head, which are the divinest part of us, the attack if coming on in sleep, is not so severe ; but when assailing those who are awake it is hard epilepsy, to be got rid of, and being an affection of a sacred part, is most justly called sacred.

An acid and salt phlegm, again, and catarrh, is the source of all those diseases which take the form of catarrh, but they have many names because . the places into which they flow are manifold. Inflammations of the body come from burnings and in- [e^tumoTrs flamings, and all of them originate in bile. When bile finds and

5o8 'I'iiitneus. TlMAEUS. inflammations,

chills and shuddering,

disease of the marrow,

diarrhoea and dysentery.

Excess of fire causes continuous fever, of air quotidian, of water tertian, of earth quartan.

There are two kinds of mental disease.

The effects of bile on the system. a means of discharge, it boils up and sends forth all sorts of tumours ; but when imprisoned within, it generates many inflammatory diseases, above all when mingled with pure blood ; since it then displaces the fibres which are scattered about in the blood and are designed to maintain the balance of rare and dense, in order that the blood may not be so liquefied by heat as to exude from the pores of the body, nor again become too dense and thus find a difficulty in circulating through the veins.

The fibres are so constituted as to maintain this balance ; and if any one brings them all together when the blood is dead and in process of coohng, then the blood which remains becomes fluid, but if they are left alone, they soon congeal by reason of the surrounding cold.

The fibres having this power over the blood, bile, which is only stale blood, and which from being flesh is dissolved again into blood, at the first influx coming in little by little, hot and liquid, is congealed by the powder of the fibres ; and so congealing and made to cool, it produces internal cold and shuddering.

When it enters with more of a flood and overcomes the fibres by its heat, and boiling up throws them into disorder, if it have power enough to maintain its supremacy, it penetrates the marrow and burns up what may be termed the cables of the soul, and sets her free ; but when there is not so much of it, and the body though wasted stiP holds out, the bile is itself mastered, and is either utterly banished, or is thrust through the veins into the lower or upper belly, and is driven out of the body like an exile from a state in which there has been civil war; whence arise diarrhoeas and dysenteries, and all such disorders.

When the constitution is disordered by excess of fire, continuous heat and fever are the result ; when excess of air is the cause, then the fever is quotidian ; when of water, which is a more sluggish element than either fire or air, then the fever is a tertian ; when of earth, which is the most sluggish of the four, and is only purged away in a four-fold period, the result is a quartan fever, which can with difficulty be shaken oflF.

Such is the manner in which diseases of the body arise ; the disorders of the soul, which depend upon the body, originate as follows. We must acknowledge disease of the mind to be a want of intelligence ; and of this there are two

Diseases of the mind originate in the body. 509 kinds i to wit, madness and ignorance. In whatever state Timatus. a man experiences either of them, that state may be called Timaels. disease; and excessive pains and pleasures are justly to be madness and regarded as the greatest diseases to which the soul is liable. •g"0'";»"ce. ... . . ....

Vice is due to For a man who is m great joy or m great pam, m his un- an iiidisposiseasonable eagerness to attain the one and to avoid the ^'"""fthc body, Other, is not able to see or to hear anything rightly ; but he is mad, and is at the time utterly incapable of any participation in reason.

He who has the seed about the spinal marrow too plentiful and overflowing, like a tree overladen with fruit, has many throes, and also obtains many pleasures in his desires and their offspring, and is for the most part of his life deranged, because his pleasures and pains are so very great ; his soul is rendered foolish and disordered by his body ; yet he is regarded not as one diseased, but as one who is voluntarily bad, which is a mistake.

The truth is that the intemperance of love is a disease of the soul due. chiefly to the moisture and fluidity which is produced in one of the elements by the loose consistency of the bones. And and is invoiin general, all that which is termed the incontinence of plea- ""'^'^' sure and is deemed a reproach under the idea that the wicked voluntarily do wrong is not justly a matter for reproach.

For no man is voluntarily bad ; but the bad become bad by reason of an ill disposition of the body and bad education, things which are hateful to every man and happen to him against his will. And in the case of pain too in like manner the soul suffers much evil from the body.

For where the acid and briny phlegm and otjier bitter and bilious humours wander about in the body, and find no exit or escape, but are pent up within and mingle their own vapours with the motions of 87 the soul, and are blended with them, they produce all sorts of diseases, more or fewer, and in every degree of intensity ; and being carried to the three places of the soul, whichever they may severally assail, they create infinite varieties of illtemper and melancholy, of rashness and cowardice, and also of forgetfulne.ss and stupidity. Further, when to this evil Badeducaconstitution of body evil forms of government are added and

tion and bad government

evil discourses are uttered in private as well as in public, and increase the no sort of instruction is given in youth to cure these evils, then all of us who are bad become bad from two causes which

5IO

Proportion the great panacea.

Timaens. TiMAEUS.

The great means of preventing disease is to preserve the due proportion of mind and body.

The soul should not be allowed to wear out the body;

are entirely beyond our control. In such cases the planters are to blame rather than the plants, the educators rather than the educated. But however that may be, we should endeavour as far as we can by education, and studies, and learning, to avoid vice and attain virtue ; this, however, is part of another subject.

There is a corresponding enquiry concerning the mode of treatment by which the mind and the body are to be preserved, about which it is meet and right that I should say a word in turn ; for it is more our duty to speak of the good than of the evil. Everything that is good is fair, and the fair is not without proportion, and the animal which is to be fair must have due proportion.

Now we perceive lesser symmetries or proportions and reason about them, but of the highest and greatest we take no heed ; for there is no proportion or disproportion more productive of health and disease, and virtue and vice, than that between soul and body.

This however we do not perceive, nor do we reflect that when a weak or small frame is the vehicle of a great and mighty soul, or conversely, when a little soul is encased in a large body, then the whole animal is not fair, for it lacks the most important of all symmetries ; but the due proportion of mind and body is the fairest and loveliest of all sights to him who has the seeing eye.

Just as a body which has a leg too long, or which is unsymmetrical in some other respect, is an unpleasant sight, and also, when doing its share of work, is much distressed and makes convulsive efforts, and often stumbles through awkwardness, and is the cause of infinite evil to its own self — in like manner we should conceive of the double nature which we call the living being ; and when in this compound there is an impassioned soul more powerful than the body, that soul, I say, convulses and fills with disorders the whole inner nature of man ; and when eager in the pursuit of some sort of learning or study, causes wasting ; or again, when teaching or disputing in private or in public, and strifes and controversies arise, inflames and dissolves the composite frame of man and introduces rheums ; and the nature of this phenomenon is not understood by most professors of medicine, who ascribe it to the opposite of the real cause. And once more, when a body large and too strong

'Mens Sana in corpore sano.

511 for the soul is united to a small and weak intelligence, then nmaeus. inasmuch as there are two desires natural to man, — one of Timaeus. food for the sake of the body, and one of wisdom for the sake nor the body of the diviner part of us — then, I say, the motions of the '"^•"^^'■"tc . , ... the soul. stronger, gettmg the better and increasing their own power, but making the soul dull, and stupid, and forgetful, engender ignorance, which is the greatest of diseases.

There is one Both should protection against both kinds of disproportion: — that we c.veTdlcd^ ihc should not move the body without the soul or the soul with- mathematiout the body, and thus they will be on their guard against practlsrgymeach other, and be healthy and well balanced.

