Book 4, Part 4 of Plato's Republic. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by B.G. Oxford. The Republic by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Joett. Book 4, Part 4. Now then, if I have made myself clear, you will understand my original meaning in what I said about relatives. My meaning was that if one term of a relation is taken alone, the other is taken alone. If one term is qualified, the other is also qualified. I do not mean to say that relatives may not be disparate or that the science of health is healthy or of disease necessarily diseased or that the sciences of good and evil are therefore good and evil, but only that when the term science is no longer used absolutely but has a qualified object, which in this case is the nature of health and disease, it becomes defined and is hence called not merely science but the science of medicine. I quite understand and I think as you do. Would you not say that thirst is one of these essentially relative terms having clearly a relation? Yes, thirst is relative to drink, and a certain kind of thirst is relative to a certain kind of drink, but thirst taken alone is neither of much nor little, nor of good nor bad, nor of any particular kind of drink, but of drink only, certainly. Then the soul of the thirsty one insofar as he is thirsty desires only drink, for this he yearns and tries to obtain it, that is plain. And if you suppose something which pulls a thirsty soul away from drink, that must be different from the thirsty principle which draws him like a beast to drink, for as we were saying, the same thing cannot at the same time with the same part of itself act in contrary ways about the same. Impossible. No more than you can say that the hands of the archer push and pull the bow at the same time, but what you say is that one hand pushes and the other pulls. Exactly so, he replied. And might a man be thirsty and yet unwilling to drink? Yes, he said, it constantly happens. And in such a case, what is one to say? Would you not say that there was something in the soul bidding a man to drink and something else forbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle which bids him? I should say so. And the forbidding principle is derived from reason, and that which bids and attracts proceeds from passion and disease? Clearly. Then we may fairly assume that they are two and that they differ from one another, the one with which a man reasons we may call the rational principle of the soul, the other with which he loves and hungers and thirsts and feels the fluttering of any other desire may be termed the irrational or appetitive, the ally of sundry pleasures and satisfactions? He said, we may fairly assume them to be different. Then let us finally determine that there are two principles existing in the soul, and what of passion or spirit? Is it a third or akin to one of the preceding? I should be inclined to say akin to desire. Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard and in which I put faith. The story is that Leon Teos, the son of Aglion, coming up one day from the Piraeus under the north wall on the outside, observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution. He felt a desire to see them and also a dread and a porence of them. For a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length the desire got the better of him, and forcing them open, he ran up to the dead bodies saying, look, you wretches, take your fill of the fair sight. I have heard the story myself, he said. The moral of the tale is that anger at times goes to war with desire, as though they were two distinct things. Yes, that is the meaning, he said. And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when a man's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle, which is like the struggle of factions in a state, his spirit is on the side of his reason. But for the passionate or spirited element to take part with the desires, when reason decides that she should not be opposed, is a sort of thing which I believe that you never observed occurring in yourself, nor, as I should imagine, in anyone else. Certainly not. Suppose that a man thinks he has done wrong to another. The nobler he is, the less able he is to feel indignant at any suffering, such as hunger or cold, or any other pain which the injured person may inflict upon him. These he deems to be just, and, as I say, his anger refuses to be excited by them. True, he said. But when he thinks that he is the sufferer of the wrong, then he boils and chafes, and is on the side of what he believes to be justice, and because he suffers hunger or cold or other pain, he is only the more determined to persevere and conquer. His noble spirit will not be quelled until he either slays or is slain, or until he hears the voice of the shepherd, that is, reason bidding his dog bark no more. The illustration is perfect, he replied, and in our state, as we were saying, the auxiliaries were to be dogs and to hear the voice of the rulers who are their shepherds. I perceive, I said, that you quite understand me. There is, however, a further point which I wish you to consider. What point? You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to be a kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary, for in the conflict of the soul, spirit is arrayed on the side of the rational principle, most assuredly. But a further question arises. Is passion different from reason also, or only a kind of reason, in which latter case, instead of three principles in the soul, there will only be two, the rational and the concupiscent, or rather, as the state was composed of three classes, traders, auxiliaries, counselors, so may there not be in the individual soul a third element which is passion or spirit, and, when not corrupted by bad education, is the natural auxiliary of reason? Yes, he said, there must be a third. Yes, I replied, if passion, which has already been shown to be different from desire, turn out also to be different from reason, but that is easily proved. We may observe even in young children that they are full of spirit, almost as soon as they are born, whereas some of them never seem to attain the use of reason, and most of them late enough. Excellent, I said, and you may see passion equally in brute animals, which is a further proof of the truth of what you are saying, and we may once more appeal to the words of Homer, which have been already quoted by us. He smote his breast and thus rebuked his soul, for in this verse Homer has clearly supposed the power which reasons about the better and worse to be different from the unreasoning anger which is rebuked by it. Very true, he said, and so after much tossing we have reached land and are fairly agreed that the same principles which exist in the state exist also in the individual and that they are three in number. Exactly. Must we not then infer that the individual is wise in the same way and in virtue of the same quality which makes the state wise? Certainly. Also, that the same quality which constitutes courage in the state constitutes courage in the individual and that both the state and the individual bear the same relation to all the other virtues? Assuredly. And the individual will be acknowledged by us to be just in the same way in which the state is just? That follows, of course. We cannot but remember that the justice of the state consisted in each of the three classes doing the work of its own class. We are not very likely to have forgotten, he said. We must recollect that the individual in whom the several qualities of his nature do their own work will be just and will do his own work? Yes, he said. We must remember that, too. And ought not the