at defect of oligarchy clearly and here is another defect which is quite as bad what defect the inevitable division such a state is not one but two states the one of poor the other of rich man and they are living on the same spot and always conspiring against one another that surely is at least as bad another discreditable feature is that for a light reason they're incapable of carrying on any war either they arm the multitude and then they are more afraid of them than of the enemy or if they do not call them out in the hour of battle they are oligarchs indeed few to fight as they are few to rule and at the same time their fondness for money makes them unwilling to pay taxes how discreditable and as we said before under such a constitution the same persons have too many callings their husband men tradesmen warriors all in one does that look well anything but well there is another evil which is perhaps the greatest of all and to which this state first begins to be liable what evil a man may sell all that he has and another may acquire his property yet after the sale he may dwell in the city of which he is no longer a pot being neither trader nor artisan nor horseman nor hoplite but only a poor helpless creature yes that is an evil which also first begins in this state the evil is certainly not prevented there for oligarchies have both the extremes of great wealth and utter poverty true but think again in his wealthy days while he was spending his money was a man of this sort a bit more good to the state for the purposes of citizenship or did he only seem to be a member of the ruling body although in truth he was neither ruler nor subject but just a spendthrift as you say he seemed to be a ruler but was only a spendthrift may we not say that this is the drone in the house who is like the drone in the honeycomb and that the one is the plague of the city at the other is of the hive just so socrates and god has made the flying drones at imantus all without stings whereas of the walking drones is made some without stings but others have dreadful stings of the stingless class are those who in their old age end as paupers of the stingers come all the criminal class as they are turned most true he said clearly then whenever you see paupers in a state somewhere in that neighborhood there are hidden away thieves and cut purses and robbers of temples and all sorts of malefactors clearly well i said and in oligarchical states do you not find paupers yes he said nearly everybody is a pauper who is not a ruler and may we be so bold as to affirm that there are also many criminals to be found in them rogues who have stings and whom the authorities are careful to restrain by force certainly we may be so bold the existence of such persons is to be attributed to a want of education ill training and an evil constitution of the state true such then is the form and such are the evils of oligarchy and there may be many other evils very likely then oligarchy or the form of government in which the rulers are elected for their wealth may now be dismissed let us next proceed to consider the nature and origin of the individual who answers to this state by all means does not the time of critical man change into the oligarchical on this wise how a time arrives when the representative of democracy has a son at first he begins by emulating his father and walking in his footsteps but presently he sees him of a sudden foundering against the state as upon a sunken reef and he and all that he has is lost he may have been a general or some other high officer who is brought to trial under a prejudice raised by informers and either put to death or exiled or deprived of the privileges of a citizen and all his property taken from him nothing more likely and the son has seen and known all this he's a ruined man and his fear has taught him to knock ambition and passion had foremost from his bosom's throne humbled by poverty he takes the money making and by mean and miserly savings and hard work gets a fortune together it's not such a one likely to see the concupisant and covetous element on the vacant throne and to suffer it to play the great king within him girt with tiara and chain and skimitar most true he replied and when he has made reason and spirits sit down on the ground obediently on either side of their sovereign and taught them to know their place he compels the one to think only of how lesser sums may be turned into larger ones and will not allow the other to worship and admire anything but riches and rich man or to be ambitious of anything so much as the acquisition of wealth and the means of acquiring it of all changes he said there is none so speedy or so sure as the conversion of the ambitious youth into the ever issues one and the ever issues i said is the oligarchical youth yes he said at any rate the individual out of whom he came is like the state out of which oligarchy came let us then consider whether there is any likeness between them very good first then they resemble one another in the value which they set upon wealth certainly also in their penurious laborious character the individual only satisfies his necessary appetites and confines his expenditure to them his other desires he subdues under the idea that they are unprofitable true he's a shabby fellow who saves something out of everything and makes a purse for himself and this is the sort of man whom the vulgar applaud is he not a true image of the state which he represents he appears to me to be so at any rate money is highly valued by him as well as by the state you see that he's not a man of cultivation i said i imagine not he said had he been educated he would never have made a blind god director of his course or given him chief honor excellent i said yet consider must we not further admit that ewing to this want of cultivation that will be found in him drone like desires as of pauper and rogue which are forcibly kept down by his general habit of life true do you know where you will have to look if you want to discover his rogue race where must i look you should see him where he has some great opportunity of acting dishonestly as in the guardianship of an orphan i it will be clear enough then that in his ordinary dealings which give him a reputation for honesty he coerces his bad passions by an enforced virtue not making them see that they are wrong or taming them by reason but by necessity and fear constraining them and because he trembles for his possessions to be sure he has indeed my dear friend but you'll find that the natural desires of the drone commonly exist in him all the same whenever he has to spend what is not his own yes and it will be strong in him too the man then will be at war with himself he'll be two men and not one but in general his better desires will be found to prevail over his inferior ones true for these reasons such a one will be more respectable than most people yet the true virtue of a unanimous and harmonious soul will flee far away and never come near him i should expect so and surely the miser individually will be an ignoble competitor in a state for any prize of victory or other object of honorable ambition he will not spend his money in the contest for glory so afraid is he of awakening his expensive appetites and inviting them to help and join in the struggle in true olacarchical fashion he fights with a small part only of his resources and the result commonly is that he loses the prize and saves his money very true can we any longer doubt then that the miser and moneymaker answers to the olacarchical state that can be no doubt next comes democracy of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us and then we will inquire into the ways of the democratic man and bring him up for judgment that he said is our method well i said and how does the change from olacarchy into democracy rise is it not on this wise the good at which such a state aims is to become as rich as possible a desire which is insatiable what then the rulers being aware that their power rests upon their wealth refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spencer of youth because they gain by their ruin they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance to be sure that can be no doubt that a love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent one or the other will be disregarded that is tolerably clear and in olacarchical states from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance men of good family have often been reduced to beggary yes often and still they remain in the city there they are ready to sting and fully armed and some of them owe money some have forfeited their citizenship a third class are in both predicaments and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property and against everybody else and are eager for revolution that is true on the other hand the man of business stooping as they walk and pretending not even to see those whom they've already ruined insert their sting that is their money into someone else who is not on his guard against them and recovered the parents some many times over multiplied into a family of children and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the state yes he said there are plenty of them that is certain the evil blazes up like a fire and they will not extinguish it either by restricting a man's use of his own property or by another remedy what other one which is the next best and has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters let there be a general rule that everyone shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk and there will be less of this scandalous money making and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the state yes they will be greatly lessened at present the governors induced by the motives which I have named treat their subjects badly while they and their adherents especially the young men of the governing class are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind they do nothing and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain very true they themselves care only for making money and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue yes quite as indifferent such as the state of affairs which prevails among them and often rulers and their subjects may come in one another's way whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting on a pilgrimage or a march as fellow soldiers or fellow sailors I and they may observe the behavior of each other in the very moment of danger for where danger is there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich and very likely the wary sunburned poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoiled his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh when he sees such a one puffing at his wits and how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to spoil them and when they meet him private will not people be saying to one another our warriors are not good for much yes he said I'm quite aware that this is their way of talking and as in a body which is diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness and sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise within in the same way wherever there is weakness in the state there is also likely to be illness over which the occasion may be very slight the one party introducing from without their oligarchical the other the democratical allies and then the state falls sick and is at war with herself and may be at times distracted even when there's no external cause yes surely and then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents slaughtering some and banishing some while to their remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot yes he said that is the nature of democracy whether the revolution has been affected by arms or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw end of book eight part two book eight part three of Plato's republic this is a lipovox recording all lipovox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit lipovox.org recording by anasimone the republic by Plato translated by benjamin joett book eight part three and now what is their manner of life and what sort of a government if they for as the government is such will be the man clearly he said in the first place are they not free and it's not the city full of freedom and frankness a man may say and do what he likes this that's so he replied and where freedom is the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases clearly then in this kind of state there will be the greatest variety of human natures there will this then seems likely to be the fairest of states being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower and just as women and children think a variety of colors to be of all things most charming so there are many men to whom this state which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind will appear to be the fairest of states yes yes my good sir and there will be no better in which to look for a government why because of the liberty which reigns there they have a complete assortment of constitutions and he who has a mind to establish a state as we have been doing must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them and pick out the one that suits him then when he has made his choice he may found his state