And therefore "astic, and the mathematician or any one else whose thoughts are much shodd'^mdy absorbed in some intellectual pursuit, must allow his body music, also to have due exercise, and practise gymnastic ; and he who is careful to fashion the body, should in turn impart to the soul its proper motions, and should cultivate music and all philosophy, if he would deserve to be called truly fair and truly good.

And the separate parts should be treated in the Motion, as in same manner, in irriitation of the pattern of the universe ; for ^^'^ "".'^^^j' ' ^ so m the body, as the body is heated and also cooled within by the elements produces which enter into it, and is ae^ain dried up and moistened by ^'^'^^ '^" ^ c tr J harmony. external things, and experiences these and the like affections from both kinds of motions, the result is that the body if given up to motion when in a state of quiescence is overmastered and perishes ; but if any one, in imitation of that which we call the foster-mother and nurse of the universe, v;ill not allow the body ever to be inactive, but is always producing motions and agitations through its whole extent, which form the natural defence against other motions both internal and external, and by moderate exercise reduces to order according to their affinities the particles and affections which are wandering about the body, as we have already said when speaking of the universe ^, he wuU not allow enemy placed by the side of enemy to stir up wars and disorders in the body, but he will place friend by the side of friend, so as to create health.

Now of all motions that is the best which 1 he best 89 is produced in a thing by itself, for it is most akin to the e.verciseand motion of thought and of the universe ; but that motion purification is " . the spontawhich is caused by others is not so good, and worst of all is ncous ' Supra, 33 A.

512

The best method of cure and the worst.

Tiniaeus. TiMAEUS. motion of the body, as in gymnastic; less good is an external motion, as in sailing; least good the external motion of a part only produced by medicine. The last should be employed only in extreme cases.

Enough of the body. The soul, which trains it, must be tended with the utmost care.

The three parts of the soul should be duly exercised,

especially the divine part.

that which moves the body, when at rest, in parts only and by some external agency.

Wherefore of all modes of purifying and re-uniting the body the best is gymnastic ; the next best is a surging motion, as in sailing or any other mode of conveyance which is not fatiguing ; the third sort of motion may be of use in a case of extreme necessity, but in any other will be adopted by no man of sense : I mean the purgative treatment of physicians ; for diseases unless they are very dangerous should not be irritated by medicines, since every form of disease is in a manner akin to the living being, whose complex frame has an appointed term of life.

For not the whole race only, but each individual — barring inevitable accidents — comes into the world having a fixed span, and the triangles in us are originally framed with power to last for a certain time, beyond which no man can prolong his hfe. And this holds also of the constitution of diseases ; if any one regardless of the appointed time tries to subdue them by medicine, he only aggravates and multiplies them.

Wherefore we ought always to manage them by regimen, as far as a man can spare the time, and not provoke a disagreeable enemy by medicines.

Enough of the composite animal, and of the body which is a part of him, and of the manner in which a man may train and be trained by himself so as to Hve most according to reason : and we must above and before all provide that the element which is to train him shall be the fairest and best adapted to that purpose.

A minute discussion of this subject would be a serious task ; but if, as before, I am to give only an outline, the subject may not unfitly be summed up as follows.

I have often remarked that there are three kinds of soul located within us, having each of them motions, and I must now repeat in the fewest words possible, that one part, if remaining inactive and ceasing from its natural motion, must necessarily become very weak, but that which is trained and exercised, very strong. Wherefore we should take care that the movements of the different parts of the soul should be in 90 due proportion. And we should consider that God gave the sovereign part of the human soul to be the divinity of each one, being that

part which, as we say, dwells at the top of the body, and inasmuch as we are a plant not of an earthly but of a heavenly growth, raises us from earth to our kindred who are in heaven. And in this we say truly ; for the divine power suspended the head and root of us from that place where the generation of the soul first began, and thus made the whole body upright.

When a man is always occupied with the cravings of desire and ambition, and is eagerly striving to satisfy them, all his thoughts must be mortal, and, as far as it is possible altogether to become such, he must be mortal every whit, because he has cherished his mortal part.

But he who has been earnest in the love of knowledge and of true wisdom, and has exercised his intellect more than any other part of him, must have thoughts immortal and divine, if he attain truth, and in so far as human nature is capable of sharing in immortality, he must altogether be immortal ; and since he is ever cherishing the divine power, and has the divinity within him in perfect order, he will be perfectly happyj)' ' Now there is only one way of taking care of things, and this is to give to each the food and motion which are natural to it.

And the motions which are naturally akin to the divine principle within us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe.

These each man should follow, and correct the courses of the head which were corrupted at our birth, and by learning the harmonies and revolutions of the universe, should assimilate the thinking being to the thought, renewing his original nature, and having assimilated them should attain to that perfect life which the gods have set before mankind, both for the present and the future.

Thus our original design of discoursing about the universe down to the creation of man is nearly completed. A brief mention may be made of the generation of other animals, so far as the subject admits of brevity ; in this manner our argument will best attain a due proportion. On the subject of animals, then, the following remarks may be offered.

Of the men who came into the world, those who were cowards or led unrighteous lives may with reason be supposed to have changed into the nature of women in the second generation. And this was the reason why at that time the gods created in us the desire of sexual intercourse, contriving in man one VOL. III. — 48

Timaeus. TiMAKUS. For if a man ncRlccts it .and is the slave of desire and ambitiun, he cannot attain to immortality.

The motions of reason are akin to the thoughts and revolutions of the universe.

We have spoken of the origin of man. Women and the other animals were generated on this wise. Cowardly and unjust men became women in the second generation.

514

The origin of women and the animals.

Timaeus. TiMAEUS.

Simpleminded men passed into birds ;

those who were the slaves of passion into beasts ;

animated substance, and in woman another, which they formed respectively in the following manner.

The outlet for drink by which liquids pass through the lung under the kidneys and into the bladder, which receives and then by the pressure of the air emits them, was so fashioned by them as to penetrate also into the body of the marrow, which passes from the head along the neck and through the back, and which in the preceding discourse we have named the seed.

And the seed having life, and becoming endowed with respiration, produces in that part in which it respires a lively desire of emission, and thus creates in us the love of procreation.

Wherefore also in men the organ of generation becoming rebellious and masterful, like an animal disobedient to reason, and maddened with the sting of lust, seeks to gain absolute sway ; and the same is the case v/ith the so-called womb or matrix of women ; the animal within them is desirous of procreating children, and when remaining unfruitful long beyond its proper time, gets discontented and angry, and wandering in every direction through the body, closes up the passages of the breath, and, by obstructing respiration, drives them to extremity, causing all varieties of disease, until at length the desire and love of the man and the woman, bringing them together ^ and as it were plucking the fruit from the tree, sow in the womb, as in a field, animals unseen by reason of their smallness and without form ; these again are separated and matured within ; they are then finally brought out into the light, and thus the generation of animals is completed.

Thus were created women and the female sex in general. But the race of birds was created out of innocent lightminded men, who, although their minds were directed toward heaven, imagined, in their simplicity, that the clearest demonstration of the things above was to be obtained by sight ; these were remodelled and transformed into birds, and they grew feathers instead of hair.

The race of wild pedestrian animals, again, came from those who had no philosophy in any of their thoughts, and never considered at all about the nature of the heavens, because they had ceased to use the courses

Reading ^vv6vdC,ovTeq (conj. Hermann).

Degrees of intelligence in animals.

