(SOCRATES, GLAUCON, ADEIMANTUS.)
SUCH is the good and true City or State, and
the good and true man is of the same pattern; and if this is right every other is wrong;
and the evil is one which affects not only the ordering of the State, but also the
regulation of the individual soul, and is exhibited in four forms.
What are they? he said.
2 I was proceeding to tell the order in
which the four evil forms appeared to me to succeed one another, when Polemarchus, who was
sitting a little way off, just beyond Adeimantus, began to whisper to him: stretching
forth his hand, he took hold of the upper part of his coat by the shoulder, and drew him
toward him, leaning forward himself so as to be quite close and saying something in his
ear, of which I only caught the words, "Shall we let him off, or what shall we
do?"
Certainly not, said Adeimantus, raising his
voice.
Who is it, I said, whom you are refusing to
let off?
You, he said.
I repeated, Why am I especially not to be
let off?
3 Why, he said, we think that you are lazy,
and mean to cheat us out of a whole chapter which is a very important part of the story;
and you fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding; as if it were
self-evident to everybody, that in the matter of women and children "friends have all
things in common."
And was I not right, Adeimantus?
4 Yes, he said; but what is right in this
particular case, like everything else, requires to be explained; for community may be of
many kinds. Please, therefore, to say what sort of community you mean. We have been long
expecting that you would tell us something about the family life of your citizens-- how
they will bring children into the world, and rear them when they have arrived, and, in
general, what is the nature of this community of women and children--for we are of opinion
that the right or wrong management of such matters will have a great and paramount
influence on the State for good or for evil. And now, since the question is still
undetermined, and you are taking in hand another State, we have resolved, as you heard,
not to let you go until you give an account of all this.
To that resolution, said Glaucon, you may
regard me as saying: Agreed.
And without more ado, said Thrasymachus, you
may consider us all to be equally agreed.
5 I said, You know not what you are doing in
thus assailing me: What an argument are you raising about the State! Just as I thought
that I had finished, and was only too glad that I had laid this question to sleep, and was
reflecting how fortunate I was in your acceptance of what I then said, you ask me to begin
again at the very foundation, ignorant of what a hornet's nest of words you are stirring.
Now I foresaw this gathering trouble, and avoided it.
For what purpose do you conceive that we
have come here, said Thrasymachus--to look for gold, or to hear discourse?
Yes, but discourse should have a limit.
6 Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole
of life is the only limit which wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses. But
never mind about us; take heart yourself and answer the question in your own way: What
sort of community of women and children is this which is to prevail among our guardians?
and how shall we manage the period between birth and education, which seems to require the
greatest care? Tell us how these things will be.
7 Yes, my simple friend, but the answer is
the reverse of easy; many more doubts arise about this than about our previous
conclusions. For the practicability of what is said may be doubted; and looked at in
another point of view, whether the scheme, if ever so practicable, would be for the best,
is also doubtful. Hence I feel a reluctance to approach the subject, lest our aspiration,
my dear friend, should turn out to be a dream only.
Fear not, he replied, for your audience will
not be hard upon you; they are not sceptical or hostile.
I said: My good friend, I suppose that you
mean to encourage me by these words.
Yes, he said.
8 Then let me tell you that you are doing
just the reverse; the encouragement which you offer would have been all very well had I
myself believed that I knew what I was talking about. To declare the truth about matters
of high interest which a man honors and loves, among wise men who love him, need occasion
no fear or faltering in his mind; but to carry on an argument when you are yourself only a
hesitating inquirer, which is my condition, is a dangerous and slippery thing; and the
danger is not that I shall be laughed at (of which the fear would be childish), but that I
shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sure of my footing, and drag my friends
after me in my fall. And I pray Nemesis not to visit upon me the words which I am going to
utter. For I do indeed believe that to be an involuntary homicide is a less crime than to
be a deceiver about beauty, or goodness, or justice, in the matter of laws. And that is a
risk which I would rather run among enemies than among friends; and therefore you do well
to encourage me.
Glaucon laughed and said: Well, then,
Socrates, in case you and your argument do us any serious injury you shall be acquitted
beforehand of the homicide, and shall not be held to be a deceiver; take courage then and
speak.
9 Well, I said, the law says that when a man
is acquitted he is free from guilt, and what holds at law may hold in argument.
Then why should you mind?
10 Well, I replied, I suppose that I must
retrace my steps and say what I perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place. The
part of the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes the turn of the women.
Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readily since I am invited by you.
11 For men born and educated like our
citizens, the only way, in my opinion, of arriving at a right conclusion about the
possession and use of women and children is to follow the path on which we originally
started, when we said that the men were to be the guardians and watch-dogs of the herd.
True.
12 Let us further suppose the birth and
education of our women to be subject to similar or nearly similar regulations; then we
shall see whether the result accords with our design.
What do you mean?
13 What I mean may be put into the form of a
question, I said: Are dogs divided into he's and she's, or do they both share equally in
hunting and in keeping watch and in the other duties of dogs? or do we intrust to the
males the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while we leave the females at home,
under the idea that the bearing and the suckling of their puppies are labor enough for
them?
No, he said, they share alike; the only
difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker.
But can you use different animals for the
same purpose, unless they are bred and fed in the same way?
You cannot.
Then, if women are to have the same duties
as men, they must have the same nurture and education?
Yes.
The education which was assigned to the men
was music and gymnastics. Yes.
Then women must be taught music and
gymnastics and also the art of war, which they must practise like the men?
That is the inference, I suppose.
14 I should rather expect, I said, that
several of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous.
No doubt of it.
15 Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all
will be the sight of women naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially
when they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty, any more
than the enthusiastic old men who, in spite of wrinkles and ugliness, continue to frequent
the gymnasia.
Yes, indeed, he said: according to present
notions the proposal would be thought ridiculous.
16 But then, I said, as we have determined
to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against
this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women's attainments, both in music and
gymnastics, and above all about their wearing armor and riding upon horseback!
17 Very true, he replied. Yet, having begun,
we must go forward to the rough places of the law; at the same time begging of these
gentlemen for once in their life to be serious. Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the
Hellenes were of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians, that
the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and improper; and when first the Cretans, and then
the Lacedaemonians, introduced the custom, the wits of that day might equally have
ridiculed the innovation.
No doubt.