he will be sure to have patterns enough and there being no necessity i said for you to govern in this state even if you have the capacity or to be governed unless you like or go to war when the rest go to war or to be at peace when others are at peace unless you are so disposed there being no necessity also because some law forbids you to hold office or be a diecast that you should not hold office or be a diecast if you have a fancy it's not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful for the moment yes and it's not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming have you not observed how in a democracy many persons although they have been sentenced to death or exile just stay where they are and walk about the world the gentleman parades like a hero and nobody sees or cares yes he replied many and many a one c2 i said the forgiving spirit of democracy and that don't care about trifles and the disregard which he shows of all the fine principles which we suddenly laid down at the foundation of the city as when we said that except in the case of some rarely gifted nature there never will be a good man who has not from his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy and a study how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours under her feet never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman and promoting to honor anyone who professes to be the people's friend yes she is of a noble spirit these and other kinder characteristics are proper to democracy which is a charming form of government full of variety and disorder and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike we know her well consider now i said what manner of man the individual is or rather consider as in the case of the state how he comes into being very good he said it's not this the way he is the son of the miserly and olacarchical father who has trained him in his own habits exactly and like his father he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sold being those which are called unnecessary obviously would you like for the sake of clearness to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures i should are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us and they are rightly called so because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficial and what is necessary and cannot help it true we are not wrong therefore when calling them necessary we are not and the desires of which a man may get rid if he takes pains from his youth upwards of which the presence moreover does no good and in some cases the reverse of good shall we not be right in saying that all these are unnecessary yes certainly suppose we select an example of either kind in order that we may have a general notion of them very good well not the desire of eating that is of simple food and condiments insofar as they are required for health and strength be of the necessary class that is what i should suppose the pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways it does us good and it is essential to the continuance of life yes but the condiments are only necessary insofar as they are good for health suddenly and the desire which goes beyond this of more delicate food or other luxuries which might generally be got rid of if controlled and trained in youth and is hurtful to the body and hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue may be rightly called unnecessary very true may we not say that these desires spent and that the others make money because they conduce to production certainly and of the pleasures of love and all other pleasures the same holds good true and the drone of whom we spoke was he who was served the pleasures and desires of this sort and was the slave of the unnecessary desires whereas he who was subjected to the necessary only was miserly and oligarchal very true again let us see how the democratical man grows out of the oligarchical the following as i suspect is commonly the process what is the process when a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing in a vulgar and miserly way has tasted drones honey and has come to associate with fears and crafting natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasures then as you may imagine the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical inevitably and as in the city like was helping like and that change was affected by an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming from without to assist the desires within him that which is a kin and a like again helping that which is a kin and a like certainly and if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him whether the influence of a father or of kindred advising or rebuking him then there arises in his soul affection and an opposite faction and he goes to war with himself it must be so and there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical and some of his desires die and others are banished a spirit of reverence enters into the young man's soul and order is restored yes he said that sometimes happens and then again after the old desires have been driven out fresh ones spring up which are akin to them and because he their father does not know how to educate them wax fears and numerous yes he said that is apt to be the way they draw him to his old associates and holding secret intercourse with them breed and multiply in him very true at length they seize upon the citadel of the young man's soul which they perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words which make their abode in the minds of men who adhere to the gods and are their best guardians and sentinels none better false and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place they are certain to do so and so the young man returns into the country of the lotus eaters and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him the aforesaid vain concedes shut the gate of the king's fastness and they will neither allow the embassy itself to enter nor if private advisors offer the fatherly council of the aged will they listen to them or receive them there is a battle and they gain the day and then modesty which they call silliness is ignominiously thrust into exile by them and temperance which they nickname unmanliness it trampled in the mire and cast forth they persuade man that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness and so by the help of a rebel of evil appetites they drive them beyond the border yes with will and when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who's being initiated by them in great mysteries the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads and a great company with them hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names insolence they term breeding and anarchy and liberty and waste magnificence and impudence courage and so the young man passes out of his original nature which was trained in the school of necessity into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures yes he said the change in him is visible enough after this he lives on spending his money and labor and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as unnecessary ones but if he be fortunate and is not too much disordered in his wits when years have elapsed and the heyday of passion is over supposing that he then readmits into the city some part of the exiled virtues and does not wholly give himself up to their successes in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium pushing the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn and when he has had enough of that then into the hands of another he despises none of them but encourages them all equally very true he said neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice if anyone says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires and others of evil desires and that he ought to use and honor some and chastise and master the others whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike and that one is as good as another yes he said that is the way with him yes I said he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour and sometimes he's leapt in drink and strains of the flute then he becomes a water drinker and tries to get thin then he takes a turn at gymnastics sometimes idling and neglecting everything then once more living the life of a philosopher often he is busy with politics and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head and if he is emulous of anyone who is a warrior of he is in that direction or of man of business once more than that his life has neither law nor order and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom and so he goes on yes he replied he is all liberty and equality yes I said his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many he answers to the state which we described as fair and spangled and many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him just so let him then be set over against democracy he may truly be called the democratic man let that be his place he said last of all comes the most beautiful of all man and state alike tyranny and the tyrant these we have now to consider quite true he said say then my friend in what manner does tyranny arise that it has a democratic origin is evident clearly and does not tear any spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy I mean after sold how the good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth am I not right yes and the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy true and democracy has our own good of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution what good freedom I replied which as they tell you in a democracy is the glory of the state and that therefore in a democracy alone will the free man of nature dain to dwell yes the saying is in everybody's mouth I was going to observe that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy which occasions a demand for tyranny how so when a democracy which is thirsting for freedom as evil presiding over the feast and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom then unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draft she calls them to account and punish them and says that they are cursed oligarchs yes he replied a very common occurrence yes I said and loyal citizens are insultingly turned by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught she would have subjects who are like rulers and rulers who are like subjects these are men after her own heart whom she praises and honors both in private and public now in such a state can liberty have any limit certainly not by degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them how do you mean I mean that the father grows accustomed to dissent to the level of his sons and to fear them and the son is on a level with his father he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents and this is his freedom and the medic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the medic and the stranger is quite as good as either yes he said that is the way and these are not the only evils I said there are several lesser ones in such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars and the scholars despise their masters and tutors young and old are all alike and the young man is on a level with the old and is ready to compete with him in word or deed and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety they are loath to be thought morose and authoritative and therefore they adopt the manners of the young quite true he said the last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bored with money whether male or female is just as free as his or her purchaser nor must I forget to tell the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other why not as ascla says utter the word which rises to our lips that is what I am doing I replied and I must add that no one who does not know would believe how much greater is the liberty with the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other state for truly the she dogs as the proverb says are as good as their she mistresses and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen and they will run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them and all things are just ready to burst with liberty when I take a country walk he said I often experience what you describe you and I have dreamt the same thing and above all I said and as the result of all see how sensitive the citizens become they crave impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length as you know they cease to care even for the laws written or unwritten they will have no one over them yes he said I know it too well such my friend I said is the fair and glorious beginning out of which spring's tyranny glorious indeed he said end of book eight part three book eight part four of Plato's republic this is a lipovox recording all lipovox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit lipovox.org recording by Anno Simon the republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joet book eight part four but what is the next step the ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty over master's democracy the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life but above all in forms of government true the excess of liberty whether in states or