515

of the head, but followed the guidance of those parts of the rhnaeus. soul which are in the breast. * In consequence of these habits timaeus. of theirs they had their front-legs and their heads resting upon the earth to which they were drawn by natural affinity ; and the crowns of their heads were elongated and of all sorts of shapes, into which the courses of the soul were crushed by reason of disuse. And this was the reason why they were 92 created quadrupeds and polypods : God gave the more senseless of them the more support that they might be more attracted to the earth. And the mo.st foolish of them, who the most foou trail their bodies entirely upon the ground and have no longer any need of feet, he made without feet to crawl upon the earth. The fourth class were the inhabitants of the water :

ish into reptiles:

the most these were made out of the most entirelv senseless and ;g"°'''''"' ^^'^ impure mto ignorant of all, whom the transformers did not think any fish. longer worthy of pure respiration, because they possessed a soul which was made impure by all sorts of transgression ; and instead of the subtle and pure medium of air, they gave them the deep and muddy sea to be their element of respiration ; and hence arose the race of fishes and oysters, and other aquatic animals, which have received the most remote habitations as a punishment of their outlandish ignorance. These are the laws by which animals pass into one another, now, as ever, changing as they lose or gain wisdom and folly. We may now say that our discourse about the nature of our task the universe has an end. The world has received animals, mortal and immortal, and is fulfilled with them, and has become a visible animal containing the visible — the sensible God who is the image of the intellectual \ the greatest, best, fairest, most perfect — the one only-begotten heaven.

IS now completed.

' Or reading ttoitjtov — ' of his maker.'

CRITIAS.

INTRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS.

The Critias is a fragment which breaks off in the middle of Critias. a sentence. It was designed to be the second part of a trilogy, introducwhich, like the other great Platonic trilogy of the Sophist, ^'^'^ Statesman, Philosopher, was never completed. Timaeus had brought down the origin of the world to the creation of man, and the dawn of history was now to succeed the philosophy of nature. The Critias is also connected with the Republic. Plato, as he has already told us (Tim. 19, 20), intended to represent the idezd state engaged in a patriotic conflict. This mythical conflict is prophetic or symbolical of the struggle of Athens and Persia, perhaps in some degree also of the wars of the Greeks and Carthaginians, in the same way that the Persian is prefigured by the Trojan war to the mind of Herodotus, or as the narrative of the first part of the Aeneid is intended by Virgil to foreshadow the wars of Carthage and Rome. The small number of the primitive Athenian citizens (20,000), ' which is about their present number' (Crit. 112 D), is evidently designed to contrast with the myriads and barbaric array of the Atlantic hosts. The passing remark in the Timaeus (25 C) that Athens was left alone in the struggle, in which she conquered and became the liberator of Greece, is also an allusion to the later history. Hence we may safely conclude that the entire narrative is due to the imagination of Plato, who has used the name of Solon and introduced the Eg>'ptian priests to give verisimilitude to his story. To the Greek such a tale, like that of the earth-born men, would have seemed perfectly accordant with the character of his mythology, and not more marvellous than the wonders of the East narrated by Herodotus and others: he might have been deceived into

520

Analysis 106-109.

Critias. Introduction.

believing it. But it appears strange that later ages should have been imposed upon by the fiction. As many attempts have been made to find the great island of Atlantis, as to discover the country of the lost tribes. Without regard to the description of Plato, and without a suspicion that the whole narrative is a fabrication, interpreters have looked for the spot in every part of the globe, America, Arabia Felix, Ceylon, Palestine, Sardinia, Sweden.

Analysis. Timaeus concludes with a prayer that his words may be ac-steph. ceptable to the God whom he has revealed, and Critias, whose ^*^" turn follows, begs that a larger measure of indulgence may be 107 conceded to him, because he has to speak of men whom we know and not of gods whom we do not know.

Socrates readily grants 108 his request, and anticipating that Hermocrates will make a similar petition, extends by anticipation a like indulgence to him. Critias returns to his story, professing only to repeat what Solon was told by the priests. The war of which he was about to speak had occurred 9000 years ago^. One of the combatants was the city of Athens, the other was the great island of Atlantis.

Critias proposes to speak of these rival powers first of all, giving 109 to Athens the precedence ; the various tribes of Greeks and barbarians who took part in the war will be dealt with as they successively appear on the scene.

In the beginning the gods agreed to divide the earth by lot in a friendly manner, and when they had made the allotment they settled their several countries, and were the shepherds or rather the pilots of mankind, whom they guided by persuasion, and not by force.

Hephaestus and Athene, brother and sister deities, in mind and art united, obtained as their lot the land of Attica, a land suited to the growth of virtue and wisdom ; and there they settled a brave race of children of the soil, and taught them how to order the state.

Some of their names, such as Cecrops, Erechtheus, Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, were preserved and adopted in later times, but the memory of their deeds has passed away ; for there have since been many deluges, and the remnant who survived in the mountains were ignorant of the art of writing, 1 Cp. supra, p, 444, footnote.

and during many generations were wholly devoted to acquiring the means of Hfe. . . . And the armed image of the goddess which was dedicated by the ancient Athenians is an evidence to other ages that men and women had in those days, as they ought always to have, common virtues and pursuits.

There were various classes of citizens, including handicraftsmen and husbandmen and a superior class of warriors who dwelt apart, and were educated, and had all things in common, like our guardians. Attica in those days extended southwards to the Isthmus, and inland to the heights of Parncs and Cithaeron, and between them and the sea included the district of Oropus.

The country was then, as what remains of it still is, the most fertile in the world, and abounded in rich plains and pastures. But in the course of ages much of the soil was washed away and disappeared in the deep sea. And the inhabitants of this fair land were endowed with intelligence and the love of beauty.

The Acropolis of the ancient Athens extended to the llissus and Eridanus, and included the Pnyx, and the Lycabettus on the opposite side to the Pnyx, having a level surface and deep soil. The side of the hill was inhabited by craftsmen and husbandmen ; and the warriors dwelt by themselves on the summit, around the temples of Hephaestus and Athene, in an enclosure which was like the garden of a single house.

In winter they retired into houses on the north of the hill, in which they held their syssitia. These were modest dwellings, which they bequeathed unaltered to their children's children. In summer time the south side was inhabited by them, and then they left their gardens and dining-halls. In the midst of the Acropolis was a fountain, which gave an abundant supply of cool water in summer and warm in winter ; of this there are still some traces.

They were careful to preserve the number of fighting men and women at 20,000, which is equal to that of the present military force. And so they passed their lives as guardians of the citizens and leaders of the Hellenes. They were a just and famous race, celebrated for their beauty and virtue all over Europe and Asia.

And now I will speak to you of their adversaries, but first I ought to explain that the Greek names were given to Solon in an Egyptian form, and he enquired their meaning and translated them. His manuscript was left with my grandfather Dropides,

522 Analysis 113-116. Criiias. and is now in my possession. ... In the division of the earth Analysis. Poseidon obtained as his portion the island of Atlantis, and there he begat children whose mother was a mortal.

Towards the sea and in the centre of the island there was a very fair and fertile plain, and near the centre, about fifty stadia from the plain, there was a low mountain in which dwelt a man named Evenor and his wife Leucippe, and their daughter Cleito, of whom Poseidon became enamoured.

He to secure his love enclosed the mountain with rings or zones varying in size, two of land and three of sea, which his divine power readily enabled him to excavate and fashion, and, as there was no shipping in those days, no man could get into the place. To the interior island he conveyed under the earth springs of water hot and cold, and supplied the land with all things needed for the life of man.