18 But when experience showed that to let
all things be uncovered was far better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to
the outward eye had vanished before the better principle which reason asserted, then the
man was perceived to be a fool who directs the shafts of his ridicule at any other sight
but that of folly and vice, or seriously inclines to weigh the beautiful by any other
standard but that of the good.
Very true, he replied.
19 First, then, whether the question is to
be put in jest or in earnest, let us come to an understanding about the nature of woman:
Is she capable of sharing either wholly or partially in the actions of men, or not at all?
And is the art of war one of those arts in which she can or cannot share? That will be the
best way of commencing the inquiry, and will probably lead to the fairest conclusion.
That will be much the best way.
Shall we take the other side first and begin
by arguing against ourselves? in this manner the adversary's position will not be
undefended.
Why not? he said.
20 Then let us put a speech into the mouths
of our opponents. They will say: "Socrates and Glaucon, no adversary need convict
you, for you yourselves, at the first foundation of the State, admitted the principle that
everybody was to do the one work suited to his own nature." And certainly, if I am
not mistaken, such an admission was made by us. "And do not the natures of men and
women differ very much indeed?" And we shall reply, Of course they do. Then we shall
be asked, "Whether the tasks assigned to men and to women should not be different,
and such as are agreeable to their different natures?" Certainly they should.
"But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and
women, whose natures are so entirely different, ought to perform the same actions?"
What defence will you make for us, my good sir, against anyone who offers these
objections?
That is not an easy question to answer when
asked suddenly; and I shall and I do beg of you to draw out the case on our side.
21 These are the objections, Glaucon, and
there are many others of a like kind, which I foresaw long ago; they made me afraid and
reluctant to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women and children.
22 By Zeus, he said, the problem to be
solved is anything but easy. Why, yes, I said, but the fact is that when a man is out of
his depth, whether he has fallen into a little swimming-bath or into mid-ocean, he has to
swim all the same.
Very true.
And must not we swim and try to reach the
shore--we will hope that Arion's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us?
23 I suppose so, he said. Well, then, let us
see if any way of escape can be found. We acknowledged--did we not?--that different
natures ought to have different pursuits, and that men's and women's natures are
different. And now what are we saying?--that different natures ought to have the same
pursuits--this is the inconsistency which is charged upon us.
Precisely.
Verily, Glaucon, I said, glorious is the
power of the art of contradiction!
Why do you say so?
24 Because I think that many a man falls
into the practice against his will. When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really
disputing, just because he cannot define and divide, and so know that of which he is
speaking; and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in the spirit of contention and
not of fair discussion.
Yes, he replied, such is very often the
case; but what has that to do with us and our argument?
A great deal; for there is certainly a
danger of our getting unintentionally into a verbal opposition.
25 In what way? Why we valiantly and
pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth, that different natures ought to have different
pursuits, but we never considered at all what was the meaning of sameness or difference of
nature, or why we distinguished them when we assigned different pursuits to different
natures and the same to the same natures.
Why, no, he said, that was never considered
by us.
26 I said: Suppose that by way of
illustration we were to ask the question whether there is not an opposition in nature
between bald men and hairy men; and if this is admitted by us, then, if bald men are
cobblers, we should forbid the hairy men to be cobblers, and conversely?
That would be a jest, he said.
27 Yes, I said, a jest; and why? because we
never meant when we constructed the State, that the opposition of natures should extend to
every difference, but only to those differences which affected the pursuit in which the
individual is engaged; we should have argued, for example, that a physician and one who is
in mind a physician may be said to have the same nature.
True.
Whereas the physician and the carpenter have
different natures?
Certainly.
28 And if, I said, the male and female sex
appear to differ in their fitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit
or art ought to be assigned to one or the other of them; but if the difference consists
only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to a proof that a
woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive; and we
shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have the
same pursuits.
Very true, he said.
Next, we shall ask our opponent how, in
reference to any of the pursuits or arts of civic life, the nature of a woman differs from
that of a man?
That will be quite fair.
29 And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply
that to give a sufficient answer on the instant is not easy; but after a little reflection
there is no difficulty.
Yes, perhaps.
30 Suppose then that we invite him to
accompany us in the argument, and then we may hope to show him that there is nothing
peculiar in the constitution of women which would affect them in the administration of the
State.
By all means.
31 Let us say to him: Come now, and we will
ask you a question: When you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did
you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty; a
little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal, whereas the other, after much
study and application, no sooner learns than he forgets; or again, did you mean, that the
one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a
hinderance to him? --would not these be the sort of differences which distinguish the man
gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?
No one will deny that.
32 And can you mention any pursuit of
mankind in which the male sex has not all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree
than the female? Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the management
of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear to be great, and in which
for her to be beaten by a man is of all things the most absurd?
You are quite right, he replied, in
maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many
things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.
33 And if so, my friend, I said, there is no
special faculty of administration in a State which a woman has because she is a woman, or
which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both;
all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is
inferior to a man.
Very true.
Then are we to impose all our enactments on
men and none of them on women?
That will never do.
One woman has a gift of healing, another
not; one is a musician, and another has no music in her nature?
Very true.
And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and
military exercises, and another is unwarlike and hates gymnastics?
Certainly.
34 And one woman is a philosopher, and
another is an enemy of philosophy; one has spirit, and another is without spirit?
That is also true.
35 Then one woman will have the temper of a
guardian, and another not. Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by
differences of this sort?
Yes.
Men and women alike possess the qualities
which make a guardian; they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness.
Obviously.
46 And those women who have such qualities
are to be selected as the companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and
whom they resemble in capacity and in character?
Very true.
And ought not the same natures to have the
same pursuits?
They ought.
Then, as we were saying before, there is
nothing unnatural in assigning music and gymnastics to the wives of the guardians--to that
point we come round again.
Certainly not.
37 The law which we then enacted was
agreeable to nature, and therefore not an impossibility or mere aspiration; and the
contrary practice, which prevails at present, is in reality a violation of nature.
That appears to be true.
We had to consider, first, whether our
proposals were possible, and secondly whether they were the most beneficial?
Yes.
And the possibility has been acknowledged?
Yes.
The very great benefit has next to be
established?
Quite so.
38 You will admit that the same education
which makes a man a good guardian will make a woman a good guardian; for their original
nature is the same?
Yes.
I should like to ask you a question.
What is it?
Would you say that all men are equal in
excellence, or is one man better than another?