rational principle which is wise and has the care of the whole soul to rule and the passionate or spirited principle to be the subject and ally? Certainly. And, as we were saying, the united influence of music and gymnastics will bring them into a chord nerving and sustaining the reason with noble words and lessons and moderating and soothing and civilizing the wildness of passion by harmony and rhythm. Quite true, he said. And these, too, thus nurtured and educated and having learned truly to know their own functions will rule over the concupacent which in each of us is the largest part of the soul and, by nature, most insatiable of gain. Over this they will keep guard, lest waxing great and strong with the fullness of bodily pleasures as they are termed, the concupacent soul no longer confined to her own sphere should attempt to enslave and rule those who are not her natural born subjects and overturn the whole life of man. Very true, he said. Both together will they not be the best defenders of the whole soul and the whole body against attacks from without, the one counseling and the other fighting under his leader and courageously executing his commands and counsels? True. And he is to be deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasure and in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or ought not to fear? Right, he replied. And him we call wise who has in him that little part which rules and proclaims these commands that part too being supposed to have a knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the three parts and of the whole? Assuredly. And would you not say that he is temperate who has these same elements in friendly harmony in whom the one ruling principle of reason and the two subject ones of spirit and desire are equally agreed that reason ought to rule and do not rebel? Certainly, he said, that is the true account of temperance whether in the state or the individual. And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtue of what quality a man will be just. That is very certain. And is justice dimmer in the individual and is her form different or is she the same which we found her to be in the state? There is no difference in my opinion, he said. Because if any doubt is still lingering in our minds a few commonplace instances will satisfy us of the truth of what I am saying. What sort of instances do you mean? If the case is put to us must we not admit that the just state or the man who is trained in the principles of such a state will be less likely than the unjust to make away with a deposit of gold or silver? Would anyone deny this? No one, he replied. Will the just man or citizen ever be guilty of sacrilege or theft or treachery either to his friends or to his country? Never. Neither will he ever break faith where there have been oaths or agreements? Impossible. No one will be less likely to commit adultery or to dishonor his father and mother or to fail in his religious duties? No one. And the reason is that each part of him is doing its own business, whether in ruling or being ruled? Exactly so. Are you satisfied then that the quality which makes such men and such states is justice or do you hope to discover some other? Not I, indeed. Then our dream has been realized and the suspicion which we entertained at the beginning of our work of construction that some divine power must have conducted us to a primary form of justice has now been verified? Yes, certainly. And the division of labor which required the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to be doing each his own business and not another's was a shadow of justice and for that reason it was of use? Clearly. But in reality justice was such as we were describing. Being concerned however not with the outward man but with the inward which is the true self and concernment of man. For the just man does not permit the several elements within him to interfere with one another or any of them to do the work of others. He sets in order his own inner life and is his own master and his own law and at peace with himself and when he has bound together the three principles within him which may be compared to the higher, lower and middle notes of the scale and the intermediate intervals when he has bound all these together and is no longer many but has become one entirely temperate and perfectly adjusted nature then he proceeds to act if he has to act in a matter of property or in the treatment of the body or in some affair of politics or private business always thinking and calling that which preserves and cooperates with this harmonious condition just and good action and the knowledge which presides over it wisdom and that which at any time impairs this condition he will call unjust action and the opinion which presides over it ignorance. You have said the exact truth, Socrates. Very good. And if we were to affirm that we had discovered the just man and the just state and the nature of justice in each of them we should not be telling a falsehood? Most certainly not. May we say so then? Let us say so. And now I said injustice has to be considered. Clearly. Must not injustice be a strife which arises among the three principles? A meddlesomeness and interference and rising up of a part of the soul against the whole? An assertion of unlawful authority which is made by a rebellious subject against a true prince of whom he is the natural vassal. What is all this confusion and delusion but injustice and intemperance and ignorance and every form of vice? Exactly so. And if the nature of justice and injustice be known then the meaning of acting unjustly and being unjust or again of acting justly will also be perfectly clear? What do you mean? He said. Why I said they are like disease and health being in the soul just what disease and health are in the body. How so he said? Why I said that which is healthy causes health and that which is unhealthy causes disease. Yes. And just actions cause justice and unjust actions cause injustice. That is certain. And the creation of health is the institution of a natural order and government of one by another in the parts of the body and the creation of disease is the production of a state of things at variance with this natural order. True. And is not the creation of justice the institution of a natural order and government of one by another in the parts of the soul and the creation of injustice the production of a state of things at variance with the natural order? Exactly so he said. Then virtue is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul and vice the disease and weakness and deformity of the same. True. And do not good practices lead to virtue and evil practices to vice? Assuredly. Still our old question of the comparative advantage of justice and injustice has not been answered. Which is the more profitable? To be just and act justly and practice virtue whether seen or unseen of gods and men or to be unjust and act unjustly if only unpunished and unreformed? In my judgment Socrates the question has now become ridiculous we know that when the bodily constitution is gone life is no longer endurable all kinds of meats and drinks and having all wealth and power and shall we be told that when the very essence of the vital principle is undermined and corrupted life is still worth having to a man if only he be allowed to do whatever he likes with the single exception that he is not to acquire justice and virtue or to escape from injustice and vice assuming them both could be such as we have described? Yes I said the question is as you say ridiculous still as we are near the spot at which we may see the truth in the clearest manner with our own eyes let us not faint by the way certainly