individuals seems only to pass into excess of slavery yes the natural order and so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty as we might expect that however was not as I believe your question you rather desire to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy and is the ruin of both and just so he replied well I said I meant to refer to the class of idle spend thrifts of whom the more courageous are the leaders and the more timid the followers the same whom we were comparing to drones some stingless and others having stings a very just comparison these two classes are the plagues of every city in which they are generated being what phlegm and bile are to the body and the good physician and lawgifter of the state ought like the wise be master to keep them at a distance and prevent if possible they're ever coming in and if they have anyhow found a way in then he should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible yes by all means he said then in order that we may see clearly what we're doing let us imagine democracy to be divided as indeed it is into three classes for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than they were in the oligarchical state and that is true and in the democracy they are certainly more intensified how so because in the oligarchical state they are disqualified and driven from office and therefore they cannot train or gather strength whereas in a democracy they're almost the entire ruling power and while the keyness sought speak and act the rest keep buzzing about the beemer and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones very true he said then there's another class which is always being severed from the mass what is that they are the orderly class which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest naturally so they are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honing to the drones why he said there's little to be squeezed out of people who have little and this is called the wealthy class and the drones feed upon them that is pretty much the case he said the people are third class consisting of those who work with their own hands they are not politicians and have not much to live upon this when assembled is the largest and most powerful class in democracy true he said but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey and do they not share I said do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves why yes he said to that extent the people do share and the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as best they can what else can they do and then although they may have no desire of change the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy true and the end is that when they see the people not of their own accord but through ignorance and because they are deceived by informers seeking to do them wrong then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality they do not wish to be but a sting of the drones to immense them and breed revolution in them that is exactly the truth then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another true the people have always some champion whom they set over them and nourish into greatness yes that is their way this and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs when he first appears above ground he is a protector yes that is quite clear how then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Laikian Zeus what tale the tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf and did you never hear it oh yes and the protector of the people is like him having a mob entirely at his disposal he's not restrained from shedding a blood of kinsmen by the favorite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them making the life of man to disappear and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizens some he kills and others he banishes at the same time hinting at the abolition of deaths and partition of lands and after this what will be his destiny must not either perish at the hands of his enemies or from being a man become a wolf that is a tyrant inevitably this I said is he who begins to make a party against the rich the same after a while he's driven out but comes back in spite of his enemies a tyrant full grown that is clear and if they are unable to expel him or to get him condemned to death by a public accusation they conspire to assassinate him yes he said that is their usual way then comes the famous request for a bodyguard which the devise of all those who have got thus far in their tyrannical career let not the people's friend as they say be lost to them exactly the people readily assent all their fears are for him they have none for themselves very true and when a man who's wealthy and is also accused of being an enemy of the people sees this then my friend as the oracle said decreases by pebbly Hermas sure he flees and rests not and is not ashamed to be a coward and quite right too said he for if he were he would never be ashamed again but if he's caught he dies of course and he the protector of whom we spoke is to be seen not larding the plain with bulk but himself the overthrow of many standing up in the chariot of state with the reins in his hand no longer protector but tyrant absolute no doubt he said and now let us consider the happiness of the man and also the state in which a creature like him is generated yes he said let us consider that at first in the early days of his power he's full of smiles and he salutes everyone whom he meets he to be called a tyrant who's making promises in public and also in private liberating debtors and distributing land to the people and his followers and wanted to be so kind and good to everyone of course he said but when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty and there's nothing to fear from them then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader to be sure has he not also another object which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him clearly and if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom and of resistance to his authority he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war he must now he begins to grow unpopular unnecessary result then some of those who joined in setting him up and who are in power speak their minds to him and to one another and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done yes that may be expected and the tyrant if he means to rule must get rid of them he cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy who's good for anything he cannot and therefore you must look about him and see who's valiant who's high-minded who is wise who is wealthy happy man he's the enemy of them all and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no until he has made a purgation of the state yes he said and a rare purgation yes i said not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of the body for they take away the worse and leave the better part but he does the reverse if he is to rule i suppose that he cannot help himself what a blessed alternative i said to be compelled to dwell only with the many bad and to be by them hated or not to live at all yes that is the alternative and the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require suddenly and who are the devoted band and where will he procure them they will flock to him you said of their own accord if he pays them by the dog i said here are more drones of every sort of from every land yes he said there are but will he not desire to get them on the spot how do you mean he will rob the citizens of their slaves he will then set them free and enroll them in his bodyguard to be sure he said and he will be able to trust them best of all what a blessed creature i said must this tyrant be he has put to death the others and as these first trusted friends yes he said they are quite of his sort yes i said and these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence who admire him and are his companions or the good hate and avoid him of course verily then tragedy is a wise thing and euripides a great tragedian why so why because he is the author of the prep and saying tyrants are wise by living with the wise and he clearly meant to say that they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions yes he said and he also praises tyranny as godlike and many other things of the same kind are set by him and by the other poets and therefore i said the tragic poems being white's man will forgive us and any others who live after our manner if we do not receive them into our state because they are the eulogists of tyranny yes he said those who have the wit will doubtless forgive us but they will continue to go to other cities and attract mobs and hire voices fair and loud and persuasive and draw the cities over to tyrannies and democracies very true moreover they're paid for this and receive honor the greatest honor as might be expected from tyrants and the next greatest from democracies but the higher they are sent our constitution hill the more the reputation fails and seems unable from shortness of breath to proceed further true but we are wondering for the subject let us therefore return and inquire how the tyrant will maintain that fair and numerous and various and ever changing army of his if he said there are sacred treasures in the city he will confiscate and spend them and in so far as the fortunes of attainted persons may suffice he will be able to diminish the taxes which he would otherwise have to impose upon the people and when these fail why clearly he said then he and his boon companions whether male or female will be maintained out of his father's estate you mean to say that the people from whom he has derived his being will maintain him and his companions yes he said they cannot help themselves but what are the people fly into a passion and ever that a grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father but that the father should be supported by the son the father did not bring him into being or settle him in life in order that when his son became a man he should himself be the servant of his own servants and should support him and his rabble of slaves and companions but that his son should protect him and that by his help he might be emancipated from the government of the rich and aristocratic as they are termed and so he bids him and his companions depart just as any other father might drive out of the house a riotous son and his undesirable associates by heaven he said then the parent will discover what her monster he has been fostering in his bosom and when he wants to drive him out he will find that he is weak and his son strong why you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence what beat his father if he opposes him yes he will having first disarmed him then he is a parasite and a cruel guardian of an aged parent and this is real tyranny about which there can be no longer a mistake as the saying is the people who would escape this smoke which is the slavery of freemen has fallen into the fire with the tyranny of slaves thus liberty getting out of all order and reason passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery true he said very well and may we not rightly say that we have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny and the manner of transition from democracy to tyranny yes quite enough he said end of book eight book nine 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 recording by Jeffrey Edwards the republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Jowett book nine part one last of all comes the tyrannical man about whom we have once more to ask how is he formed out of the democratical and how does he live in happiness or in misery yes he said he's the only one remaining there is however I said a previous question which remains unanswered what question I do not think that we have adequately determined the nature and number of the appetites and until this is accomplished the inquiry will always be confused well he said it is not too late to supply the omission very true I said and observe the point which I want to understand certain of the unnecessary pleasures and appetites I conceive to be unlawful everyone appears to have them but in some persons they are controlled by the laws and by reason and the better desires prevail over them either they are wholly banished or they become few and weak while in the case of others they are stronger and there are more of them which appetites do you mean I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep then the wild beast within us gorged with meat or drink starts up and having shaken off sleep goes forth to satisfy his desires and there's no conceivable folly or crime not accepting incest or any other unnatural union or parasite or the eating of forbidden food which at such a time when he has parted company with all shame and sense a man may not be ready to commit most true he said but when a man's pulse is healthy and temperate and when before going to sleep he has awakened his rational powers and fed them on noble thoughts and inquiries collecting himself in meditation after having first indulged his appetites neither too much nor too little but just enough to lay them to sleep and prevent them and their enjoyments and pains from interfering with the higher