The latter.
39 And in the commonwealth which we were
founding do you conceive the guardians who have been brought up on our model system to be
more perfect men, or the cobblers whose education has been cobbling?
What a ridiculous question!
You have answered me, I replied: Well, and
may we not further say that our guardians are the best of our citizens?
By far the best.
And will not their wives be the best women?
Yes, by far the best.
40 And can there be anything better for the
interests of the State than that the men and women of a State should be as good as
possible?
There can be nothing better.
And this is what the arts of music and
gymnastics, when present in such a manner as we have described, will accomplish?
Certainly.
Then we have made an enactment not only
possible but in the highest degree beneficial to the State?
True.
41 Then let the wives of our guardians
strip, for their virtue will be their robe, and let them share in the toils of war and the
defence of their country; only in the distribution of labors the lighter are to be
assigned to the women, who are the weaker natures, but in other respects their duties are
to be the same. And as for the man who laughs at naked women exercising their bodies from
the best of motives, in his laughter he is plucking
"A fruit of unripe wisdom,"
and he himself is ignorant of what he is
laughing at, or what he is about; for that is, and ever will be, the best of sayings,
"that the useful is the noble, and the hurtful is the base."
Very true.
42 Here, then, is one difficulty in our law
about women, which we may say that we have now escaped; the wave has not swallowed us up
alive for enacting that the guardians of either sex should have all their pursuits in
common; to the utility and also to the possibility of this arrangement the consistency of
the argument with itself bears witness.
Yes, that was a mighty wave which you have
escaped.
Yes, I said, but a greater is coming; you
will not think much of this when you see the next.
Go on; let me see.
43 The law, I said, which is the sequel of
this and of all that has preceded, is to the following effect, "that the wives of our
guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know
his own child, nor any child his parent."
Yes, he said, that is a much greater wave
than the other; and the possibility as well as the utility of such a law are far more
questionable.
44 I do not think, I said, that there can be
any dispute about the very great utility of having wives and children in common; the
possibility is quite another matter, and will be very much disputed.
I think that a good many doubts may be
raised about both.
45 You imply that the two questions must be
combined, I replied. Now I meant that you should admit the utility; and in this way, as I
thought, I should escape from one of them, and then there would remain only the
possibility.
But that little attempt is detected, and
therefore you will please to give a defence of both.
46 Well, I said, I submit to my fate. Yet
grant me a little favor: let me feast my mind with the dream as day-dreamers are in the
habit of feasting themselves when they are walking alone; for before they have discovered
any means of effecting their wishes--that is a matter which never troubles them--they
would rather not tire themselves by thinking about possibilities; but assuming that what
they desire is already granted to them, they proceed with their plan, and delight in
detailing what they mean to do when their wish has come true--that is a way which they
have of not doing much good to a capacity which was never good for much. Now I myself am
beginning to lose heart, and I should like, with your permission, to pass over the
question of possibility at present. Assuming therefore the possibility of the proposal, I
shall now proceed to inquire how the rulers will carry out these arrangements, and I shall
demonstrate that our plan, if executed, will be of the greatest benefit to the State and
to the guardians. First of all, then, if you have no objection, I will endeavor with your
help to consider the advantages of the measure; and hereafter the question of possibility.
I have no objection; proceed.
47 First, I think that if our rulers and
their auxiliaries are to be worthy of the name which they bear, there must be willingness
to obey in the one and the power of command in the other; the guardians themselves must
obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any details which are
intrusted to their care.
That is right, he said.
48 You, I said, who are their legislator,
having selected the men, will now select the women and give them to them; they must be as
far as possible of like natures with them; and they must live in common houses and meet at
common meals. None of them will have anything specially his or her own; they will be
together, and will be brought up together, and will associate at gymnastic exercises. And
so they will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each
other-- necessity is not too strong a word, I think?
Yes, he said; necessity, not geometrical,
but another sort of necessity which lovers know, and which is far more convincing and
constraining to the mass of mankind.
True, I said; and this, Glaucon, like all
the rest, must proceed after an orderly fashion; in a city of the blessed, licentiousness
is an unholy thing which the rulers will forbid.
Yes, he said, and it ought not to be
permitted.
Then clearly the next thing will be to make
matrimony sacred in the highest degree, and what is most beneficial will be deemed sacred?
Exactly.
49 And how can marriages be made most
beneficial? that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for
hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have
you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?
In what particulars?
Why, in the first place, although they are
all of a good sort, are not some better than others?
True.
And do you breed from them all
indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?
From the best.
And do you take the oldest or the youngest,
or only those of ripe age?
I choose only those of ripe age.
And if care was not taken in the breeding,
your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?
Certainly.
50 And the same of horses and of animals in
general?
Undoubtedly.
Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what
consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!
Certainly, the same principle holds; but why
does this involve any particular skill?
51 Because, I said, our rulers will often
have to practise upon the body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients
do not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sort of
practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine has to be given, then the
doctor should be more of a man.
That is quite true, he said; but to what are
you alluding?
52 I mean, I replied, that our rulers will
find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects:
we were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines might be of
advantage.
And we were very right.
And this lawful use of them seems likely to
be often needed in the regulations of marriages and births.
How so?
53 Why, I said, the principle has been
already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and
the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible; and that they should rear the
offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained
in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know,
or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking
out into rebellion.
Very true.
54 Had we better not appoint certain
festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will
be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a
matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve
the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider,
such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this
is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.
Certainly, he replied.
55 We shall have to invent some ingenious
kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them
together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.
To be sure, he said.
56 And I think that our braver and better
youth, besides their other honors and rewards, might have greater facilities of
intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought
to have as many sons as possible.
True.
And the proper officers, whether male or
female or both, for offices are to be held by women as well as by men-- Yes--
57 The proper officers will take the
offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with
certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of
the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown
place, as they should be.
Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed
of the guardians is to be kept pure.
58 They will provide for their nurture, and
will bring the mothers to the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest
possible care that no mother recognizes her own child; and other wet-nurses may be engaged
if more are required. Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be
protracted too long; and the mothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble,
but will hand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.
You suppose the wives of our guardians to
have a fine easy time of it when they are having children.
Why, said I, and so they ought. Let us,
however, proceed with our scheme. We were saying that the parents should be in the prime
of life?
Very true.
59 And what is the prime of life? May it not
be defined as a period of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty years in a
man's?