not he replied come up hither I said and behold the various forms of vice those of them I mean which are worth looking at I am following you he replied proceed I said the argument seems to have reached a height from which as from some tower of speculation a man may look down and see that virtue is one but that the forms of vice are innumerable there being four special ones which are deserving of note what do you mean he said I mean I replied that there appear to be as many forms of the soul as there are distinct forms of the state how many? five of the state and five of the soul I said what are they? the first I said it is that which we have been describing and which may be said to have two names monarchy and aristocracy accordingly as rule is exercised by one distinguished man or by many true he replied but I regard the two names as describing one form only in the hands of one or many if the governors have been trained in the manner which we have supposed the fundamental laws of the state will be maintained that is true he replied end of book four recording by B. G. Oxford December 2008 book five part one of Plato's republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org the republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book five part one such as 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 I was proceeding to tell the order in which the four evil forms appeared to me to succeed one another when Pullo Marcus who was sitting a little way off just beyond Atomatis 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 towards him leaning forward himself so as to be quite close to something in his ear of which I only caught the words shall we let him off or what shall we do certainly not said Atomatis raising his voice who is it I said to whom you are refusing to let off you he said I repeated why am I especially not to be let off 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 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 Atomatis 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 kind 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 Glockon you may regard me as saying agreed and without more ado said Thrasymachus you may consider us all to be equally agreed I said you know not what you are doing and thus assailing me what an argument you are 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 asked 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 yes Socrates said Glockon 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 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 skeptical or hostile I said my good friend I suppose that you mean to encourage me by these words yes he said 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 for I do indeed believe that to be an involuntary homicide is 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, I would rather run among enemies than among friends and therefore, I would rather run among enemies than among friends than among friends and therefore, you do well to encourage me Glockon 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 well, I said the law says that when a man is acquitted he is free from guilt and what holds at law may hold an argument then why should you mind 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 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 the watchdogs of the herd true 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 what I mean may be put in the form of a question I said are dogs divided into he's and she's or do they both share equally in hunting watch and in all the other duties of dogs or do we entrust the males to the entire and exclusive care of the flogs while we leave the females at home under the idea that the bearing and suckling their puppies is 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 and 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 gymnastic yes then women must be taught music and gymnastic and also the art of war which they must practice like the men that is the inference I suppose I should rather expect I said that several of our proposals if they are carried out being unusual may appear ridiculous but they are carried out of it yes and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women naked in the palestra exercising with the men especially when they are no longer young they will certainly 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 will be thought ridiculous 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 gymnastic and above all about their wearing armor and riding upon horseback 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 Lachodemonians introduced the custom the wits of that day might equally have ridiculed the innovation no doubt 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 vanished before the better principal 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 first then whether the question is to be put in jest or an 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 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 adversaries position will not be undefended why not he said then let us put a speech into the mouths of our opponents they will say Socrates and Glockon no adversary need convict you for you yourselves at the first foundations of the state admitted the principle that everybody was to do the one work suited to his own nature and certainly if I'm 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 defense 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 do beg of you to draw out the case on our side these are the objections Glockon and there are many others of a like kind which I first saw long ago they made me afraid and reluctant to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women and children 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 we not swim and try to reach the shore we will hope that Aryan's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us I suppose so he said well then let us see if any way of escape can be found we acknowledge 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 Glockon I said glorious is the power of the art of contradiction why do you say so 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 a 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 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 distinguish them when we design different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same natures why no he said that was never considered by us 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 hindrance to him would not these be the sort of differences between the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted no one will deny that 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 woman kind 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 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 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 if a woman has a gift of healing another not one is a musician and the other 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 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 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 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 gymnastic to the wives of the guardians to that point we come round again certainly not 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 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 end of book 5 part 1 book 5 part 2 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book 5 part 2 I should like to ask you a question is it would you say that all men are equal in excellence or is one man better than another the latter and in the commonwealth which we were founding do you conceive the guardians who have been brought up in 