Timaeus — Plato

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