Here he begat 114 a family consisting of five pairs of twin male children. The eldest was Atlas, and him he made king of the centre island, while to his twin brother, Eumelus, or Gadeirus, he assigned that part of the country which was nearest the Straits. The other brothers he made chiefs over the rest of the island. And their kingdom extended as far as Egypt and Tyrrhenia.

Now Atlas had a fair posterity, and great treasures derived from mines — among them that precious metal orichalcum ; and there was abundance of wood, and herds of elephants, and pastures for animals of all kinds, 115 and fragrant herbs, and grasses, and trees bearing fruit.

These they used, and employed themselves in constructing their temples, and palaces, and harbours, and docks, in the following manner: — First, they bridged over the zones of sea, and made a way to and from the royal palace which they built in the centre island. This ancient palace was ornamented by successive generations; and they dug a canal which passed through the zones of land from the island to the sea.

The zones of earth were surrounded by walls 116 made of stone of divers colours, black and white and red, which they sometimes intermingled for the sake of ornament ; and as they quarried they hollowed out beneath the edges of the zones double docks having roofs of rock. The outermost of the walls was coated with brass, the second with tin, and the third, which was the wall of the citadel, flashed with the red light of orichalcum.

In the interior of the citadel was a holy temple, dedicated to Cleito and Poseidon, and surrounded by an enclosure of gold, .

Analysis 116-119. 523 and there was Poseidon's own temple, which was covered with Critias. silver, and the pinnacles with gold. The roof was of ivory, analysis. adorned with gold and silver and orichalcum, and the rest of the interior was lined with orichalcum. Within was an image of the god standing in a chariot drawn by six winged horses, and touching the roof with his head; around him were a hundred Nereids, riding on dolphins.

Outside the temple were placed golden statues of all the descendants of the ten kings and of their wives ; 1 17 there was an altar too, and there were palaces, corresponding to the greatness and glory both of the kingdom and of the temple.

Also there were fountains of hot and cold water, and suitable buildings surrounding them, and trees, and there were baths both of the kings and of private individuals, and separate baths for women, and also for cattle. The water from the baths was carried to the grove of Poseidon, and by aqueducts over the bridges to the outer circles.

And there were temples in the zones, and in the larger of the two there was a racecourse for horses, which ran all round the island. The guards were distributed in the zones according to the trust reposed in them ; the most trusted of them were stationed in the citadel. The docks were full of triremes and stores.

The land between the harbour and the sea was surrounded by a wall, and was crowded with dwellings, and the harbour and canal resounded with the din of human voices. 118 The plain around the city was highly cultivated and sheltered from the north by mountains ; it was oblong, and where falling out of the straight line followed the circular ditch, which was of an incredible depth.

This depth received the streams which came down from the mountains, as well as the canals of the 119 interior, and found a way to the sea.

The entire country was divided into sixty thousand lots, each of which was a square of ten stadia ; and the owner of a lot was bound to furnish the sixth part of a war-chariot, so as to make up ten thousand chariots, two horses and riders upon them, a pair of chariot-horses without a seat, and an attendant and charioteer, two hoplites, two archers, two slingers, three stone-shooters, three javelin-men, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships.

Each of the ten kings was absolute in his own city and kingdom. The relations of the different governments to one another were determined by the injunctions of Poseidon, which had been

524

Analysis 119-121

Critias. inscribed by the first kings on a column of orichalcum in the temple Analysis. of Poseidon, at which the kings and princes gathered together and held a festival every fifth and every sixth year alternately. Around the temple ranged the bulls of Poseidon, one of which the ten kings caught and sacrificed, shedding the blood of the victim over the inscription, and vowing not to transgress the laws of their father Poseidon. When night came, they put on azure robes 12c and gave judgment against offenders. The most important of their laws related to their dealings with one another. They were not to take up arms against one another, and were to come to the rescue if any of their brethren were attacked. They were to deliberate in common about war, and the king was not to have the power of life and death over his kinsmen, unless he had the assent of the majority. For many generations, as tradition tells, the people of Atlantis were obedient to the laws and to the gods, and practised gentleness and wisdom in their intercourse with one another. They knew that they could only have the true use of riches by not caring about them. But gradually the divine portion of their 121 souls became diluted with too much of the mortal admixture, and they began to degenerate, though to the outward eye they appeared glorious as ever at the very time when they were filled with all iniquity. The all-seeing Zeus, wanting to punish them, held a council of the gods, and when he had called them together, he spoke as follows : —

Introduction.

No one knew better than Plato how to invent a ^ noble lie.

Observe (i) the innocent declaration of Socrates, that the truth of the story is a great advantage : (2) the manner in which traditional names and indications of geography are intermingled (*Why, here be truths!'): (3) the extreme minuteness with which the numbers are given, as in the Old Epic poetry : (4) the ingenious reason assigned for the Greek names occurring in the Egyptian tale (113 A): (5) the remark that the armed statue of Athene indicated the common warrior life of men and women (no B) : (6) the particularity with which the third deluge before that of Deucalion is affirmed to have been the great destruction (112 A) : (7) the happy guess that great geological changes have been effected by water : (8) the indulgence of the prejudice

The island of Atlantis.

525 against sailing beyond the Columns, and the popular belief of the Critias. shallowness of the ocean in that part : (9) the confession that Introducthe depth of the ditch in the Island of Atlantis was not to be '^'°'^- believed, and ' yet he could only repeat what he had heard ' (118 C), compared with the statement made in an earlier passage that Poseidon, being a God, found no difficulty in contriving the water-supply of the centre island (113 E) : (10) the mention of the old rivalry of Poseidon and Athene, and the creation of the first inhabitants out of the soil.

Plato here, as elsewhere, ingeniously gives the impression that he is telling the truth which mythology had corrupted. • The world, like a child, has readily, and for the most part unhesitatingly, accepted the tale of the Island of Atlantis.

In modern times we hardly seek for traces of the submerged continent ; but even Mr, Grote is inclined to believe in the Egyptian poem of Solon of which there is no evidence in antiquity; while others, like Martin, discuss the Egyptian origin of the legend, or like M. de Humboldt, whom he quotes, are disposed to find in it a vestige of a widely-spread tradition.

Others, adopting a different vein of reflection, regard the Island of Atlantis as the anticipation of a still greater island — the Continent of America. ' The tale,' says M. Martin, * rests upon the authority of the Egyptian priests; and the Egyptian priests took a pleasure in deceiving the Greeks.

He never appears to suspect that there is a greater deceiver or magician than the Egyptian priests, that is to say, Plato himself, from the dominion of whose genius the critic and natural philosopher of modern times are not wholly emancipated. Although worthless in respect of any result which can be attained by them, discussions like those of M.

Martin (Timee, tome i. pp. 257-332) have an interest of their own, and may be compared to the similar discussions regarding the Lost Tribes (2 Esdras xiii.

40), as showing how the chance word of some poet or philosopher has given birth to endless religious or historical enquiries. (See Introduction to the Timaeus, pp. 429-33.) In contrasting the small Greek city numbering about twenty thousand inhabitants with the barbaric greatness of the island of Atlantis, Plato probably intended to show that a state, such as the ideal Athens, was invincible, though matched against any number of opponents (cp. Rep. iv. 423 B). Even in a great empire

526

The title of the dialogue.