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 are the best and will not their wives be the best women yes by far the best 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 gymnastic 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 then let the wives of our guardians strip for their virtue will be their robe and let them share in the toils of war in the defense 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 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 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 constancy 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 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 or 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 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 you imply that the two questions must be defined 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 defense of both well I said I submit to my fate yet grant me a little favor let me feast my mind with a dream as daydreamers are in the habit of feasting themselves when they are walking alone for before they have discovered any means of expecting 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 wishes 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 be 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 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 must themselves obey the laws and they must also imitate the spirit of them in any details which are entrusted to their care that is right he said you I said, who are their legislator having selected the men will now select the women and give them to them they will be responsible 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 which is far more convincing and constraining to the mass of mankind true I said and this Glockon like all the rest must proceed after an orderly fashion in a city of the blessed Lysentiusness 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 and the 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 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 and the same of horses and animals in general undoubtedly good heavens my dear friend I said what consummate skill will our rulers need if the same principal holds of the human species certainly the same principal holds but why does this involve any particular skill because I said our rulers will have often to practice 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 I mean I replied 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 why I said the principal 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 had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms and sacrifices will be offered by the general high menial 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 we shall have to invent some ingenious kind of plots 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 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 to be held by women as well as by men yes 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 they will provide for their nurture 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 they die 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 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 in a man's which years do you mean to include 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 certainly he said both in men and women those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigor any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes apart in the public hymenals shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing the child of which he is the father if he steals it into life will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices and prayers which at each hymenial priestesses and priests 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 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 uncertified and unconsecrated very true he replied 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 sons son or fathers 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 away to the birth the parents must understand that the offspring of such an union cannot be maintained and arranged accordingly that so he said is a reasonable proposition but how will they know who are fathers and daughters and so on they will never know the way will be this dating from the day of the hymenial who was then married will call all the male children who are born in the seventh and tenth month afterwards 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 fathers 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 absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers and sisters if the lot favors them and they receive the sanction of the pithian oracle the law will allow them quite right he replied such as the scheme Glockon 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 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 be 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 half plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or the citizens certainly such differences commonly originate and not his exactly so 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 or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the individual as in the body but when a finger of one of us is hurt the whole frame drawn towards the soul as a center and forming one kingdom under the ruling power empathizes all together with the part affected and we say that the man has a pain in his finger and that 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 very true he replied and I agree with you that in the best ordered state there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you describe then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil our 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 it will now be time I said for us to return to our state and see whether this or some other 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 saviors and helpers he replied and what do the rulers call the people they are maintainers and foster fathers and what do they call them in other states slaves the rulers call one another in other states fellow rulers and what in ours fellow guardians 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 and the friend he regards and describes is 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 any other guardian as a stranger certainly he would not for every one whom they meet will be regarded by them as either 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 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 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 kin spoke these he said 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 end of book 5 part 2 book 5 part 3 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book 5 part 3 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 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 and they will have a common interest in the same thing which they will all 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 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 own comparison of a well ordered state to the relation of the body and the members when affected by pleasure or pain that we acknowledge 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 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 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 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 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 honourable and right we shall make the protection of the person a matter of necessity that is good he said yes and there is a further good in the law vis 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 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 suckered 