Which years do you mean to include?
60 A woman, I said, at twenty years of age
may begin to bear children to the State, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may
begin at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulse of life beats
quickest, and continue to beget children until he be fifty-five.
61 Certainly, he said, both in men and women
those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigor. Anyone above or
below the prescribed ages who takes part in the public hymeneals shall be said to have
done an unholy and unrighteous thing; the child of which he is the father, if it steals
into life, will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and prayers,
which at each hymeneal priestesses and priests and the whole city will offer, that the new
generation may be better and more useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his
child will be the offspring of darkness and strange lust.
Very true, he replied.
62 And the same law will apply to any one of
those within the prescribed age who forms a connection with any woman in the prime of life
without the sanction of the rulers; for we shall say that he is raising up a bastard to
the State, uncertified and unconsecrated.
Very true, he replied.
63 This applies, however, only to those who
are within the specified age: after that we will allow them to range at will, except that
a man may not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his mother or his mother's
mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibited from marrying their sons or fathers,
or son's son or father's father, and so on in either direction. And we grant all this,
accompanying the permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo which may come into
being from seeing the light; and if any force a way to the birth, the parents must
understand that the offspring of such a union cannot be maintained, and arrange
accordingly.
That also, he said, is a reasonable
proposition. But how will they know who are fathers and daughters, and so on?
64 They will never know. The way will be
this: dating from the day of the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call
all the male children who are born in the seventh and the tenth month afterward his sons,
and the female children his daughters, and they will call him father, and he will call
their children his grandchildren, and they will call the elder generation grandfathers and
grandmothers. All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came
together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I was saying, will be
forbidden to intermarry. This, however, is not to be understood as an absolute prohibition
of the marriage of brothers and sisters; if the lot favors them, and they receive the
sanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them.
Quite right, he replied.
65 Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to
which the guardians of our State are to have their wives and families in common. And now
you would have the argument show that this community is consistent with the rest of our
polity, and also that nothing can be better--would you not?
Yes, certainly.
66 Shall we try to find a common basis by
asking of ourselves what ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in
the organization of a State--what is the greatest good, and what is the greatest evil, and
then consider whether our previous description has the stamp of the good or of the evil?
By all means.
Can there be any greater evil than discord
and distraction and plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the
bond of unity?
There cannot.
67 And there is unity where there is
community of pleasures and pains--where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same
occasions of joy and sorrow?
No doubt.
Yes; and where there is no common but only
private feeling a State is disorganized--when you have one-half of the world triumphing
and the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens?
Certainly.
68 Such differences commonly originate in a
disagreement about the use of the terms "mine" and "not mine,"
"his" and "not his."
Exactly so.
69 And is not that the best-ordered State in
which the greatest number of persons apply the terms "mine" and "not
mine" in the same way to the same thing?
Quite true.
70 Or that again which most nearly
approaches to the condition of the individual--as in the body, when but a finger of one of
us is hurt, the whole frame, drawn toward the soul as a centre and forming one kingdom
under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizes all together with the part
affected, and we say that the man has a pain in his finger; and the same expression is
used about any other part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or of
pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.
71 Very true, he replied; and I agree with
you that in the bestordered State there is the nearest approach to this common feeling
which you describe.
72 Then when any one of the citizens
experiences any good or evil, the whole State will make his case their own, and will
either rejoice or sorrow with him?
Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a
well-ordered State.
73 It will now be time, I said, for us to
return to our State and see whether this or some other form is most in accordance with
these fundamental principles.
Very good.
Our State, like every other, has rulers and
subjects?
True.
All of whom will call one another citizens?
Of course.
But is there not another name which people
give to their rulers in other States?
Generally they call them masters, but in
democratic States they simply call them rulers.
And in our State what other name besides
that of citizens do the people give the rulers?
They are called saviours and helpers, he
replied.
And what do the rulers call the people?
Their maintainers and foster-fathers.
And what do they call them in other States?
Slaves.
74 And what do the rulers call one another
in other States?
Fellow-rulers.
And what in ours?
Fellow-guardians.
75 Did you ever know an example in any other
State of a ruler who would speak of one of his colleagues as his friend and of another as
not being his friend?
Yes, very often.
76 And the friend he regards and describes
as one in whom he has an interest, and the other as a stranger in whom he has no interest?
Exactly.
But would any of your guardians think or
speak of any other guardian as a stranger?
77 Certainly he would not; for everyone whom
they meet will be regarded by them either as a brother or sister, or father or mother, or
son or daughter, or as the child or parent of those who are thus connected with him.
78 Capital, I said; but let me ask you once
more: Shall they be a family in name only; or shall they in all their actions be true to
the name? For example, in the use of the word "father," would the care of a
father be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedience to him which the law
commands; and is the violator of these duties to be regarded as an impious and unrighteous
person who is not likely to receive much good either at the hands of God or of man? Are
these to be or not to be the strains which the children will hear repeated in their ears
by all the citizens about those who are intimated to them to be their parents and the rest
of their kinsfolk?
79 These, he said, and none other; for what
can be more ridiculous than for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only
and not to act in the spirit of them?
80 Then in our city the language of harmony
and concord will be more often heard than in any other. As I was describing before, when
anyone is well or ill, the universal word will be "with me it is well" or
"it is ill."
Most true.
81 And agreeably to this mode of thinking
and speaking, were we not saying that they will have their pleasures and pains in common?
Yes, and so they will.
82 And they will have a common interest in
the same thing which they will alike call "my own," and having this common
interest they will have a common feeling of pleasure and pain?
Yes, far more so than in other States.
83 And the reason of this, over and above
the general constitution of the State, will be that the guardians will have a community of
women and children?
That will be the chief reason.
And this unity of feeling we admitted to be
the greatest good, as was implied in our comparison of a well-ordered State to the
relation of the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or pain?
That we acknowledged, and very rightly.
Then the community of wives and children
among our citizens is clearly the source of the greatest good to the State?
Certainly.
84 And this agrees with the other principle
which we were affirming--that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any other
property; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive from the other
citizens, and they were to have no private expenses; for we intended them to preserve
their true character of guardians.
Right, he replied.
85 Both the community of property and the
community of families, as I am saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will
not tear the city in pieces by differing about "mine" and "not mine;"
each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house of his own,
where he has a separate wife and children and private pleasures and pains; but all will be
affected as far as may be by the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one
opinion about what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend toward a common
end.