Critias. Introduction.

there might be a degree of virtue and justice, such as the Greeks believed to have existed under the sway of the first Persian kings. But all such empires were liable to degenerate, and soon incurred the anger of the gods. Their Oriental wealth, and splendour of gold and silver, and variety of colours, seemed also to be at variance with the simplicity of Greek notions. In the island of Atlantis, Plato is describing a sort of Babylonian or Egyptian city, to which he opposes the frugal life of the true Hellenic citizen. It is remarkable that in his brief sketch of them, he idealizes the husbandmen ^ who are lovers of honour and true husbandmen ' (hi E), as well as the warriors who are his sole concern in the Republic ; and that though he speaks of the common pursuits of men and women, he says nothing of the community of wives and children. It is singular that Plato should have prefixed the most detested of Athenian names to this dialogue, and even more singular that he should have put into the mouth of Socrates a panegyric on him (Tim. 20 A). Yet we know that his character was accounted infamous by Xenophon, and that the mere acquaintance with him was made a subject of accusation against Socrates. We can only infer that in this, and perhaps in some other cases, Plato's characters have no reference to the actual facts. The desire to do honour to his own family, and the connexion with Solon, may have suggested the introduction of his name. Why the Critias was never completed, whether from accident, or from advancing age, or from a sense of the artistic difficulty of the design, cannot be determined.

C R I T I A S.

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE.

Critias. Hermocrates.

TiMAEUS. Socrates.

teph io6

07

Timaeus. How thankful I am, Socrates, that I have arrived at last, and, like a weary traveller after a long journey, may be at rest! And I pray the being who always was of old, and has now been by me revealed, to grant that my words may endure in so far as they have been spoken truly and acceptably to him ; but if unintentionally I have said anything wrong, I pray that he will impose upon me a just retribution, and the just retribution of him who errs is that he should be set right. Wishing, then, to speak truly in future concerning the generation of the gods, I pray him to give me knowledge, which of all medicines is the most perfect and best. And now having offered my prayer I deliver up the argument to Critias, who is to speak next according to our agreement ^. Critias. And I, Timaeus, accept the trust, and as you at first said that you were going to speak of high matters, and begged that some forbearance might be shown to you, I too ask the same or greater forbearance for what I am about to say. And although I very well know that my request may appear to be somewhat ambitious and discourteous, I must make it nevertheless. For will any man of sense deny that you have spoken well? I can only attempt to show that I ought to have more indulgence than you, because my

Critias. Timaeus, Critias. Timaeus prays to the ' ancient of days ' that the truth of his words may endure, and for enlightenment where he has erred.

Critias asks for greater indulgence than was shown to Timaeus on the ground that It is easier to speak well of the Gods, whom we do not

' Tim. 27 A.

528

Imitation of the divine and of the human.

Critias. Critias, Socrates. know, than of men, whom we do. An illustration.

theme is more difficult ; and I shall argue that to seem to speak well of the gods to men is far easier than to speak well of men to men : for the inexperience and utter ignorance of his hearers about any subject .is a great assistance to him who has to speak of it, and we know how ignorant we are concerning the gods. But I should like to make my meaning clearer, if you will follow me.

All that is said by any of us can only be imitation and representation.

For if we consider the likenesses which painters make of bodies divine and heavenly, and the different degrees of gratification with which the eye of the spectator receives them, we shall see that we are satisfied with the artist who is able in any degree to imitate the earth and its mountains, and the rivers, and the woods, and the universe, and the things that are and move therein, and further, that knowing nothing precise about such matters, we do not examine or analyze the painting ; all that is required is a sort of indistinct and deceptive mode of shadowing them forth.

But when a person endeavours to paint the human form we are quick at finding out defects, and our familiar knowledge makes us severe judges of any one who does not render every point of similarity. And we may observe the same thing to happen in discourse ; we are satisfied with a picture of divine and heavenly things which has very little likeness to them ; but we are more precise in our criticism of mortal and human things.

Wherefore if at the moment of speaking I cannot suitably express my meaning, you must excuse me, considering that to form approved likenesses of human things is the reverse of easy. This is what I want to suggest to you, and lo^ at the same time to beg, Socrates, that I may have not less, but more indulgence conceded to me in what I am about to say. Which favour, if I am right in asking, I hope that you will be ready to grant. Socrates.

Certainly, Critias, we will grant your request, and we will grant the same by anticipation to Hermocrates, as well as to you and Timaeus ; for I have no doubt that when his turn comes a little while hence, he will make the same request which you have made. In order, then, that he may provide himself with a fresh beginning, and not be compelled to say the same things over again, let him

understand that the indulgence is already extended by anticipation to him. And now, friend Critias, I will announce to you the judgment of the theatre. They are of opinion that the last performer was wonderfully successful, and that you will need a great deal of indulgence before you will be able to take his place. Hermocrates. The warning, Socrates, which you have addressed to him, I must also take to myself.

But remember, Critias, that faint heart never yet raised a trophy ; and therefore you must go and attack the argument like a man. First invoke Apollo and the Muses, and then let us hear you sound the praises and show forth the virtues of your ancient citizens. Crit.

Friend Hermocrates, you, who are stationed last and have another in front of you, have not lost heart as yet ; the gravity of the situation will soon be revealed to you ; meanwhile I accept your exhortations and encouragements.

But besides the gods and goddesses whom you have mentioned, I would specially invoke Mnemosyne ; for all the important part of my discourse is dependent on her favour, and if I can recollect and recite enough of what was said by the priests and brought hither by Solon, I doubt not that I shall satisfy the requirements of this theatre. And now, making no more excuses, I will proceed.

Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them ; this war I am going to describe.

Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war ; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as I was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.

The 109 progress of the history will unfold the various nations of barbarians and families of Hellenes which then existed, as they successively appear on the scene ; but I must describe first of all the Athenians of that day, and their enemies who VOL. III. — 49

Critias. sockates, Critias, Hermocrates.

Critias invokes the aid of Mnemosyne.

The subject is the war between A then > and Atlantis.

He proposes to speak first of Athens.

530

TJie Gods in the olden time were our shepherds.

Critias. Critias.

When the (iods divided the earth, the land of Attica was allotted to Hephaestus and Athene, who implanted there brave children of the soil. Of these the history was lost, but their names remained.

fought with them, and then the respective powers and governments of the two kingdoms. Let us give the precedence to Athens.

In the days of old, the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment ^ There was no quarrelling ; for you cannot rightly suppose that the gods did not know what was proper for each of them to have, or, knowing this, that they would seek to procure for themselves by contention that which more properly belonged to others.

They all of them by just apportionment obtained what they wanted, and peopled their own districts ; and when they had peopled them they tended us, their nurselings and possessions, as shepherds tend their flocks, excepting only that they did not use blows or bodily force, as shepherds do, but governed us like pilots from the stem of the vessel, which is an easy way of guiding animals, holding our souls by the rudder of persuasion according to their own pleasure; — thus did they guide all mortal creatures.

Now different gods had their allotments in different places which they set in order.

Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land, which was naturally adapted for wisdom and virtue ; and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government ; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages.

For when there were any survivors, as I have already said, they were men who dwelt in the mountains ; and they were ignorant of the art of writing, and had heard only the names of the chiefs of the land, but very little about their actions.

The names they were willing enough to give to their children ; but the virtues and the laws of their predecessors, they knew only by obscure traditions ; and as they themselves and their children lacked for many generations the necessaries of life, they directed their attention to the supply of their wants, and of them they conversed, to the neglect of events that had happened in times long past ; for mythology 1 1 o J Cp. Polit. 271 flf.

and the enquiry into antiquity are first introduced into cities when they begin to have leisure ^, and when they see that the necessaries of hfe have already been provided, l)ut not before. And this is the reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions.

This 1 infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner.