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 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 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 they will be delivered and their life will be blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more blessed how so the Olympic victor I said is deemed happy in receiving part only of the blessedness which is secured to our citizens who have won a more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance of 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 fullness of all that life needs they receive rewards from the hands of their country while living and after death have an honourable burial yes he said and glorious rewards they are 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 advised 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 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 at the same time I ought here to repeat what I've 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 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 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 the inquiry I said has yet to be made whether such a community 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 how how 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 and shall potters be more careful in educating their children and in giving them the opportunity of seeing and practicing their duties then our guardians will be the idea is ridiculous he said 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 that 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 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 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 be fairly 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 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 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 I mean that we must mount them on horses in the earliest youth and when they have learnt to ride take them on horseback to see war the horses must not be spirited in war like 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 you are right he said next as to war what are to be the relations of your soldiers to one another and to their enemies to 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 husband and an 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 but the hero who has distinguished himself and to him in the first place he shall receive honor in the army from his youthful comrades every one of them in succession so 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 most certainly and I should be disposed to go further and say 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 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 again there is another manner in which according to Homer brave youths should be honored for he tells how Iax after he had distinguished himself in battle was rewarded with long chains 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 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 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 sepulcher of divine and heroic personages and what is to be their special distinction and we must do as he bids by all means and in ages to come we will reverence them and kneel before their sepulchres as at the graves of heroes who are deemed preeminently 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 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 which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the barbarians to spare them is infinitely better 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 next as to the slain ought the conquerors I said to take anything but their armor does not the practice of dispoiling 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 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 quarreling 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 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 why you see there is a difference in the names discord and war 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 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 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 conqueror 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 and will they not be lovers of Hellas and think of Hellas as their own land and share in the common temples most certainly 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 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 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 for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and raise 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 end of book 5 part 3 book 5 part 4 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book 5 part 4 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 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 the 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 now let us turn to the question of possibility and ways and means the rest may be left 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 if you have seen and heard the third wave I think you will be more considerate and will acknowledge that some fear and hesitation was natural respecting a proposal so extraordinary as that which I have now to state and investigate the more appeals of this sort which you make he said the more determined are we that you shall teach 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 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 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 idea 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 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 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 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 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 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 we were governed as 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 let me next endeavor to show what is that fault in states which is the cause of their present mal-administration and what is the least change which will enable a state to pass into the truer form and let the change of possible be of one thing only at any rate let the changes be as few and slight as possible certainly he replied 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 an easy though a still possible one what is it he said now then I said I go to meet that which I like into 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 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 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 was the thought my dear Glockon which I would feign 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 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 you at might and main whether 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 paired by their fine wits and no mistake you got me into a scrape I said 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 might be able to fit answers to your questions better than another that is all and now having such an auxiliary do your best to show the unbelievers that you are right 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 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 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 marriage 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 springtime of youth if you make me an authority in matters of love for the sake of the argument I sent 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 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 mean 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 and he who dislikes learning especially in youth when he has no power of judging what is good and what is not such and one we maintain not to be a philosopher