principle which he leaves in the solitude of pure abstraction free to contemplate and aspire to the knowledge of the unknown whether in past present or future when again he has allayed the passionate element if he has a quarrel against anyone I say when after pacifying the two irrational principles he rouses up the third which is reason before he takes his rest then as you know he takes truth most nearly and is least likely to be the sport of fantastic and lawless visions I quite agree in saying this I have been running into a digression but the point which I desire to note is that in all of us even in good men there's a lawless wild beast nature which peers out in sleep pray consider whether I am right and you agree with me yes I agree and now remember the character which we attributed to the democratic man he was supposed from his youth upwards to have been trained under a miserly parent who encouraged the saving appetites in him but discounted the unnecessary which him only at amusement and ornament true and then he got into the company of a more refined licentious sort of people and taking to all their modern ways rushed into the opposite extreme for an abhorrence of his father's meanness at last being a better man than his corruptors he was drawn in both directions until he halted midway and led a life not a vulgar enslaved passion but of what he deemed modern indulgence in various pleasures after this manner the democrat was generated out of the oligarch yes he said that was our view of him and is so still and now I said years will have passed away and you must conceive this man such as he is to have a son who's brought up in his father's principles I can imagine him then you must further imagine the same thing to happen to the son which has already happened to the father he is drawn into a perfectly lawless life which by his seducers is termed perfect liberty and his father and friends take part with his moderate desires and the opposite party assists the opposite ones as soon as these dire magicians and tyrant makers find that they are losing their hold on him they can try to implant in him a master passion to be lured over his idle and spin thrift lusts a sort of monstrous winged drone that is the only image which will adequately describe him yes he said that is the only adequate image of him and when his other lusts made clouds of incense and perfumes and garlands and wines and all the pleasures of a dissolute life now let loose come buzzing around him nourishing to the utmost the sting of desire which they implant in his drone like nature then at last this lord of the soul having madness for the captain of his guard breaks out into a frenzy and if he finds in himself any good opinions or appetites in process of formation and there isn't him any sense of shame remaining to these better principles he puts an end and casts them forth until he has purged away temperance and brought in madness to the full yes he said that is the way in which the tyrannical man is generated and is not this the reason why of old love has been called a tyrant i should not wonder further i said has not drunken man also the spirit of a tyrant he has and you know that a man who is deranged and not right in his mind will fancy that he is able to rule not only over men but also over the gods that he will and the tyrannical man in the true sense of the word comes into being when either under the influence of nature or habit or both he becomes drunken lustful passionate oh my friend is not that so assuredly such is the man and such is his origin and next how does he live suppose as people facetiously say you were to tell me i imagine i said that the next step in his progress that there will be feasts and carousels and revelings and courtesans and all that sort of thing love is the lord of the house within him and orders all the concerns of his soul that is certain yes and every day and every night desires grow up many and formidable and their demands are many they are indeed he said his revenues if he has any are soon spent true then comes debt and the cutting down of his property of course when he has nothing left must not his desires crowding in the nest like young ravens be crying aloud for food and he voted on by them especially by love himself who is in a manner the captain of them is in a frenzy and would feign discover whom he can defraud or to spoil of his property in order that he may gratify them yes that is sure to be the case he must have money no matter how if he is to escape horrid pains and pangs he must and as in himself there was a succession of pleasures and the new got the better of the old and took away their rights so he being younger will claim to have more than his father and his mother and if he has spent his own share of the property he will take a slice of theirs no doubt he will and if his parents will not give way then he will try first of all to cheat and deceive them very true and if he fails then he will use force and plunder them yes probably and if the old man and woman fight for their own what then my friend will the creature feel any compunction at curinizing over them nay he said i should not feel at all comfortable about his parents but oh heavens adamantus on account of some new fangled love of a harlot who is anything but a necessary connection can he believe that he would strike the mother who is his ancient friend and necessary to his very existence and would place her under the authority of the other when she's brought under the same roof with her or that under like circumstances he would do the same to his withered old father first and most indispensable of friends for the sake of some newly found blooming youth who is the reverse of indispensable yes indeed he said i believe that he truly then i said a tyrannical son is a blessing to his father and mother he is indeed he replied he first takes their property and when that fails and pleasures are beginning to swarm in the hive of his soul then he breaks into a house or steals the garments of some nightly wayfarer next he proceeds to clear temple meanwhile the old opinions which he had when a child and which gave judgment about good and evil are overthrown by those others which have just been emancipated and are now the bodyguard of love and share his empire these in his democratic days when he was still subject to the laws and to his father were only let loose in the dreams of sleep but now that he is under the dominion of love he becomes always and in waking reality what he was then very rarely and in a dream only he will commit the foulest murder or eat forbidden food or be guilty of any other horde act love is his tyrant and lives lordly in him and lawlessly and being himself a king leads him on as a tyrant leads a state to the performance of any reckless deed by which he can maintain himself and the rabble of his associates whether those whom evil communicates have brought in from without or those whom he himself has allowed to break loose within him by reason of a similar evil nature in himself have we not hear a picture of his way of life yes indeed he said and if there are only a few of them in the state and the rest of the people are well disposed they go away and become the bodyguard or mercenary soldiers of some other tyrant who may probably want them for a war and if there is no war they stay at home and do many little pieces of mischief in the city what sort of mischief for example they are thieves burglars cut purses footpads robbers of temples man stealers of the community or as they are able to speak they turn in formers and bear false witness and take bribes a small catalog of evils even if the perpetrators of them are few in number yes i said but small and great are comparative terms and all these things in the misery and evil which they inflict upon a state do not come within a thousand miles of the tyrant when this noxious class and their followers grow numerous and become conscious of their strength assisted by the infatuation of the people they choose from among themselves the one who has most of the tyrant in his own soul and him they create their tyrant yes he said and he will be the most fit to be a tyrant if the people yield well and good but if they resist him as he began by beating his own father and mother so now if he has the power he beats them and will keep his dear old fatherland or motherland as the Cretans say in subjection to his young retainers whom he has introduced to be their rulers and masters this is the end of his passions and desires exactly when such men are only private individuals and before they get power this is their character they associate entirely with their own flatterers or ready tools or if they want anything from anybody they and their turn are equally ready to bow down before them they profess every sort of affection for them but when they have gained their point they know them no more yes truly they're always either the masters or servants and never the friends of anybody the tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship certainly not I may not we rightly call such men treacherous no question also they are utterly unjust if we were right in our notion of justice yes he said and we were perfectly right let us then sum up in a word I said the character of the worst man he is the waking reality of what we dreamed most true and this is he who being by nature most of a tyrant bears rule and the longer he lives the more of a tyrant he becomes that is certain said Glaucon taking his turn to answer and will not he who has been shown to be the wickedest be also the most miserable and he who has tyrannized longest and most most continually and truly miserable although this may not be the opinion of men in general yes he said inevitably and must not the tyrannical man be like the tyrannical state and the democratical man like the democratical state and the same of the others certainly and as state is the state in virtue and happiness so is man in relation to man to be sure and comparing our original city which was under a king and the city which is under a tyrant how do they stand us to virtue they are the opposite extremes he said for one is the very best and the other is the very worst there can be no mistake I said as to which is which and therefore I will at once inquire whether you would arrive at a similar decision about their relative happiness and misery and here we must not allow ourselves to be panic stricken at the apparition of the tyrant who is only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him but let us go as we ought into every corner of the city and look all about and then we will give our opinion a fair invitation he replied and I see as everyone must the tyranny is the wretchedest form of government and the rule of a king the happiest and in estimating the men too may I not fairly make a like request that I should have a judge whose mind can enter into and see through human nature he must not be like a child who looks at the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumes to the beholder but let him be one who has a clear insight may I suppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by one who is able to judge and is dwelt in the same place with him and been present at his daily life and known him in his family relations where he may be seen strict of his tragedy attire and again in the hour of public danger he shall tell us about the happiness and misery of the tyrant when compared with other men that again he said is a very fair proposal shall I assume that we ourselves are able and experienced judges and have before now met with such a person we shall then have someone who will answer our inquiries by all means let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the individual in the state bearing this in mind and glancing in turn from one to the other of them will you tell me their respective conditions what do you mean he asked beginning with the state I replied would you say that a city which is governed by a tyrant is free or enslaved no city he said could be more completely enslaved and yet as you see there are free men as well as masters in such a state yes he said I see that there are a few but the people speaking generally and the best of them are miserably degraded and enslaved then if the man is like the state I said it's not the same rule prevail his soul is full of meanness and vulgarity the best elements in him are enslaved and there's a small ruling part which is also the worst and maddest inevitably and would you say that the soul of such a one is the soul of a free man or of a slave he has the soul of a slave in my opinion and the state which is enslaved under tyrant is utterly incapable of acting voluntarily utterly incapable and also the soul which is under tyrant I am speaking of the soul taken as a whole is least capable of doing what she desires there is a gadfly which goads her and she's full of trouble and remorse certainly and is the city which is under a tyrant rich or poor poor and the tyrannical must be always poor and insatiable true and must not such a state and such a man be always full of fear yes indeed is there any state in which you will find more of lamentation and sorrow and groaning and pain certainly not and is there any man in whom you will find more of this sort