Moreover, since mihtary pursuits were then common to men and women, the men of those days in accordance with the custom of the time set up a figure and image of the goddess in full armour, to be a testimony that all animals which associate together, male as well as female, may, if they please, practise in common the virtue which belongs to them without distinction of sex.

Now the country was inhabited in those days by various classes of citizens; — there were artisans, and there were husbandmen, and there was also a warrior class originally set apart by divine men.

The latter dwelt by themselves, and had all things suitable for nurture and education ; neither had any of them anything of their own, but they regarded all that they had as common property ; nor did they claim to receive of the other citizens anything more than their necessary food. And they practised all the pursuits which we yesterday described as those of our imaginary guardians.

Concerning the country the Egyptian priests said what is not only probable but manifestly true, that the boundaries were in those days fixed by the Isthmus, and that in the direction of the continent they extended as far as the heights of Cithaeron and Parnes ; the boundary line came down in the direction of the sea, having the district of Oropus on the right, and with the river Asopus as the limit on the left.

The land was the best in the world, and was therefore able in those days to support a vast army, raised from the surrounding people. Even the remnant of Attica which now exists may compare with any region in the world for the variety and excellence of its fruits and the suitableness of its ' Cp. Arist. Metaphys. I. i, $ 16.

Criiias. Critias.

The men and women had miHtary pursuits in common.

Castes,

Common property among the warriors.

Boundaries of antediluvian Attica.

The productiveness of the .soil still equal to

532

The fertility of ancient Attica.

Critias. Critias. that of any country;

although the land is a mere skeleton from which the richer and softer parts have been washed away.

pastures to every sort of animal, which proves what I am saying ; but in those days the country was fair as now and yielded far more abundant produce. How shall I establish my words? and what part of it can be truly called a remnant of the land that then was?

The whole country is only a long promontory extending far into the sea away from the rest of the continent, while the surrounding basin of the sea is everywhere deep in the neighbourhood of the shore.

Many great deluges have taken place during the nine thousand years, for that is the number of years which have elapsed since the time of which I am speaking ; and during all this time and through so many changes, there has never been any considerable accumulation of the soil coming down from the mountains, as in other places, but the earth has fallen away all round and sunk out of sight.

The consequence is, that in comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body, as they may be called, as in the case of small islands, all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, and the mere skeleton of the land being left.

But in the primitive state of the country, its mountains were high hills covered with soil, and the plains, as they are termed by us, of Phelleus were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains.

Of this last the traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees, not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of a size sufficient to cover the largest houses ; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle.

Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea, but, having an abundant supply in all places, and receiving it into herself and treasuring it up in the close clay soil, it let off into the hollows the streams which it absorbed from the heights, providing everywhere abundant fountains and rivers, of which there may still be observed sacred memorials in places where fountains once existed ; and this proves the truth of what I am saying. Such was the natural state of the country, which was cul-

The arrangement of the Acropolis. 533 tivated, as we may well believe, by true husbandmen, who Crituis. made husbandry their business, and were lovers of honour, critias. and of a noble nature, and had a soil the best in the world, and abundance of water, and in the heaven above an excellently attempered climate. Now the city in those days was arranged on this wise. In the first place the Acropolis was The extent of 1 1 2 not as now.

For the fact is that a single night of excessive '^*^ Acropohs. rain washed away the earth and laid bare the rock ; at the same time there were earthquakes, and then occurred the extraordinary inundation, which was the third before the great destruction of Deucalion.

But in primitive times the hill of the Acropolis extended to the Eridanus and Ilissus, and included the Pnyx on one side, and the Lycabettus as a boundary on the opposite side to the Pnyx, and was all well covered with soil, and level at the top, except in one or two places.

Outside the Acropolis and under the sides of the On its slopes hill there dwelt artisans, and such of the husbandmen as "^^I^'^k'^'T ' and husbandwere tilling the ground near ; the warrior class dwelt by men : on its themselves around the temples of Athene and Hephaestus at w^TorcUss. the summit, which moreover they had enclosed with a single fence like the garden of a single house.

On the north side Their winter they had dwellings in common and had erected halls for ^"J.s'""'"«^ -' *^ habitations. dining in winter, and had all the buildings which they needed for their common life, besides temples, but there was no adorning of them with gold and silver, for they made no use of these for any purpose ; they took a middle course between meanness and ostentation, and built modest houses in which they and their children's children grew old, and they handed them down to others who were like themselves, always the same.

But in summer-time they left their gardens and gymnasia and dining halls, and then the southern side of the hill was made use of by them for the same purpose.

Where the Acropolis now is there was a fountain, which was The fountain choked by the earthquake, and has left only the few small Acropolis. streams which still exist in the vicinity, but in those days the fountain gave an abundant supply of water for all and of suitable temperature in summer and in winter. This is how they dwelt, being the guardians of their own citizens and the leaders of the Hellenes, who were their willing followers. And they took care to preserve the same number of men and The number

534

The foundation of Atlantis.

Critias. Ckitias. of the population the same then as now.

Explanation of the occurrence of Greek names m the narrative.

The originals still in existence.

Atlantis the lot of Poseidon.

women through all time, being so many as were required for warlike purposes, then as now, — that is to say, about twenty thousand. Such were the ancient Athenians, and after this manner they righteously administered their own land and the rest of Hellas ; they were renowned all over Europe and Asia for the beauty of their persons and for the many virtues of their souls, and of all men who lived in those days they were the most illustrious.

And next, if I have not forgotten what I heard when I was a child, I will impart to you the character and origin of their adversaries. For friends should not keep their stories to themselves, but have them in common. Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to 113 warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners.

I will tell you the reason of this : Solon, who was intending to use the tale for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language.

My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child. Therefore if you hear names such as are used in this country, you must not be surprised, for I have told how they came to be introduced.

The tale, which was of great length, began as follows : — I have before remarked in speaking of the allotments of the gods, that they distributed the whole earth into portions differing in extent, and made for themselves temples and instituted sacrifices. And Poseidon, receiving for his lot the island of Atlantis, begat children by a mortal woman, and settled them in a part of the island, which I will describe.

Looking towards the sea, but in the centre of the whole island, there was a plain which is said to have been the fairest of all plains and very fertile. Near the plain again, and also in the centre of the island at a distance of about fifty stadia, there was a mountain not very high on any side. In this mountain there dwelt one of the earth-born primeval men of that country, whose name was Evenor, and he had a wife

named Leucippe, and they had an only daughter who was called Cleito.

The maiden had already reached womanhood, when her father and mother died ; Poseidon fell in love with her and had intercourse with her, and breaking the ground, enclosed the hill in which she dwelt all round, making alternate zones of sea and land larger and smaller, encircling one another ; there were two of land and three of water, which he turned as with a lathe, each having its circumference ecjuidistant every way from the centre, so that no man could get to the island, for ships and voyages were not as yet.

He himself, being a god, found no difficulty in making special arrangements for the centre island, bringing up two springs of water from beneath the earth, one of warm water and the other of cold, and making every variety of food to spring up abundantly from the soil.

He also begat and brought up five pairs of twin male children ; and dividing the island of Atlantis into ten portions, he gave to the first-bom of the eldest pair his mother's dwelling and the surrounding allotment, which was the largest and best, and made him king over the rest ; the others he made princes, and gave them rule over many men, and a large territory.

And he named them all ; the eldest, who was the first king, he named Atlas, and after him the whole island and the ocean were called Atlantic.