Certainly, he replied.
86 And as they have nothing but their
persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints will have no existence among
them; they will be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or
relations are the occasion.
Of course they will.
87 Neither will trials for assault or insult
ever be likely to occur among them. For that equals should defend themselves against
equals we shall maintain to be honorable and right; we shall make the protection of the
person a matter of necessity.
That is good, he said.
88 Yes; and there is a further good in the
law; viz., that if a man has a quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then
and there, and not proceed to more dangerous lengths.
Certainly.
To the elder shall be assigned the duty of
ruling and chastising the younger.
Clearly.
89 Nor can there be a doubt that the younger
will not strike or do any other violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him;
nor will he slight him in any way. For there are two guardians, shame and fear, mighty to
prevent him: shame, which makes men refrain from laying hands on those who are to them in
the relation of parents; fear, that the injured one will be succored by the others who are
his brothers, sons, fathers.
That is true, he replied.
Then in every way the laws will help the
citizens to keep the peace with one another?
Yes, there will be no want of peace.
And as the guardians will never quarrel
among themselves there will be no danger of the rest of the city being divided either
against them or against one another.
None whatever.
90 I hardly like even to mention the little
meannesses of which they will be rid, for they are beneath notice: such, for example, as
the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in
bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy necessaries for their household,
borrowing and then repudiating, getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands
of women and slaves to keep-- the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer in this
way are mean enough and obvious enough, and not worth speaking of.
Yes, he said, a man has no need of eyes in
order to perceive that.
And from all these evils they will be
delivered, and their life will be blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more
blessed.
How so?
91 The Olympic victor, I said, is deemed
happy in receiving a part only of the blessedness which is secured to our citizens, who
have won a more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance at the public cost.
For the victory which they have won is the salvation of the whole State; and the crown
with which they and their children are crowned is the fulness of all that life needs; they
receive rewards from the hands of their country while living, and after death have an
honorable burial.
92 Do you remember, I said, how in the
course of the previous discussion someone who shall be nameless accused us of making our
guardians unhappy--they had nothing and might have possessed all things--to whom we
replied that, if an occasion offered, we might perhaps hereafter consider this question,
but that, as at present divided, we would make our guardians truly guardians, and that we
were fashioning the State with a view to the greatest happiness, not of any particular
class, but of the whole?
Yes, I remember.
93 And what do you say, now that the life of
our protectors is made out to be far better and nobler than that of Olympic victors--is
the life of shoemakers, or any other artisans, or of husbandmen, to be compared with it?
Certainly not.
94 At the same time I ought here to repeat
what I have said elsewhere, that if any of our guardians shall try to be happy in such a
manner that he will cease to be a guardian, and is not content with this safe and
harmonious life, which, in our judgment, is of all lives the best, but, infatuated by some
youthful conceit of happiness which gets up into his head shall seek to appropriate the
whole State to himself, then he will have to learn how wisely Hesiod spoke, when he said,
"half is more than the whole."
If he were to consult me, I should say to
him: Stay where you are, when you have the offer of such a life.
95 You agree then, I said, that men and
women are to have a common way of life such as we have described--common education, common
children; and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether abiding in the city or
going out to war; they are to keep watch together, and to hunt together like dogs; and
always and in all things, as far as they are able, women are to share with the men? And in
so doing they will do what is best, and will not violate, but preserve, the natural
relation of the sexes.
I agree with you, he replied.
96 The inquiry, I said, has yet to be made,
whether such a community will be found possible--as among other animals, so also among
men--and if possible, in what way possible?
You have anticipated the question which I
was about to suggest.
There is no difficulty, I said, in seeing
how war will be carried on by them.
How?
97 Why, of course they will go on
expeditions together; and will take with them any of their children who are strong enough,
that, after the manner of the artisan's child, they may look on at the work which they
will have to do when they are grown up; and besides looking on they will have to help and
be of use in war, and to wait upon their fathers and mothers. Did you never observe in the
arts how the potters' boys look on and help, long before they touch the wheel?
Yes, I have.
98 And shall potters be more careful in
educating their children and in giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their
duties than our guardians will be?
The idea is ridiculous, he said.
99 There is also the effect on the parents,
with whom, as with other animals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest
incentive to valor.
That is quite true, Socrates; and yet if
they are defeated, which may often happen in war, how great the danger is! the children
will be lost as well as their parents, and the State will never recover.
True, I said; but would you never allow them
to run any risk?
I am far from saying that.
100 Well, but if they are ever to run a risk
should they not do so on some occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the
better for it?
Clearly.
101 Whether the future soldiers do or do not
see war in the days of their youth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some
risk may fairly be incurred.
Yes, very important.
This then must be our first step--to make
our children spectators of war; but we must also contrive that they shall be secured
against danger; then all will be well.
True.
102 Their parents may be supposed not to be
blind to the risks of war, but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions
are safe and what dangerous?
That may be assumed.
And they will take them on the safe
expeditions and be cautious about the dangerous ones?
True.
And they will place them under the command
of experienced veterans who will be their leaders and teachers?
Very properly.
Still, the dangers of war cannot be always
foreseen; there is a good deal of chance about them?
True.
103 Then against such chances the children
must be at once furnished with wings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away
and escape.
What do you mean? he said.
104 I mean that we must mount them on horses
in their earliest youth, and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see
war: the horses must not be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable and yet the
swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an excellent view of what is hereafter
to be their own business; and if there is danger they have only to follow their elder
leaders and escape.
I believe that you are right, he said.
105 Next, as to war; what are to be the
relations of your soldiers to one another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to
propose that the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or is guilty of any
other act of cowardice, should be degraded into the rank of a husbandman or artisan. What
do you think?
By all means, I should say.
And he who allows himself to be taken
prisoner may as well be made a present of to his enemies; he is their lawful prey, and let
them do what they like with him.
Certainly.
106 But the hero who has distinguished
himself, what shall be done to him? In the first place, he shall receive honor in the army
from his youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crown him. What do you
say?
I approve.
And what do you say to his receiving the
right hand of fellowship?
To that too, I agree.
But you will hardly agree to my next
proposal.
What is your proposal?
That he should kiss and be kissed by them.
108 Most certainly, and I should be disposed
to go further, and say: Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him
while the expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be
youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valor.