of misery than in the tyrannical man who is in a fury of passions and desires impossible reflecting upon these and similar evils he held the tyrannical state to be the most miserable of states and I was right he said certainly I said and when you see the same evils in the tyrannical man what do you say of him I say that he is by far the most miserable of all men there I said I think that you are beginning to go wrong what do you mean I do not think that he has as yet reached the utmost extreme of misery then who is more miserable one of whom I am about to speak who is that he who is of a tyrannical nature and instead of leading a private life has been cursed with the further misfortune of being a public tyrant from what has been said I gather that you are right yes I replied but in this high argument you should be a little more certain and should not conjecture only for of all questions this respecting good and evil is the greatest very true he said end of book nine part one recording by Jeffrey Edwards book nine part two 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 Jeffrey Edwards the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Jowett book nine part two let me then offer you an illustration which may I think throw a light upon this subject what is your illustration the case of rich individuals in cities who possess many slaves from them you may form an idea of the tyrant's condition for they both have slaves the only difference is that he has more slaves yes that is the difference you know that they live securely and have nothing to apprehend from their servants what should they fear nothing but do you observe the reason of this yes the reason is that whole city is leaked together for the protection of each individual very true I said but imagine one of these owners the master say of some 50 slaves together with his family and property and slaves carried off by a god into the wilderness where there are no free men to help him will he not be in an agony of fear lest he and his wife and children should be put to death by his slaves yes he said he will be in the utmost fear the time has arrived when he will be compelled to flatter diverse of his slaves and make many promises to them of freedom and other things much against his will he will have to cajole his own servants yes he said that will be the only way of saving himself and suppose the same god who carried him away to surround him with neighbors who will not suffer one man to be the master of another and who if they could catch the offender would take his life his case will be still worse if you suppose him to be everywhere surrounded and watched by enemies it is not this the sort of prison in which the tyrants will be bound he who being by nature such as we have described is full of all sorts of fears and lusts his soul is dainty and greedy and the other alone of all men in the city he is never allowed to go on a journey or to see the things which other freemen desire to see but he lives in his hole like a woman hidden in the house and is jealous of any other citizen who goes into foreign parts and sees anything of interest very true he said and many evils such as these will not he who is ill governed in his own person the tyrannical man i mean whom you just now decided to be the most miserable of all will not he be yet more miserable when instead of living a private life he is constrained by fortune to be a public tyrant he has to be master of others when he is not master of himself he is like a diseased or paralytic man who is compelled to pass his life not in retirement but fading and combating with other men yes he said the similitude is most exact it's not his case utterly miserable and does not the actual tyrant lead a worse life than he whose life he determined to be the worst certainly he who is the real tyrant whatever men may think is the real slave and is obliged to practice the greatest adulation and servility and to be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind he is desirous which he is utterly unable to satisfy and has more wants than anyone and is truly poor if you know how to inspect the whole soul of him all his life long he's beset with fear and is full of convulsions and distractions even as the state which he resembles and surely resemblance holds very true he said moreover as we were saying before he grows worse from having power he becomes and is of necessity more jealous more faithless more unjust more friendless more impious and he was at first he is the purveyor and cherisher of every sort of vice and the consequence is that he is supremely miserable and that he makes everybody else as miserable as himself no man of any sense will dispute your words come then i said and as the general umpire in theatrical contests proclaim the result do you also decide who in your opinion is the first in a scale of happiness and who second and in what order the others follow there are five of them in all they are the royal democratical old agarchical democratical tyrannical the decision will be easily given he replied they shall be choruses coming on the stage and i must judge them in the order in which they enter by the criterion of virtue and vice happiness and misery need we hire a herald or shall i announce that the son of erestone the best has decided that the best and justice is also the happiest and that this is he who is the most royal man and king over himself and that the worst and most unjust man is also the most miserable and that this is he who being the greatest tyrant of himself is also the greatest tyrant of his state makes a proclamation yourself he said and shall i add whether seen or unseen by gods and men let the words be added then this i said will be our first proof and there is another which may also have some weight what is that the second proof is derived from the nature of the soul seeing that the individual soul like the state has been divided by us into three principles the division may i think furnish a new demonstration of what nature it seems to me that to these three principles three pleasures correspond also three desires and governing powers how do you mean he said there is one principle with which as we were saying a man learns another with which he is angry the third having many forms has no special name but is denoted by the general term appetitive from the extraordinary strength and behemoths of the desires of eating and drinking and the other central appetites which are the main elements of it also money living because such desires are generally satisfied by the help of money that is true he said if we were to say that the loves and pleasures of this third part were concerned with gain we should then be able to fall back on a single notion and might truly and intelligibly describe this part of the soul as letting gain or money i agree with you again it's not the passionate element wholly set on ruling and conquering and getting fame true suppose we call it the contentious or ambitious would the term be suitable extremely suitable on the other hand everyone sees that the principle of knowledge is wholly directed to the truth and cares less than either the others for gain or fame far less lover of wisdom lover of knowledge are titles which we may fitly apply to that part of the soul certainly one principle prevails in the souls of one class of men another in others as may happen yes then we may begin by assuming that there are three classes of men lovers of wisdom lovers of honor lovers of gain exactly and there are three kinds of pleasure which are their several objects very true now if you examine the three classes of men and ask of them in turn which of their lives is pleasantest each will be found praising his own and depreciating that of others the moneymaker will contrast the vanity of honor or of learning if they bring no money with the solid advantages of gold and silver true he said and the lover of honor what will be his opinion will he not think that the pleasure of riches is vulgar while the pleasure of learning if it brings no distinction is all smoke and nonsense to him very true and are we to suppose i said that the philosopher sets any value on other pleasures in comparison with the pleasure of knowing the truth and in that pursuit of hiding ever learning not so far indeed from the heaven of pleasure does he not call the other pleasure is necessary under the idea that if there were no necessity for them he would rather not have them there can be no doubt of that he replied since then the pleasures of each class and the life of each are in dispute and the question is not which life is more or less honorable or better or worse but which is the more pleasant or painless how shall we know who speaks truly i cannot myself tell he said well but what ought to be the criterion is any better than experience and wisdom and reason there cannot be a better he said then i said reflect of the three individuals which has the greatest experience of all the pleasures which we enumerated has the lover of gain in learning the nature of essential truth greater experience of the pleasure of knowledge than the philosopher has of the pleasure of gain the philosopher he replied has greatly the advantage for he has of necessity always known the taste of the other pleasures from his childhood upwards but the lover of gain in all his experience has not a necessity tasted or i should rather say even had he desired could hardly have tasted the sweetness of learning and knowing truth then the lover of wisdom has a great advantage over the lover of gain for he has a double experience yes very great again has he greater experience of the pleasures of honor or the lover of honor of the pleasures of wisdom nay he said all three are honored in proportion as they attain their object for the rich man and the brave man and the wise men alike have their crowd of admirers and as they all receive honor they all have experience of the pleasures of honor but the delight which is to be found in the knowledge of true being is known to the philosopher only his experience then will enable him to judge better than anyone far better and he is the only one who has wisdom as well as experience certainly further the very faculty which is the instrument of judgment is not possessed by the covetous or ambitious man but only by the philosopher what faculty reason with whom as we were saying the decision not to rest yes and reasoning is peculiarly his instrument certainly if wealth and gain were the criterion then the praise or blame of the lover of gain would certainly be the most trustworthy ah surely or if honor or victory or courage in that case the judgment of the ambitious or pugnacious would be the truest clearly but since experience and wisdom and reason are the judges the only inference possible he replied is that pleasures which are approved by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest and so we arrive at the result that the pleasure of the intelligent part of the soul is the pleasantest of the three and that he of us in whom this is the ruling principle has the pleasantest life unquestionably he said the wise man speaks with authority when he approves of his own life and what does the judge affirm to be the life which is next and the pleasure which is next clearly that of the soldier and lover of honor who is nearer to himself than the moneymaker last comes the lover of gain very true he said twice in succession then has the just man overthrown the unjust in this conflict and now comes the third trial which is dedicated to olympian Zeus the savior a sage whispers in my ear that no pleasure except that of the wise is quite true in fear all others are a shadow only and surely this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls yes the greatest but will you explain yourself i will work out the subject and you shall answer my questions proceed say then is not pleasure opposite to pain true and there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor pain there is a state which is intermediate and a sort of repose of the soul about either that is what you mean yes you remember what people say when they are sick what do they say that after all nothing is pleasanter than health but then they never knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill yes i know he said and when persons are suffering from acute pain you must have heard them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of their pain i have and there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere rest and cessation of pain and not any positive enjoyment is extolled by them as the greatest pleasure yes he said at the time they are pleased and well content to be at rest again when pleasure ceases that sort of rest or cessation will be painful doubtless he said then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be pain so it would seem but can that which is neither become both i should say not and both pleasure and pain are motions of the soul are they not yes but that which is neither is just now shown to be rest and not motion and did i mean between them yes how then can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is pleasure or that the absence of pleasure is pain impossible this then is an appearance only and not a reality that is to say the rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful and painful in comparison of what is pleasant but all these representations when tried by the test of true pleasure are not real but a sort of imposition that is the inference look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains and you will no longer suppose as you perhaps may have present that pleasure is only the cessation of pain or pain of pleasure what are they he said and where shall i find them there are many of them take as an example the pleasures of smell which are very great and have no antecedent pains they come in a moment and when they depart leave no pain behind them most true he said let us not then be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the cessation of pain or pain of pleasure no still the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the soul through the body are generally of this sort they are reliefs of pain that is true and the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like nature yes shall i give you an illustration of them let me hear you would allow i said that there is a nature in upper and lower and middle region i should and if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region would he not imagine that he is going up and he was standing in the middle and sees once he has come would imagine that he is already in an upper region if he has never seen the true upper world to be sure he said how can you think otherwise but if we were taken back again he would imagine and truly imagine that he was descending no doubt all that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle and lower regions yes end of book nine part two recording by jeffrey edwards book nine part three of playdough'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 Jeffrey Edwards the republic by playto translated by Benjamin Jowett book nine part three then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth as they have wrong ideas about many other things should also have wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state so that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain and think the pain which they experience to be real and in like manner when drawn away from pain to the neutral or intermediate state they firmly believe that they've reached the goal of satiety and pleasure they not knowing pleasure air in contrasting pain with the absence of pain which is like contrasting black with gray instead of white can you wonder i say at this no indeed i should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite look at the matter thus hunger thirst and alike are inanitions of the bodily state yes and ignorance and folly are inanitions of the soul true and food and wisdom are the corresponding satisfactions of either certainly and is the satisfaction derived from that which has less or from that which has more existence the truer clearly from that which has more what classes of things have a greater share of pure existence in your judgment those of which food and drink and condiments and all kinds of sustenance are examples or the class which contains true opinion and knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue put the question in this way which has a more pure being that which is concerned with the invariable the immortal and the true and is of such a nature and is found in such natures or that which is concerned with and found in the variable and mortal and is itself variable and mortal far pure he replied is the being of that which is concerned with the invariable and does the essence of the invariable partake of knowledge in the same degree as of essence yes of knowledge in the same degree of truth in the same degree? Yes. And conversely, that which has less of truth will also have less of essence? Necessarily. Then, in general, those kinds of things which are in the service of the body have less of truth and essence than those which are in the service of the soul? Far less. And has not the body itself less of truth and essence than the soul? Yes.  Of course. And if there be a pleasure in being filled with that which is according to nature, that which is more really filled with more real being will more really and truly enjoy true pleasure, whereas that which participates in less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied and will participate in an illusory and less real pleasure? Unquestionably. Those then who know not wisdom and virtue and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality go down and up again as far as the mean, and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world. Thither they never look, nor do they ever find their way.  Like cattle, with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth, that is, to the dining table. They fatten and feed and breed, and in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoops, which are made of iron, and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust, for they fill themselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent. Fairly, Socrates, say Glaucon, you describe the life of the many like an oracle. Their pleasures are mixed with pains. How can they be otherwise? For they are mere shadows and pictures of the true and are colored by contrast, which exaggerates both light and shade, and so they implant in the minds of fools insane desires of themselves, and they are thought about, as Tezikoras says, that the Greeks thought about the shadow of Hellenic Troy in ignorance of the truth. Something of that sort must inevitably happen. And must not the like happen with the spirited or passionate element of the soul? Will not the passionate man, who carries his passions into action, be in the like case, whether he is envious and ambitious or violent and contentious, or angry and discontented, if he be seeking to attain honor and victory in the satisfaction of his anger without reason or sense? Yes, he said. The same will happen with the spirited element also. Then may we not confidently assert that the lovers of money and honor, when they seek their pleasures under the guidance and in the company of reason and knowledge, and pursue after and win the pleasures, which wisdom shows them, will also have the truest pleasures in the highest degree, which is attainable to them, in as much as they follow truths, and they will have the pleasures which are natural to them, if that which is best for each one is also most natural to him? Yes, certainly. The best is the most natural. And when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle, and there is no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them their own business, and enjoy several of the best and truest pleasures, of which they are capable? Exactly. But when either of the two other principles prevails, it fails in attaining its own pleasure, and compels the rest to pursue after a pleasure which is a shadow only, and which is not their own? True. And the greater the interval which separates them from philosophy and reason, the more strange and elusive will be the pleasure? Yes. And is not that far this from reason, which is at the greatest distance from law and order? Clearly. And the lustful and tyrannical desires are, as we saw at the greatest distance? Yes. And the royal and orderly desires are nearest? Yes. And the tyrant will live at the greatest distance from true or natural pleasure, and the king at least? Certainly. But if so, the tyrant will live most unpleasantly, and the king most pleasantly? Inevitably. Would you know the measure of the interval which separates them? Will you tell me? There appear to be three pleasures, one genuine and two spurious. Now the transgression of the tyrant reaches a point beyond spurious. He has run away from the region of law and reason, and takes up his abode with certain slave pleasures, which are his satellites, and the measure of his inferiority can only be expressed in a figure. How do you mean? I assume, I said, that the tyrant is in the third place from the oligarch, the democrat was in the middle? Yes. And if there is truce in what is preceded, he will be wedded to an image of pleasure, which is thrice removed as to truce from the pleasure of the oligarch? You will. And the oligarch is third from the royal, since we count his one royal and aristocratical? Yes, he is third. Then the tyrant is removed from true pleasure by the space of a number which is three times three? Manifestly. The shadow then of tyrannical pleasure, determined by the number of lengths, will be a plain figure. Certainly. And if he raises the power and makes the plane a solid, there is no difficulty in seeing how vast is the interval by which the tyrant is parted from the king? Yes, the errant's petition will easily do the sum. Or if some person begins at the other end and measures the interval by which the king is parted from the tyrant in truce of pleasure, he will find him when the multiplication is completed, living 729 times more pleasantly, and the tyrant more painfully by the same interval. What a wonderful calculation, and how enormous is the distance which separates the just from the unjust in regard to pleasure and pain. Yet a true calculation, I said, and a number which nearly concerns human life, if human beings are concerned with days and nights and months and years, 729 nearly equals the number of days and nights in the year. Yes, he said, human life is certainly concerned with them. And if the good and just man be thus superior in pleasure to the evil and unjust, his superiority will be infinitely greater in propriety of life and in beauty and in virtue? Immeasurably greater. Well, I said, and now having arrived at this stage of the argument, we may revert to the words which brought us hither. Was not someone saying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputed to be just? Yes, that was said. Now then, having demonstrated the power and quality of justice and injustice, let us have a little conversation with him. What shall we say to him? Let us make an image of the soul, that he may have his own words presented before his eyes. Of what sort? An ideal image of the soul, like the composite creations of ancient mythology, such as the Chimera or Scylla or Cerberus, and there are many others in which two or more different natures are said to grow into one. There are said to have been such unions. Then do you now model the form of a multitudinous, many-headed monster, having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts, tame and wild, which he is able to generate and metamorphose at will? You suppose marvelous powers in the artist, but as language is more pliable than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a model as you propose. Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a third of a man, the second smaller than the third, and the third smaller than the second. That, he said, is an easier task, and I have made them as you say. And now join them, and let the three go into one. That has been accomplished. Next, fashion the outside of them into a single image, as of a man, so that he, who is not able to look within and sees only the outer hull, may believe the beast to be a single human creature. I have done so, he said. And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature to be unjust and unprofitable to be just, let us reply that, if he be right, it is profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities, but to starve and weaken the man, who is consequently liable to be dragged to vote as the mercy of either of the other two, and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another. He ought rather to suffer than to fight and bite and devour one another. Certainly, he said, that is what the approver of injustice says. To him, the supporter of justice makes answer that should he ever so speak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other the most complete mastery over the entire human creature. He should watch over the many-headed monster, like a good husbandman, fostering and cultivating the Gentile qualities, and preventing the wild ones from growing. He should be making the lion heart his ally, and in common care of them all, should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself. Yes, he said, that is quite what the maintainer of justice say. And so, from every point of view, whether of pleasure, honor, or advantage, the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth, and the disapprover is wrong, and false and ignorant? Yes, from every point of view. Come now, and let us gently reason with the unjust, who is not intentionally in error. Sweet sir, we will say to him, what think you of things esteem noble and ignoble? Is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the God in man, and the ignoble that which subjects the man to the beast? He can hardly avoid saying yes, can he know? Not if he has any regard for my opinion. But if he agrees so far, we may ask him to answer another question. Then how would a man profit if he received gold and silver, on the condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst? Who can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum which he received? Will anyone say that he is not a miserable catef, who remorselessly sells his own divine being to that which is most godless and detestable?  