To his twin brother, who was born after him, and obtained as his lot the extremity of the island towards the pillars of Heracles, facing the country which is now called the region of Gades in that part of the world, he gave the name which in the Hellenic language is Eumelus, in the language of the country which is named after him, Gadeirus. Of the second pair of twins he called one Ampheres, and the other Evaemon.

To the elder of the third pair of twins he gave the name Mneseus, and Autochthon to the one who followed him. Of the fourth pair of twins he called the elder Elasippus, and the younger Mestor. And of the fifth pair he gave to the elder the name of Azaes, and to the younger that of Diaprepes.

All these and their descendants for many generations were the inhabitants and rulers of divers islands in the open sea ; and also, as has been already said, they held sway in our direction over the country within the pillars as far as Egypt and Tyrrhenia. Now Atlas had a

C*-itias. Critias. His love for Cleito. He surrounded the hill in which she lived with alternate zones of sea and land.

Their children, Atlas and his brothers, were the princes of the island. The extent of their dominion.

and wild.

536 The resources of the country. Critias. numerous and honourable family, and they retained the critias. kingdom, the eldest son handing it on to his eldest for many Their vast generations ; and they had such an amount of wealth as was wealth. never before possessed by kings and potentates, and is not likely ever to be again, and they were furnished with everything which they needed, both in the city and country.

For because of the greatness of their empire many things were brought to them from foreign countries, and the island itself provided most of what was required by them for the uses of Mines. life.

In the first place, they dug out of the earth whatever was to be found there, solid as well as fusile, and that which is now only a name and was then something more than a name, orichalcum, was dug out of the earth in many parts of the island, being more precious in those days than anything Forests. cxcept gold. There was an abundance of wood for carpenter's work, and sufficient maintenance for tame and wild Animals tame auimals.

Moreover, there were a great number of elephants in the island ; for as there was provision for all other sorts of animals, both for those which live in lakes and marshes and rivers, and also for those which live in mountains and on plains, so there was for the animal which is the largest and Fruits and most voracious of all.

Also whatever fragrant things there now are in the earth, whether roots, or herbage, or woods, or essences which distil from fruit and flower, grew and thrived in that land ; also the fruit which admits of cultivation, both the dry sort, which is given us for nourishment and any other which we use for food — we call them all by the common name of pulse, and the fruits having a hard rind, affording drinks and meats and ointments, and good store of chestnuts and the like, which furnish pleasure and amusement, and are fruits which spoil with keeping, and the pleasant kinds of dessert, with which we console ourselves after dinner, when we are tired of eating — all these that sacred island which then beheld the light of the sun, brought forth fair and wondrous and in infinite abundance.

With such blessings the earth freely furnished them ; meanwhile they went on constructing their temples and palaces and harbours and docks. And they arranged the whole country in the following manner: — First of all they bridged over the zones of sea which

Great works: bridges, ivalls, ete. surrounded the ancient metropolis, making a road to and from the royal palace. And at the very beginning they built the palace in the habitation of the god and of their ancestors, which they continued to ornament in successive generations, every king surpassing the one who went before him to the utmost of his power, until they made the building a marvel to behold for size and for beauty.

And beginning from the sea they bored a canal of three hundred feet in width and one hundred feet in depth and fifty stadia in length, which they carried through to the outermost zone, making a passage from the sea up to this, which became a harbour, and leaving an opening sufficient to enable the largest vessels to find ingress.

Moreover, they divided at the bridges the zones of land which parted the zones of sea, leaving room for a single trireme to pass out of one zone into another, and they covered over the channels so as to leave a way underneath for the ships; for the banks were raised considerably above the water.

Now the largest of the zones into which a passage was cut from the sea was three stadia in breadth, and the zone of land which came next of equal breadth ; but the next two zones, the one of water, the other of land, were two stadia, and the one which surrounded the central island was a ii6 stadium only in width. The island in which the palace was situated had a diameter of five stadia.

All this including the zones and the bridge, which was the sixth part of a stadium in width, they surrounded by a stone wall on every side, placing towers and gates on the bridges where the sea passed in. The stone which was used in the work they quarried from underneath the centre island, and from underneath the zones, on the outer as well as the inner side.

One kind was white, another black, and a third red, and as they quarried, they at the same time hollowed out double docks, having roofs formed out of the native rock. Some of their buildings were simple, but in others they put together different stones, varying the colour to please the eye, and to be a natural source of delight.

The entire circuit of the wall, which went round the outermost zone, • they covered with a coating of brass, and the circuit of the next wall they coated with tin, and the third, which encompassed the citadel, flashed with the red light of

537

Critias. Ckitias. The bridges over the zones. The royal palace. The great canal.

The harbour.

Size of the zones,

and of the centre island.

The walls surrounding the zones: their variegated appearance.

538

Temples and fountains.

Critias. Critias. The temple of Cleito and Poseidon.

Splendour of Poseidon's own temple.

Springs.

Baths.

orichalcum. The palaces in the interior of the citadel were constructed on this wise: — In the centre was a holy temple dedicated to Cleito and Poseidon, which remained inaccessible, and was surrounded by an enclosure of gold ; this was the spot where the family of the ten princes first saw the light, and thither the people annually brought the fruits of the earth in their season from all the ten portions, to be an offering to each of the ten.

Here was Poseidon's own temple which was a stadium in length, and half a stadium in width, and of a proportionate height, having a strange barbaric appearance. All the outside of the temple, with the exception of the pinnacles, they covered with silver, and the pinnacles with gold.

In the interior of the temple the roof was of ivory, curiously wrought everywhere with gold and silver and orichalcum ; and all the other parts, the walls and pillars and floor, they coated with orichalcum.

In the temple they placed statues of gold : there was the god himself standing in a chariot — the charioteer of six winged horses — and of such a size that he touched the roof of the building with his head ; around him there were a hundred Nereids riding on dolphins, for such was thought to be the number of them by the men of those days. There were also in the interior of the temple other images which had been dedicated by private persons.

And around the temple on the outside were placed statues of gold of all the descendants of the ten kings and of their wives, and there were many other great offerings of kings and of private persons, coming both from the city itself and from the foreign cities over which they held sway.

There was an altar too, which in size and workmanship corresponded to this magnificence, and the palaces, in like manner, answered to the greatness of the kingdom and the glory of the temple.

In the next place, they had fountains, one of cold and another of hot water, in gracious plenty flowing ; and they were wonderfully adapted for use by reason of the pleasantness and excellence of their waters ^ They constructed buildings about them and planted suitable trees ; also they made cisterns, some open to the heaven, others roofed over, to be used in winter as warm baths ; there were the kings' ^ Reading ^Kar^pov TTpbq ttjv xpv^i-'^'

baths, and the baths of private persons, which were kept apart ; and there were separate baths for women, and for horses and cattle, and to each of them they gave as much adornment as was suitable.

Of the water which ran off they carried some to the grove of Poseidon, where were growing all manner of trees of wonderful height and beauty, owing to the excellence of the soil, while the remainder was conveyed by aqueducts along the bridges to the outer circles ; and there were many temples built and dedicated to many gods ; also gardens and places of exercise, some for men, and others for horses in both of the two islands formed by the zones ; and in the centre of the larger of the two there was set apart a race-course of a stadium in width, and in length allowed to extend all round the island, for horses to race in.

Also there were guard-houses at intervals for the guards, the more trusted of whom were appointed to keep watch in the lesser zone, which was nearer the Acropolis ; while the most trusted of all had houses given them within the citadel, near the persons of the kings. The docks were full of triremes and naval stores, and all things were quite ready for use. Enough of the plan of the royal palace.