109 Capital, I said. That the brave man is
to have more wives than others has been already determined: and he is to have first
choices in such matters more than others, in order that he may have as many children as
possible?
Agreed.
110 Again, there is another manner in which,
according to Homer, brave youths should be honored; for he tells how Ajax, after he had
distinguished himself in battle, was rewarded with long chines, which seems to be a
compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower of his age, being not only a tribute of
honor but also a very strengthening thing.
Most true, he said.
111 Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our
teacher; and we too, at sacrifices and on the like occasions, will honor the brave
according to the measure of their valor, whether men or women, with hymns and those other
distinctions which we were mentioning; also with
"seats of precedence, and meats and
full cups;"
and in honoring them, we shall be at the
same time training them.
That, he replied, is excellent.
112 Yes, I said; and when a man dies
gloriously in war shall we not say, in the first place, that he is of the golden race?
To be sure.
Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for
affirming that when they are dead
"They are holy angels upon the earth,
authors of good, averters of evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men"?
Yes; and we accept his authority.
We must learn of the god how we are to order
the sepulture of divine and heroic personages, and what is to be their special
distinction; and we must do as he bids?
By all means.
113 And in ages to come we will reverence
them and kneel before their sepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but
any who are deemed pre-eminently good, whether they die from age or in any other way,
shall be admitted to the same honors.
That is very right, he said.
Next, how shall our soldiers treat their
enemies? What about this?
In what respect do you mean?
114 First of all, in regard to slavery? Do
you think it right that Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to
enslave them, if they can help? Should not their custom be to spare them, considering the
danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the
barbarians?
To spare them is infinitely better.
115 Then no Hellene should be owned by them
as a slave; that is a rule which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to
observe.
Certainly, he said; they will in this way be
united against the barbarians and will keep their hands off one another.
116 Next as to the slain; ought the
conquerors, I said, to take anything but their armor? Does not the practice of despoiling
an enemy afford an excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the dead,
pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army before now has been lost from
this love of plunder.
Very true.
117 And is there not illiberality and
avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an
enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear
behind him--is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarrelling
with the stones which strike him instead?
Very like a dog, he said.
Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead
or hindering their burial?
Yes, he replied, we most certainly must.
118 Neither shall we offer up arms at the
temples of the gods, least of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good
feeling with other Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offering of
spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded by the god himself?
Very true.
Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic
territory or the burning of houses, what is to be the practice?
May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing
your opinion?
Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I
would take the annual produce and no more. Shall I tell you why?
Pray do.
119 Why, you see, there is a difference in
the names "discord" and "war," and I imagine that there is also a
difference in their natures; the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the
other of what is external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed discord, and
only the second, war.
That is a very proper distinction, he
replied.
And may I not observe with equal propriety
that the Hellenic race is all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alien
and strange to the barbarians?
Very good, he said.
120 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 enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war;
but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in a state of
disorder and discord, they being by nature friends; and such enmity is to be called
discord.
I agree.
121 Consider then, I said, when that which
we have acknowledged 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! No true
lover of his country would bring himself to tear in pieces his own 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 would not mean to go on fighting
forever.
Yes, he said, that is a better temper than
the other.
And will not the city, which you are
founding, be an Hellenic city?
It ought to be, he replied.
Then will not the citizens be good and
civilized?
Yes, very civilized.
122 And will they not be lovers of Hellas,
and think of Hellas as their own land, and share in the common temples?
Most certainly.
123 And any difference which arises among
them will be regarded by them as discord only--a quarrel among friends, which is not to be
called a war?
Certainly not.
Then they will quarrel as those who intend
some day to be reconciled? Certainly.
They will use friendly correction, but will
not enslave or destroy their opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies?
Just so.
124 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 always 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, that our citizens should
thus deal with their Hellenic enemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with
one another.
Then let us enact this law also for our
guardians: that they are neither to devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their
houses.
Agreed; and we may agree also in thinking
that these, like all our previous enactments, are very good.
125 But still I must say, Socrates, that if
you are allowed to go on in this way you will entirely forget the other question which at
the commencement of this discussion you thrust aside: Is such an order of things possible,
and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to acknowledge that the plan which you propose,
if only feasible, would do all sorts of good to the State. I will add, what you have
omitted, that your citizens will be the bravest of warriors, and will never leave their
ranks, for they will all know one another, and each will call the other father, brother,
son; 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 they
will then be absolutely invincible; and there are many domestic advantages which might
also be mentioned and which I also fully acknowledge: but, as I admit all these advantages
and as many more as you please, if only this State of yours were to come into existence,
we need say no more about them; assuming then the existence of the State, let us now turn
to the question of possibility and ways and means--the rest may be left.
126 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 seem not to be aware that you are now bringing upon me the third, which is
the greatest and heaviest. When you have seen and heard the third wave, I think you will
be more considerate and will acknowledge that some fear and hesitation were natural
respecting a proposal so extraordinary as that which I have now to state and investigate.
127 The more appeals of this sort which you
make, he said, the more determined are we that you shall 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 of that?
128 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 in him
of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men?
The approximation will be enough.
129 We were inquiring into the nature of
absolute justice and into the character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the
perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at these 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, but not with any view of showing that
they could exist in fact.
True, he said.
Would a painter be any the worse because,
after having delineated with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was
unable to show that any such man could ever have existed?
He would be none the worse.
Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a
perfect State?
To be sure.
130 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.
131 That is the truth, I said. But if, at
your request, I am to try and show how and under what conditions the possibility is
highest, I must ask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admissions.
What admissions?
132 I want to know whether ideals are ever
fully realized in language? Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the
actual, whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall short of the
truth? What do you say?
I agree.
133 Then you must not insist on my proving
that the actual State will in every respect coincide with the ideal: if we are only able
to discover how a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit that we have
discovered the possibility which you demand; and will be contented. I am sure that I
should be contented--will not you?
Yes, I will.
134 Let me next endeavor to show what is
that fault in States which is the cause of their present maladministration, and what is
the least change which will enable a State to pass into the truer form; and let the
change, if possible, be of one thing only, or, if not, of two; at any rate, let the
changes be as few and slight as possible.
Certainly, he replied.
135 I think, I said, that there might be a
reform of the State if only one change were made, which is not a slight or easy though
still a possible one.
What is it? he said.