or 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 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 Glockon 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 Dionasiac 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 there they are 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 they are only an imitation he said philosophers 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 too certainly and in as much as they are too each of them is one true again and of just and unjust good and evil and of every other class the same remark holds taken singly each one 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 sight loving, art loving, practical class and those of whom I am speaking worthy of the name of philosophers how do you distinguish them? he said 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 mind is 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 and he who having a sense of beautiful things and a sense of absolute beauty or who if another lead him to a knowledge of that beauty is unable to follow of such in 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 in 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 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 has the 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 to him without revealing to him that there is sad disorder in his wits we must certainly offer him some good advice he replied 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 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 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 absolute negation of being yes between them and as knowledge corresponded to being an 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 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 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 enabled me to discern the difference 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 airs an excellent answer proving I said that we are quite conscious of a distinction between them yes 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 and do we know what we opine 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 are saying opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties then the sphere of knowledge and opinion cannot be the same then if being is the subject matter of knowledge something else must be the subject matter of opinion yes something else well then is not being the subject matter of opinion 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 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 or 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 then I suppose that opinion appears to you to be darker than knowledge but lighter than ignorance and also to be within and between them yes then you would infer that opinion is intermediate no question but were we not saying before that if anything appeared to be a sort of 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 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 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 also be halves doubles that is of one thing and halves of another quite true 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 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 he replied there like the punning riddles which are asked that feast 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 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 thus then we seem to have discovered that the many ideas which the multitude entertain about the beautiful and about all other things about in some region which is halfway between pure being and pure not being we have 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 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 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 listen to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colors but would not tolerate the existence of absolute beauty yes I remember 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 end of book 5 book 6 part 1 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by James Wadsworth the republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book 6 part 1 and thus Glocken after the argument has gone a weary way the true and the false philosophers have at length appeared in view I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened I suppose not, I said and yet I believe that we might have had a better view of both of them if the discussion could have been confined to this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaiting us which he who desires to see in what respect the life of the just differs from that of the just must consider and what is the next question he asked surely I said the one which follows next in order in as much as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our state and how can we rightly answer the question which ever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our state let them be our guardians very good neither I said can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes there can be no question of that and are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing and who have in their souls no clear pattern and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty goodness, justice and this if not already ordered and to guard and preserve the order of them are not such persons I ask simply unaligned truly you replied they are much in that condition and shall they be our guardians when there are others who besides being their equals inexperience and falling short of them in no particular of virtue also know the very truth of each thing there can be no reason he said for rejecting those who have this greatest of all great qualities they must always have the first fall in some other respect suppose then I said that we determine how far they can unite this and the other excellencies by all means in the first place as we began by observing the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained must come to an understanding about him and when we have done so then if I am not mistaken we shall also acknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible and that those in whom they are united and those only should be rulers in the state what do you mean let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption agreed and further I said let us agree that they are lovers of all true being there is no part whether greater or less or more or less honorable which they are willing to renounce as we said before of the lover and the man with ambition true and if they are to be what we were describing is there not another quality which they should also possess what quality truthfulness they will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood which is their detestation and they will love the truth yes that may be safely affirmed of them may be my friend I replied is not the word say rather must be affirmed for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections right he said and is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth how can there be can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood never the true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth as far as in him lies desire all truth assuredly but then again as we know by experience he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others the dream which has been drawn off into another channel true he whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul and will hardly feel bodily pleasure I mean if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one that is most certain such a one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous for the motos which make another man the desire of having and