The Republic — Plato

" 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 arc 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 introduced (Ar. " Pol. 6, § 5). (6) There remains in the " Laws " the old enmity to the poets (vii.

817), who are ironically saluted in high-flown 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 honor due to the soul), viii.

835 fif. (the evils of licentious or unnatural love), the whole of Book X. (religion), xi. 918 ff. (the dishonesty of retail trade), and 923 fT. (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 2population 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 government, 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 with discussions about 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 5,000, but in the ' Republic ' only 1,000." (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 occcasions, 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 inhabited 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 have now in hand, when created, will be nearest to immortality and unity in the next degree ; and after that, by the 3grace of God, we will complete 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," inquiries 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 favor of a person (Arist. " Pol." iii. 15, 16).

But much may be 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 asked, " Whether the state of innocence which is described in the myth, or a state like our own which possesses art and science and distinguishes 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 Plato 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