136 Now then, I said, I go to meet that
which I liken to the greatest of the waves; yet shall the word be spoken, even though the
wave break and drown me in laughter and dishonor; and do you mark my words.
Proceed.
137 I said: "Until philosophers are
kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and
political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either
to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest
from their evils--no, nor the human race, as I believe--and then only will this our State
have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." Such was the thought, my
dear Glaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not seemed too extravagant; for to
be convinced that in no other State can there be happiness private or public is indeed a
hard thing.
138 Socrates, what do you mean? I would have
you consider that the word which you have uttered is one at which numerous persons, and
very respectable persons too, in a figure pulling off their coats all in a moment, and
seizing any weapon that comes to hand, will run at you might and main, before you know
where you are, intending to do heaven knows what; and if you don't prepare an answer, and
put yourself in motion, you will be "pared by their fine wits," and no mistake.
You got me into the scrape, I said.
139 And I was quite right; however, I will
do all I can to get you out of it; but I can only give you good-will and good advice, and,
perhaps, I may be able to fit answers to your questions better than another--that is all.
And now, having such an auxiliary, you must do your best to show the unbelievers that you
are right.
140 I ought to try, I said, since you offer
me such invaluable assistance. And I think that, if there is to be a chance of our
escaping, we must explain to them whom we mean when we say that philosophers are to rule
in the State; then we shall be able to defend ourselves: There will be discovered to be
some natures who ought to study philosophy and to be leaders in the State; and others who
are not born to be philosophers, and are meant to be followers rather than leaders.
Then now for a definition, he said.
141 Follow me, I said, and I hope that I may
in some way or other be able to give you a satisfactory explanation.
Proceed.
I dare say that you remember, and therefore
I need not remind you, that a lover, if he is worthy of the name, ought to show his love,
not to some one part of that which he loves, but to the whole.
I really do not understand, and therefore
beg of you to assist my memory.
142 Another person, I said, might fairly
reply as you do; but a man of pleasure like yourself ought to know that all who are in the
flower of youth do somehow or other raise a pang or emotion in a lover's breast, and are
thought by him to be worthy of his affectionate regards. Is not this a way which you have
with the fair: one has a snub nose, and you praise his charming face; the hook-nose of
another has, you say, a royal look; while he who is neither snub nor hooked has the grace
of regularity: the dark visage is manly, the fair are children of the gods; and as to the
sweet "honey-pale," as they are called, what is the very name but the invention
of a lover who talks in diminutives, and is not averse to paleness if appearing on the
cheek of youth? In a word, there is no excuse which you will not make, and nothing which
you will not say, in order not to lose a single flower that blooms in the spring-time of
youth.
If you make me an authority in matters of
love, for the sake of the argument, I assent.
And what do you say of lovers of wine? Do
you not see them doing the same? They are glad of any pretext of drinking any wine.
Very good.
143 And the same is true of ambitious men;
if they cannot command an army, they are willing to command a file; and if they cannot be
honored by really great and important persons, they are glad to be honored by lesser and
meaner people--but honor of some kind they must have.
Exactly.
Once more let me ask: Does he who desires
any class of goods, desire the whole class or a part only?
The whole.
And may we not say of the philosopher that
he is a lover, not of a part of wisdom only, but of the whole?
Yes, of the whole.
144 And he who dislikes learning, especially
in youth, when he has no power of judging what is good and what is not, such a one we
maintain not to be a philosopher or a lover of knowledge, just as he who refuses his food
is not hungry, and may be said to have a bad appetite and not a good one?
Very true, he said.
145 Whereas he who has a taste for every
sort of knowledge and who is curious to learn and is never satisfied, may be justly termed
a philosopher? Am I not right?
146 Glaucon said: If curiosity makes a
philosopher, you will find many a strange being will have a title to the name. All the
lovers of sights have a delight in learning, and must therefore be included. Musical
amateurs, too, are a folk strangely out of place among philosophers, for they are the last
persons in the world who would come to anything like a philosophical discussion, if they
could help, while they run about at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had let out their
ears to hear every chorus; whether the performance is in town or country--that makes no
difference--they are there. Now are we to maintain that all these and any who have similar
tastes, as well as the professors of quite minor arts, are philosophers?
Certainly not, I replied; they are only an
imitation.
He said: Who then are the true philosophers?
Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision
of truth.
That is also good, he said; but I should
like to know what you mean?
To another, I replied, I might have a
difficulty in explaining; but I am sure that you will admit a proposition which I am about
to make.
What is the proposition?
That since beauty is the opposite of
ugliness, they are two?
Certainly.
And inasmuch as they are two, each of them
is one?
True again.
147 And of just and unjust, good and evil,
and of every other class, the same remark holds: taken singly, each of them is one; but
from the various combinations of them with actions and things and with one another, they
are seen in all sorts of lights and appear many? Very true.
And this is the distinction which I draw
between the sightloving, art-loving, practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and
who are alone worthy of the name of philosophers.
How do you distinguish them? he said.
148 The lovers of sounds and sights, I
replied, are, as I conceive, fond of fine tones and colors and forms and all the
artificial products that are made out of them, but their minds are incapable of seeing or
loving absolute beauty.
True, he replied.
Few are they who are able to attain to the
sight of this.
Very true.
149 And he who, having a sense of beautiful
things has no sense of absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that
beauty is unable to follow--of such a one I ask, Is he awake or in a dream only? Reflect:
is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who likens dissimilar things, who puts the
copy in the place of the real object?
I should certainly say that such a one was
dreaming.
But take the case of the other, who
recognizes the existence of absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the
objects which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the place of the
idea nor the idea in the place of the objects-- is he a dreamer, or is he awake?
He is wide awake.
And may we not say that the mind of the one
who knows has knowledge, and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion?
Certainly.
But suppose that the latter should quarrel
with us and dispute our statement, can we administer any soothing cordial or advice to
him, without revealing to him that there is sad disorder in his wits?
We must certainly offer him some good
advice, he replied.
150 Come, then, and let us think of
something to say to him. Shall we begin by assuring him that he is welcome to any
knowledge which he may have, and that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we should like
to ask him a question: Does he who has knowledge know something or nothing? (You must
answer for him).
I answer that he knows something.
Something that is or is not?
Something that is; for how can that which is
not ever be known?
And are we assured, after looking at the
matter from many points of view, that absolute being is or may be absolutely known, but
that the utterly non-existent is utterly unknown?