spending have no place in his character very true another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be considered what is that there should be no secret corner of illiberality nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever longing after the whole of things both divine and human most true he replied then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existent think much of human life he cannot or can such a one account death fearful no indeed then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philosophy certainly not or again then can he who is harmoniously constituted who is not covetous or mean or a boaster or a coward can he I say ever be unjust or hard in his dealings impossible then you will soon observe whether a man is just and gentle or rude and unsociable these are the signs which distinguish even in youth the philosophical nature from the unphilosophical true there is another point which should be remarked what point whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning for no one will love that which gives him pain and in which after much toil he makes little progress certainly not and again if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns will he not be an empty vessel that is certain laboring in vain he must end in hating himself and his fruitless occupation yes then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophical natures we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory certainly and once more the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tend to disproportion undoubtedly and do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion to proportion then besides other qualities we must try to find a naturally well proportioned and gracious mind which move spontaneously towards the true being of everything certainly well and do not all these qualities which we have been enumerating go together certainly not in a manner necessary to a soul which is to have a full and perfect participation of being they are absolutely necessary he replied and must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue who has the gift of a good memory and is quick to learn noble, gracious the friend of truth justice, courage, temperance and kindred the god of jealousy himself he said could find no fault with such a study and to men like him I said one perfected by years and education and to these only you will entrust the state here Idemitus interposed and said to these statements Socrates no one can offer or reply but when you talk in this way the feeling passes over the minds of your hearers they fancy that they are let astray a little at each step in the argument owing to their own want of skill in asking and answering questions these little accumulate and at the end of the discussion they are found to have sustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear to be have turned upside down and as unskillful players of draughts are at last shut up by their more skillful adversaries and have no peace to move so they too find themselves shut up at last for they have nothing to say in this new game of which words are counters and yet all the time they are in the right the observation is suggested to me by what is now occurring for any one of us might say that although in words he is not able to meet you with argument he seems as a fact that the votaries of philosophy when they carry on the study not only in youth as a part of education but as the pursuit of their mature years most of them become strange monsters not to say utter rogues and that those who may be considered the best of them are made useless to the world by the very study which you extol well and do you think that those who say so are wrong I cannot tell your applied but I should like to know what is your opinion here my answer I am of opinion that they are quite right then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not cease from evil until philosophers rule in them when philosophers are acknowledged by us to be of no use to them you ask a question I said to which a reply can only be given in a parable yes Socrates and that is a way of speaking to which you are not at all accustomed I suppose I perceive I said that you are vastly amused and having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion but now hear the parable and then you will be still more amused at the meagerness of my imagination for the manner in which the best man are treated in their own states is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it and therefore if I am to plead their cause I must have recourse to fiction and put together a figure made up of many things like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight and his knowledge of navigation is not much better the sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering everyone is of opinion that he has a right to steer though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned and will further assert that it cannot be taught and they are ready to cut in pieces anyone who says the contrary they throng about the captain begging and praying him to commit the helm to them and if at any time they do not prevail but others are preferred to them they kill the others or throw them overboard and having first chained up the noble captain senses with drink or some narcotic drug they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores thus eating and drinking they proceed on their voyage in such manner as might be expected of them he who is the partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion they complement with the name of sailor pilot able seaman and abuse the other sort of man whom they call a good for nothing but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and wind and whatever else belongs to his art if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship and that he must and will be the steerer whether other people like or not the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers how will the true pilot be regarded will he not be called by them a praetor a stargazer a good for nothing of course said idiomatis then you will hardly need I said to hear the interpretation of the figure which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the state for you understand it already certainly then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised finding that philosophers have no honor in their cities explain it to him and try to convince him that they're having honor would be far more extraordinary I will say to him that in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world he is right but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them and not to themselves the pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him this is not the order of nature neither are the wise to go to the doors of the rich in the ingenious author of this saying told a lie but the truth is that when a man is ill whether he be rich or poor to the physician he must go and he wants to be governed to him who is able to govern the ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors and the true helmsman to those who are called by them good for nothing and stargazers precisely so he said for these reasons and among men like these philosophy the noblest pursuit of all is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction not that the greatest and most lasting injuries done to her by her opponents but by her own professing followers the same of whom you suppose accuse her to say that the greatest number of them are errant rows and the best are useless in which opinion I agreed yes and the reason why the good are useless has now been explained true end of book 6 part 1 recording by James Wadsworth