The Republic — Plato

p. 248

PLATO

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 ^schylus 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 of it. I understand, he replied. 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 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 honored in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonored. Clearly. And what is honored is cultivated, and that which has no honor/is neglected. That is obvious. And' so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money ; they honor and look up to

THE REPUBLIC

p. 249

the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonor the poor man. They do so. They next 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. 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 like reason, they are incapable of carrying on any war. Either they arm the jnultitude, and then they are more afraid of them than of the > Compare supra, 5^ C. ' Omitting q rii/os.

enemy; or, if they do not call them out in the hour of hattle, they are oligarclis 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 same persons have too many callings — 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 did he only seem to be a member of the ruling 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 sOj 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 neighborhood there are hidden away thieves and cut-purses and robbers of temples, and all sorts of malefactors.