Yes, said Glaucon, far worse, and I will answer for him. Has not the intemperate been censured of old because in him the huge multi-form monster is allowed to be too much at large? Clearly. And men are blamed for pride and bad temper when the lion and serpent element in them disproportionately grows and gains strength? Yes. And luxury and softness are blamed, because they relax and weaken the same creature and make a coward of him? Very true. It is not a man reproached for flattering and meanness who subordinates the spirited animal to the unruly monster, and for the sake of money, of which he can never have enough, habituates him in the days of his youth to be trampled in the mire, and for being a lion to become a monkey? True, he said. And why are mean employments and manual arts reproach? Only because they imply a natural weakness of the higher principle, the individual is unable to control the creatures within him, but he has to court them, and his great study is how to flatter them. Such appears to be the reason. And therefore, being desirous of placing him under a rule like that of the best, we say that he ought to be the servant of the best, in whom the divine rules, not as sarcemic as supposed, to the injury of the servant, but because everyone had better be ruled by divine wisdom dwelling within him, or, if this be impossible, then by an external authority, in order that we may be all, as far as possible, under the same government, friends and equals. True, he said. And this is clearly seen to be the intention of the law, which is the ally of the whole city, and is seen also in the authority which we exercise over children, and the refusal to let them be free until we have established in them a principal analogous to the constitution of a state, and, by cultivation of this higher element, have set up in their hearts a guardian and ruler like our own, and when this is done, they may go their ways. Yes, he said, the purpose of the law is manifest. From what point of view, then, and on what ground can we say that a man is profited by injustice or intemperance or other baseness, which will make him a worse man, even though he acquire money or power by his wickedness? From no point of view at all. What shall he profit if his injustice be undetected and unpunished? He who is undetected only gets worse, whereas he who is detected and punished has the brutal part of his nature silenced and humanized. The gentler element in him is liberated, and his whole soul is perfected and ennobled by the acquirement of justice and temperance and wisdom, more than the body ever is by receiving gifts of beauty, strength and health, in proportion as the soul is more honorable than the body. Certainly, he said, to this nobler purpose, the man of understanding will devote the energies of his life, and in the first place, he will honor studies which impress these qualities on his soul and will disregard others. Clearly, he said. In the next place, he will regulate his bodily habit and training, and so far will he be from yielding to brutal and irrational pleasures that he will guard even health as quite a secondary matter. His first object will be not that he may be fair or strong or well, unless he is likely thereby to gain temperance, but he will always desire so to attemper the body as to preserve the harmony of the soul. Certainly he will, if he has true music in him. And in the acquisition of wealth, there is a principle of order and harmony, which he will also observe.  Certainly not, he said. He will look at the city, which is within him, and take heed that no disorder occur in it, such as may derives either from superfluity or from want, and upon this principle, he will regulate his property and gain or spend according to his means? Very true. And for the same reason, he will gladly accept and enjoy such honors as he deems likely to make him a better man, but those, whether private or public, which are likely to disorder his life, he will avoid? Then, if that is his motive, he will not be a statesman. By the dog of Egypt, he will, in the city which is his own, he certainly will, though in the land of his births perhaps not, unless he have a divine call. I understand. You mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders, and which exists in idea only, for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth. In heaven, I replied, there is laid up a pattern of it, me thinks, which he who desires may behold, and beholding may set his own house in order, but whether such an one exists, or ever will exist in fact, is no matter, for he will live after the manner of that city, having nothing to do with any other. I think so, he said. End of Book 9. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. Book 10, 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 J. C. Gwan. The Republic by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Joet. Book 10, Part 1. Of the many excellences which I perceive in the order of our state, there is none which upon reflection pleases me better than the role about poetry. To what do you refer? To the rejection of imitative poetry, which certainly ought not to be received, as I see far more clearly now that the parts of the soul have been distinguished. What do you mean? Speaking in confidence, for I should not like to have my words repeated to the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe, but I do not mind saying to you that all poetical imitations are ruinous to the understanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them. Explain the purport of your remark. Well, I will tell you, although I have always from my earliest youth have an awe and love of Homer, which even now makes the words falter on my lips, for he is the great captain and teacher of the whole of that charming tragic company. But a man is not to be referenced more than the truth, and therefore I will speak out. Very good, he said. Listen to me, then, or rather answer me. Put your question. Can you tell me what imitation is? For I really do not know. A likely thing, then, that I should know. Why not? For the doler I may often see a thing sooner than the keener. Very true, he said. But in your presence, even if I had any faint notion, I could not master courage to utter it. Will you inquire yourself? Well, then, shall we begin the inquiry in our usual manner? Whenever a number of individuals have become a name, we assume them to have also a corresponding idea or form. Do you understand me? I do. Let us take any common instance. There are beds and tables in the world. Plenty of them are there not? Yes. But there are only two ideas or forms of them. One, the idea of a bed. The other, of a table. True. And the maker of either of them makes a bed, or he makes a table for our use in accordance with the idea. That is our way of speaking in this and similar instances. But no artificer makes the ideas themselves. How could he? Impossible. And there is another artist. I should like to know what you would say of him. Who is he? One who is the maker of all the works of all other workmen. What an extraordinary man. Wait a little, and there will be more reason for your saying so. For this is he who is able to make not only vessels for every kind, but plants and animals, himself and all other things, the earth and heaven, and the things which aren't heaven or under the earth. He makes the gods also. He must be a wizard and no mistake. Oh, you are incredulous, are you? Do you mean that there is no such maker or creator? Or that in one sense there might be a maker of all these things, but in another, not? Do you see that there is a way in which you could make them all yourself? What way? An easy way enough. Or rather, there are many ways in which defeat might be quickly and easily accomplished, none quicker than that of turning a mirror round and round. You would soon enough make the sun and the heavens and the earth and yourself and other animals and plants and all the other things of which we were just now speaking in the mirror. Yes, he said, but there would be appearances only. Very good, I said. You are coming to the point now, and the painter too is, as I conceive, just such another, a creator of appearances, is he not? Of course. But then, I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue, and yet there is a sense of which the painter also creates a bed? Yes, he said, but not a real bed. And what of the maker of the bed? Were you not saying that he too makes, not the idea which, according to your view, is the essence of the bed, but only a particular bed? Yes, I did. Then, if he does not make that which exists, he cannot make true existence, but only some semblance of existence. And if anyone were to say that the work of the maker of the bed, or any other workman, has real existence, he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth. At any rate, he replied, philosophers would say that he was not speaking the truth. No wonder then that his work too is an indistinct expression of truth. No wonder. Suppose now that by the light of the examples just offered, we inquire who this imitator is. If you please. Well then, here are three beds, one existing in nature, which is made by God, as I think that we may say. For no one else can be the maker. No. There is another which is the work of the carpenter. Yes. And the work of a painter is a third. Yes. Beds then are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintend them. God, the maker of the bed, and the painter. Yes. There are three of them. God, whether from choice or from necessity, made one bed in nature and one only. Two or more such ideal beds neither have been, nor ever will be made by God. Why is that? Because even if he had made but two, a third would still appear behind them, which both of them would have for their idea. And that would be the ideal bed, and not the two others. Very true, he said. God knew this, and he desired to be the real maker of a real bed, not the particular maker of a particular bed, and therefore he created a bed which is essentially, and by nature, one only. So we believe. Shall we then speak of him as the natural author or maker of the bed? Yes, he replied, inasmuch as by the natural process of creation, he is the author of this and of all other things. And what shall we say of the carpenter? Is not he also the maker of the bed? Yes. But would you call the painter a creator and maker? Certainly not. Yet, if he is not the maker, what is he in relation to the bed? I think, he said, that we may fairly designate him as the imitator of that which the others make. Good, I said. Then you call him, who is third in the descent from nature, an imitator? Certainly, he said. And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is twice removed from the king and from the truth? That appears to be so. Then about the imitator, we are agreed. And what about the painter? I would like to know whether he may be thought to imitate that which originally exists in nature, or only the creations of artists? The latter. As they are, or as they appear, you have still to determine this. What do you mean? I mean, that you may look at a bed from different points of view, obliquely, or directly, or from any other point of view, and the bed will appear different. But there is no difference in reality, and the same of all things. Yes, he said, the difference is only apparent. Now, let me ask you another question. Which is the art of painting designed to be? An imitation of things as they are, or as they appear, of appearance, or of reality, of appearance? Then the imitator, I said, is a long way off the truth, and can do all things because he likely touches on a small part of them, and that part, an image. For example, a painter will paint a cobbler, carpenter, or any other artist, though he knows nothing of their arts. And if he is a good artist, he may deceive children or a simple person, when he shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance, and they will fancy that they are looking at a real carpenter. Certainly. And whenever any one informs us that he has found a man who knows all the arts, and all things else that anybody knows, and every single thing with a higher degree of accuracy than any other man, whoever tells us this, I think, that we can only imagine him to be a simple creature who is likely to have been deceived by some wizard or actor whom he met, and whom he taught all-knowing, because he himself was unable to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation. Most true. And so, when we hear persons saying that the tragedians and Homer, who is at their head, know all the arts and all things human, virtue as well as vice, and divine things too, but that the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject, and that he, who has not this knowledge, can never be a poet, we ought to consider whether here also there may not be a similar illusion. Perhaps they may have come across imitators and been deceived by them. They may not have remembered when they saw their works that these were, but imitations tries removed from the truth, and could easily be made without any knowledge of the truth, because they are appearances only and not realities. Or after all, they may be in the right, and poets do really know the things about which they seem, to the many, to speak so well. The question, he said, should