Leaving the palace and passing out across the three harbours, you came to a wall which began at the sea and went all round : this was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour, and enclosed the whole, the ends meeting at the mouth of the channel which led to the sea.

The entire area was densely crowded with habitations ; and the canal and the largest of the harbours were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts, who, from their numbers, kept up a multitudinous sound of human voices, and din and clatter of all sorts night and day.

I have described the city and the environs of the ancient palace nearly in the words of Solon, and now I must ii8 endeavour to represent to you the nature and arrangement of the rest of the land.

The whole country was said by him to be very lofty and precipitous on the side of the sea, but the country immediately about and surrounding the city was a level plain, itself surrounded by mountains which descended towards the sea ; it was smooth and even, and of an oblong shape, extending in one direction three thousand stadia, but

Critias. Critias.

The grove of Poseidon.

Aqueducts. Temples. Gardens. Hippodromes.

Guard-houses.

Docks.

Between the outermost wall and the great harbour was the mercantile quarter.

The city lay in an oblong plain, surrounded by mountains, which descended abruptly into the sea.

540

Disposition of the country.

Critias. Critias.

The great foss, loo feet in depth, 600 in width, and 10,000 stadia in length.

The cross canals.

Two harvests.

60,000 lots and 60,000 officers.

across the centre inland it was two thousand stadia. This part of the island looked towards the south, and was sheltered from the north.

The surrounding mountains were celebrated for their number and size and beauty, far beyond any which still exist, having in them also many wealthy villages of country folk, and rivers, and lakes, and meadows supplying food enough for every animal, wild or tame, and much wood of various sorts, abundant for each and every kind of work.

I will now describe the plain, as it was fashioned by nature and by the labours of many generations of kings through long ages. It was for the most part rectangular and oblong, and where falling out of the straight line followed the circular ditch. The depth, and width, and length of this ditch were incredible, and gave the impression that a work of such extent, in addition to so many others, could never have been artificial.

Nevertheless I must say what I was told. It was excavated to the depth of a hundred feet, and its breadth was a stadium everywhere ; it was carried round the whole of the plain, and was ten thousand stadia in length. It received the streams which came down from the mountains, and winding round the plain and meeting at the city, was there let off into the sea.

Further inland, likewise, straight canals of a hundred feet in width were cut from it through the plain, and again let off into the ditch leading to the sea : these canals were at intervals of a hundred stadia, and by them they brought down the wood from the mountains to the city, and conveyed the fruits of the earth in ships, cutting transverse passages from one canal into another, and to the city.

Twice in the year they gathered the fruits of the earth — in winter having the benefit of the rains of heaven, and in summer the water which the land supplied by introducing streams from the canals. As to the population, each of the lots in the plain had to find a leader for the men who were fit for military service, and the size of a lot was a square of ten stadia each way, and the total number of all the lots was sixty thousand.

And of the inhabitants of the mountains and of the rest of the country there was also a vast multitude, which was distributed among the lots and had leaders assigned to them according to their districts and villages. The leader was

The meeting of the kings every fifth and sixth year.

541 required to furnish for the war the sixth portion of a war- Critias. chariot, so as to make up a total of ten thousand chariots ; Critias. also two horses and riders for them, and a pair of chariot- Military horses without a seat, accompanied by a horseman who could '^'■"'^"s^^ '• IO,CXX) fight on foot carrymg a small shield, and having a charioteer chariots, 1,300 who stood behind the man-at-arms to guide the two horses ; ^^'p**' ^*^' also, he was bound to furnish two heavy-armed soldiers, two archers, two slingers, three stone-shooters and three javelinmen, who were light-armed, and four sailors to make up the complement of twelve hundred ships.

Such was the military order of the royal city — the order of the other nine governments varied, and it would be wearisome to recount their several differences. As to offices and honours, the following was the arrange- i.aws affecting ment from the first.

Each of the ten kiners in his own ^^^^^'"g^'"- '-' scnbed on a division and in his own city had the absolute control of the column of citizens, and, in most cases, of the laws, punishing and slaying °''"^*^^''^"'"- whomsoever he would. Now the order of precedence among them and their mutual relations were regulated by the commands of Poseidon which the law had handed down.

These were inscribed by the first kings on a pillar of orichalcum, which was situated in the middle of the island, at the temple of Poseidon, whither the kings were gathered together every fifth and every sixth year alternately, thus giving equal honour to the odd and to the even number.

And when they were gathered together they consulted about Administratheir common interests, and enquired if any one had trans- (^""s'jj^^^h^* gressed in anything, and passed judgment, and before they ten kings in passed judgment they gave their pledges to one another on %'l^^^^ "'^ this wise: — There were bulls who had the range of the after sacrifice temple of Poseidon ; and the ten kings, being left alone in ^"'^ p^yer. the temple, after they had offered prayers to the god that they might capture the victim which was acceptable to him, hunted the bulls, without weapons, bur. with staves and nooses ; and the bull which they caught they led up to the pillar and cut its throat over the top of it so that the blood fell upon the sacred inscription.

Now on the pillar, besides the laws, there was inscribed an oath invoking mighty curses on the disobedient. When therefore, after slaying the bull in the accustomed manner, they had burnt

542

The laws of the confederacy ,

Critias. Critias.

They put on azure robes when they gave judgment, and recorded their decisions on golden tablets.

The kings were not to take up arms against one another, but were to unite for mutual defence.

The virtues of the people of Atlantis were great so long as the divme element

its limbs, they filled a bowl of wine and cast in a clot of 1 2 blood for each of them ; the rest of the victim they put in the fire, after having purified the column all round.

Then they drew from the bowl in golden cups, and pouring a libation on the fire, they swore that they would judge according to the laws on the pillar, and would punish him who in any point had already transgressed them, and that for the future they would not, if they could help; offend against the writing on the pillar, and would neither command others, nor obey any ruler who commanded them, to act otherwise than according to the laws of their father Poseidon.

This was the prayer which each of them offered up for himself and for his descendants, at the same time drinking and dedicating the cup out of which he drank in the temple of the god ; and after they had supped and satisfied their needs, when darkness came on, and the fire about the sacrifice was cool, all of them put on most beautiful azure robes, and, sitting on the ground, at night, over the embers of the sacrifices by which they had sworn, and extinguishing all the fire about the temple, they received and gave judgment, if any of them had an accusation to bring against any one ; and when they had given judgment, at daybreak they wrote down their sentences on a golden tablet, and dedicated it together with their robes to be a memorial.

There were many special laws affecting the several kings inscribed about the temples, but the most important was the following : They were not to take up arms against one another, and they were all to come to the rescue if any one in any of their cities attempted to overthrow the royal house ; like their ancestors, they were to deliberate in common about war and other matters, giving the supremacy to the descendants of Atlas.

And the king was not to have the power of life and death over any of his kinsmen unless he had the assent of the majority of the ten.

Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis ; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells : For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were ; for they possessed

true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with Critim. wisdom in the various chances of Hfe, and in their intercourse critias. with one another.

They despised everything but virtue, lasted in them; caring Httle for their present state of hfe, and thinking ^"' *^*^" '^'^ 1-11 •riiit grew weaker, hghtly of the possession of gold and other property, which they degenseemed only a burden to them ; neither were they intoxicated "^'^^• 2 1 by luxury ; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control ; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them.

By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them ; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see, grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts ; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules iiuim.ition of according to law, and is able to see into such things, ofAdantil"^ perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their ^ most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows: — w-j ^