Phaedrus — Plato
The text is shown on its own: no facing layer is held for this issue.
THE REPUBLIC 28$ 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 in a state of war, and this kind of antagonism is to be called war; but when Hellenes , fight with one another we shall say that they are by nature friends, and at such a time Hellas is in a state of disorder and distraction, and enmity of that sort is to be called discord.
In that view, I agree.
Consider then, I said, when that which is now acknowledged by us 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, — ^how can either of them be a lover of his country ? for no true lover of his country would tear in pieces his 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 not of everlasting war. .
Yes,' he said, that is^a better temper than the other. And when you found a State, are you not intending to found an Hellenic State ? Of course, he replied. Then will not the citizens be good and civilized ? To be sure. And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as their own land, and share in the common temples?
Most certainly; And any difference that arises among Hellenes will be regarded by them as discord only, — a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called a war? 47.-- Certainly not. Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to make up their quarrel ? Certainly. Correcting them in love, not punishing them with a view to enslaving or destroying them ; as correctors, not as enemies? That is very true.
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 p. 286always 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 raze 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, in thinking that these are the sort of rules which our citizens ought to observe towards their (Hellenic) adversaries ; in their wars with barbarians the present practice of the Hellenes to one another will afford a sufficient rule. Let this then be enacted for the observance of our guardians ; that they are neither to devastate the ground nor to burn houses.
Yes, let that be enacted ; and we may safely maintain that this and all our previous enactments are excellent. But still, Socrates, I must say, that if you are allowed to go on in this way you will entirely forget the other question which in entering on this discussion you put aside, namely : the inquiry as to whether such an order of things is possible, and if possible, in what way possible?
For, admitting the possibility, I am quite ready to acknowledge that the plan has every sort of advantage.
I will add what you have omitted, that they will be the bravest of warriors, ever exhorting one another by the names of fathers, brothers, and sons, and therefore never leaving their ranks ; 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 auxiliaries in case of need, I know that this will make them altogether invincible ; and there are many domestic advantages which might be mentioned as well, and these also I fully acknowledge.
But, as I admit all these advantages and as many more as you please, if this State of yours were to come into being, say no more of that ; and let us now come to the question of possibility and ways and means — all the rest may be left.
If I loiter for a moment, you instantly make a raid upon me, I said, and have no mercy ; I have hardly escaped the first and second waves, and you don't seem to be aware that you are now bringing upon me the third, which is the greatest.** When you have seen this, and heard the roar, ' In Republic V. Socrates puts forth three propositions which he humorously calls waves, as though the company were likely to be overwhelmed by them.
These propositions are : j. The sexes should have all occupations in common and therefore the same education. 2. Wives and children should be in common. 3. Th^ State should be luleH by philosophers.
p. 287I think you will acknowledge that some fear and hesitation was natural, considering the marvelous nature of the proposal which I have to offer for consideration. The more apj^eals of this sort which you make, he said, the more determined are we that you should 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 makes you say this ? I 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 of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men? The approximation will be enough.
Then the nature of justice and the perfectly just man, and of injustice and the perfectly unjust, was only an_ ideal? We were to look at them in order that we might judge of our own happiness and unhappiness according to the standard which they exhibited and the degree in which we resembled them, not with any view of demonstrating the possibility of their existence ? That is true, he said.
How would a painter be the worse painter because, after having minutely painted an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was unable to show that any such man could ever have existed? He would not. 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 prove the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner described ? Surely not, he replied.
That must be acknowledged, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try and show how and under what condition the possibility is highest, I must ask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admissions. What admissions ? I want to know whether words do not surpass realities ; ^ and whether the actual, whatever a man may think, does not fall short of the truth ? What do you say ?
No commentary for this page under the selected tracks.
There is commentary on page 1.