Nothing can be more certain.
151 Good. But if there be anything which is
of such a nature as to be and not to be, that will have a place intermediate between pure
being and the absolute negation of being?
Yes, between them.
152 And, as knowledge corresponded to being
and ignorance of necessity to not-being, for that intermediate between being and not-being
there has to be discovered a corresponding intermediate between ignorance and knowledge,
if there be such?
Certainly.
Do we admit the existence of opinion?
Undoubtedly.
As being the same with knowledge, or another
faculty?
Another faculty.
Then opinion and knowledge have to do with
different kinds of matter corresponding to this difference of faculties?
Yes.
And knowledge is relative to being and knows
being. But before I proceed further I will make a division.
What division?
153 I will begin by placing faculties in a
class by themselves: they are powers in us, and in all other things, by which we do as we
do. Sight and hearing, for example, I should call faculties. Have I clearly explained the
class which I mean?
Yes, I quite understand.
154 Then let me tell you my view about them.
I do not see them, and therefore the distinctions of figure, color, and the like, which
enable me to discern the differences of some things, do not apply to them. In speaking of
a faculty I think only of its sphere and its result; and that which has the same sphere
and the same result I call the same faculty, but that which has another sphere and another
result I call different. Would that be your way of speaking?
Yes.
And will you be so very good as to answer
one more question? Would you say that knowledge is a faculty, or in what class would you
place it?
Certainly knowledge is a faculty, and the
mightiest of all faculties.
And is opinion also a faculty?
Certainly, he said; for opinion is that with
which we are able to form an opinion.
And yet you were acknowledging a little
while ago that knowledge is not the same as opinion?
Why, yes, he said: how can any reasonable
being ever identify that which is infallible with that which errs?
An excellent answer, proving, I said, that
we are quite conscious of a distinction between them.
Yes.
155 Then knowledge and opinion having
distinct powers have also distinct spheres or subject-matters?
That is certain.
Being is the sphere or subject-matter of
knowledge, and knowledge is to know the nature of being?
Yes.
And opinion is to have an opinion?
Yes.
156 And do we know what we opine? or is the
subject-matter of opinion the same as the subject-matter of knowledge?
Nay, he replied, that has been already
disproven; if difference in faculty implies difference in the sphere or subject- matter,
and if, as we were saying, opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties, then the sphere
of knowledge and of opinion cannot be the same.
Then if being is the subject-matter of
knowledge, something else must be the subject-matter of opinion?
157 Yes, something else. Well, then, is
not-being the subject-matter of opinion? or, rather, how can there be an opinion at all
about not-being? Reflect: when a man has an opinion, has he not an opinion about
something? Can he have an opinion which is an opinion about nothing?
Impossible.
He who has an opinion has an opinion about
some one thing?
Yes.
And not-being is not one thing, but,
properly speaking, nothing?
True.
Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to be
the necessary correlative; of being, knowledge?
True, he said.
Then opinion is not concerned either with
being or with not-being?
Not with either.
And can therefore neither be ignorance nor
knowledge?
That seems to be true.
But is opinion to be sought without and
beyond either of them, in a greater clearness than knowledge, or in a greater darkness
than ignorance?
In neither.
158 Then I suppose that opinion appears to
you to be darker than knowledge, but lighter than ignorance?
Both; and in no small degree.
And also to be within and between them?
Yes.
Then you would infer that opinion is
intermediate?
No question.
159 But were we not saying before, that if
anything appeared to be of a sort which is and is not at the same time, that sort of thing
would appear also to lie in the interval between pure being and absolute not-being; and
that the corresponding faculty is neither knowledge nor ignorance, but will be found in
the interval between them?
True.
And in that interval there has now been
discovered something which we call opinion?
There has.
160 Then what remains to be discovered is
the object which partakes equally of the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly
be termed either, pure and simple; this unknown term, when discovered, we may truly call
the subject of opinion, and assign each to their proper faculty--the extremes to the
faculties of the extremes and the mean to the faculty of the mean.
True.
161 This being premised, I would ask the
gentleman who is of opinion that there is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty --in
whose opinion the beautiful is the manifold--he, I say, your lover of beautiful sights,
who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is one, and the just is one, or that
anything is one--to him I would appeal, saying, Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell
us whether, of all these beautiful things, there is one which will not be found ugly; or
of the just, which will not be found unjust; or of the holy, which will not also be
unholy?
No, he replied; the beautiful will in some
point of view be found ugly; and the same is true of the rest.
And may not the many which are doubles be
also halves?-- doubles, that is, of one thing, and halves of another?
Quite true.
162 And things great and small, heavy and
light, as they are termed, will not be denoted by these any more than by the opposite
names?
True; both these and the opposite names will
always attach to all of them.
And can any one of those many things which
are called by particular names be said to be this rather than not to be this?
163 He replied: They are like the punning
riddles which are asked at feasts or the children's puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the
bat, with what he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the bat was sitting.
The individual objects of which I am speaking are also a riddle, and have a double sense:
nor can you fix them in your mind, either as being or not-being, or both, or neither.
164 Then what will you do with them? I said.
Can they have a better place than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in
greater darkness or negation than not-being, or more full of light and existence than
being.
That is quite true, he said.
165 Thus then we seem to have discovered
that the many ideas which the multitude entertain about the beautiful and about all other
things are tossing about in some region which is halfway between pure being and pure
not-being?
We have.
166 Yes; and we had before agreed that
anything of this kind which we might find was to be described as matter of opinion, and
not as matter of knowledge; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detained by
the intermediate faculty.
Quite true.
167 Then those who see the many beautiful,
and who yet neither see absolute beauty, nor can follow any guide who points the way
thither; who see the many just, and not absolute justice, and the like--such persons may
be said to have opinion but not knowledge?
That is certain.
But those who see the absolute and eternal
and immutable may be said to know, and not to have opinion only?
Neither can that be denied.
168 The one love and embrace the subjects of
knowledge, the other those of opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare say you will
remember, who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colors, but would not tolerate
the existence of absolute beauty.
Yes, I remember.
169 Shall we then be guilty of any
impropriety in calling them lovers of opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they
be very angry with us for thus describing them?
I shall tell them not to be angry; no man
should be angry at what is true.
But those who love the truth in each thing
are to be called lovers of wisdom and not lovers of opinion.
Assuredly.
