Timaeus — Plato

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.