by all means be considered? Now, do you suppose that if a person were able to make the original as well as the image, he would seriously devote himself to the image-making branch? Would he allow imitation to be the rolling principle of his life, as if he had nothing higher in him? I should say not. The real artist, who knew what he was imitating, would be interested in realities and not imitations, and would desire to leave as memorials of himself works many and fair. And, instead of being the author of encomiums, he would prefer to be the same of them. Yes, he said, that would be to him a source of much greater honor and profit. Then, I said, we must put a question to Homer, not about medicine, or any of the arts to which his poems only incidentally refer. We are not going to ask him, or any other poet, whether he has courage-patience like a Skelipius, or left behind him a school of medicine such as the Skelipiids were, or whether he only talks about medicine and other arts at second hand. But we have a right to know respecting military tactics, politics, education, which are the chiefest and noblest subjects of his poems. And we may fairly ask him about them, friend Homer. Then we say to him, if you are only in the second remove from truth, in what you say of virtue, and not in the third, not an image-maker or imitator, and if you are able to discern what pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life, tell us what state was ever better governed by your help. The good order of Lassadiman is due to Lycurgus, and many other cities, great and small, have been similarly benefited by others. But who says that you have been a good legislator to them, and have done them any good? Italy and Sicily boast of Corontus, and there is Solon who is renowned among us. But what city has anything to say about you? Is there any city which he might name? I think not, said Glockon, that even the homerids themselves pretend that he was a legislator. Well, but is there any war on record which was carried unsuccessfully by him, or aided by his councils when he was alive? There is not. Or is there any invention of his, applicable to the arts or to human life, such as Thales, the Mylesian, or Anne of Caesis, the Scythian, and other ingenious men have conceived, which is attributed to him? There is absolutely nothing of the kind. But if Homer never did any public service, was he privately a guide or a teacher of any? Had he, in his lifetime friends, who loved to associate with him, and who handed down to posterity any Homeric way of life, such as was established by Pythagoras, who was so greatly beloved for his wisdom, and whose followers are to this day quite celebrated for the order which was named after him? Nothing of the kind is recorded of him. For surely Socrates, Cree of Phylas, the companion of Homer, that child of flesh, whose name always makes us laugh, might be more justly ridiculed for his stupidity, if, as he said, Homer was greatly neglected by him and others in his own day when he was alive? Yes, I replied. That is the tradition. But can you imagine, Glockon, that if Homer had really been able to educate and improve mankind, if he had possessed knowledge and not been a mere imitator, can you imagine, I say, that he would not have any followers, and been honored and loved by them? Protagoras of Abdera and Prodigus of Theos, and a host of others, have only to whisper to their contemporaries, you will never be able to manage either your own house or your own state until you appoint us to be your ministers of education. And this ingenious device of theirs has such an effect in making men love them that their companions all but carry them about on their shoulders. And is it conceivable that the contemporaries of Homer, or again of Hesiod, would have allowed either of them to go about as rhapsodists if they had really been able to make mankind virtuous? Would they not have been as unwilling to part with them as with gold, and have compelled them to stay at home with them? Or, if the master could not stay, then the disciples would have followed him about everywhere until they had got education enough? Yes, Socrates, that I think is quite true. Then must we not infer that all these poetical individuals, beginning with Homer, are only imitators. They copy images of virtue and the like, but the truth they never reach. The poet is like a painter, who, as we have already observed, will make a likeness of a cobbler, though he understands nothing of cobbling, and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does, and judge only by colors and figures. Quite so, in like manner, the poet, with his words and phrases, may be set to lay on the colors of the several arts. Himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them. And other people, who are as ignorant as he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaks of cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else in meter and harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well. Such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have. And I think that you must have observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales of poets make when stripped of the colors which music puts upon them, and recited in simple prose. Yes, he said. They are like faces, which were never really beautiful, but only blooming, and now the bloom of youth has passed away from them. Exactly. There is another point. The imitator, or maker of the image, knows nothing of true existence. He knows appearances only. Am I not right? Yes. Then let us have a clear understanding. And not be satisfied with half an explanation. Proceed. Of the painter, we say that he will paint rains, and he will paint a bit. Yes. And the worker in leather and brass will make them. Certainly. But does the painter know the right form of the bit and rains? Nay, hardly even the workers in brass and leather who make them. Only the horseman knows how to use them. He knows of their right form. Most true. And of book 10, part one. Recording by J. C. Guan. Montreal, December 2008. Book 10, part two 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 J. C. Guan. The Republic by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Joet. Book 10, part two. And may we not say the same of all things? What? That there are three arts, which are concerned with all things. One, which uses. Another, which makes. A third, which imitates them. Yes. And the excellence or beauty or truth of every structure, animate or inanimate, and of every action of man, is relative to the use of which nature or the artist has intended them. True. Then the user of them must have the greatest experience of them, and he must indicate to the maker of the good or bad qualities which develop themselves in use. For example, the flute player will tell the flute maker which of his flutes is satisfactory to the performer. He will tell him how he ought to make them, and the other will attend to his instructions. Of course. The one knows and therefore speaks with authority about the goodness and badness of flutes. While the other, confiding in him, will do what he is told by him. True. The instrument is the same, but about the excellence or badness of it, the maker will only attain to a correct belief, and this he will gain from him who knows, by talking to him, and being compelled to hear what he has to say, whereas the user will have knowledge. True. But will the imitator have either, will he know from use whether or know his drawing is correct or beautiful, or will he have right opinion from being compelled to associate with another who knows and gives him instructions about what he should draw? Neither. Then he will no more have true opinion than he will have knowledge about the goodness or badness of his imitations. I suppose not. The imitative artist will be in a brilliant state of intelligence about his own creations. Nay, very much the reverse. And still he will go on imitating without knowing what makes a thing good or bad, and may be expected therefore to imitate only that which appears to be good to the ignorant multitude. Just so. Thus far then we are pretty well agreed that the imitator has no knowledge worth mentioning of what he imitates. Imitation is only a kind of play or sport, and the tragic poets whether they write in iambic or in heroic bars are imitators in the highest degree. Very true. And now tell me I conjure you. Has not imitation been shown by us to be concerned with that which is thrice removed from the truth? Certainly. And what is the faculty in man to which imitation is addressed? What do we mean? I will explain. The body, which is large once in near, appears small once in at a distance. True. And the same object appears straight when looked at out of the water, and crooked when in the water. And the concave becomes convex, owing to the illusion about colors to which the sight is liable. Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within us. And this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring, and of deceiving, by light and shadow, and other ingenious devices and poses, having an effect upon us like magic. True. And the art of measuring, and numbering, and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding. There is the beauty of them. And the apparent greater or less or more or heavier no longer have the mastery over us. But give way before circulation and measure and weight. Most true. And this surely must be the work of the calculating and rational principle of the soul, to be sure. And when this principle measures and certifies that some things are equal, or that some are greater or less than others, there occurs an apparent contradiction. True. But were we not saying that such a contradiction isn't possible? The same faculty cannot have contrary opinions at the same time about the same thing. Very true. Then that part of the soul, which has an opinion contrary to measure, is not the same with that which has an opinion in accordance with measure. True. And the better part of the soul is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculation. Certainly. And that which is opposed to them is one of the inferior principles of the soul. No doubt. This was the conclusion at which I was seeking to arrive, when I said that painting or drawing, and imitation in general, when doing their own proper work, are far removed from truth. And the companions and friends and associates of a principle within us, which is equally removed from reason, and that they have no true or healthy aim. Exactly. The imitative part is an inferior, who marries an inferior, and has inferior offspring. Very true. And this is confined to the sight only. Or does it extend to the hearing also, relating in fact to what we term poetry? Probably the same would be true of poetry. Do not rely, I said, on a probability derived from the analogy of painting. But let us examine further and see whether the faculty with which poetical imitation is concerned is good or bad. By all means, we may state the question thus. Imitation imitates the actions of men, whether voluntary or involuntary, on which, as they imagine, a good or bad result has ensued, and they rejoice or sorrow accordingly. Is there anything more? No, there is nothing else. But in all this variety of circumstances, is the man at unity with himself, or rather, as in the instance of sight, there was confusion and opposition in his opinions about the same things. So here also, is there not strife and inconsistency in his life? Though I need hardly raise the question again, for I remember that all this has been already admitted, and the soul has been acknowledged by us to be full of these and ten thousand similar oppositions occurring at the same moment. And we were right, he said. Yes, I said. Thus far we were right. But there was an omission which must now be supplied. What was the omission? Were we not saying that a good man who has the misfortune to lose his son, or anything else which is most dear to him, will bear the loss with more equanimity than another? Yes. But will he have no sorrow? Or shall we say that although he cannot help sorrowing, he will moderate his sorrow? The latter, he said, is the truer statement. Tell me, will he be more likely to struggle and hold out against his sorrow when he is seen by his equals or when he is alone? It will make a great difference whether he is seen or not. When he is by himself, he will not mind saying or doing any things which he would be ashamed of anyone hearing or seeing him do? True. There is a principle of law and reason in him which bids him resist, as well as a feeling of his misfortune, which is forcing him to indulge his sorrow. True. But when a man is drawn in two opposite directions, and from the same object, this, as we affirm, necessarily implies two distinct principles in him, certainly, one of them is ready to follow the guidance of the law. How do you mean? The law would say that to be patient under suffering is best, and that we should not give way to impatience, as there is no knowing whether such things are good or evil, and nothing is gained by impatience. Also, because no human thing is of serious importance, and grief stands in the way of that which at the moment is most required. What is most required? He asked that we should take counsel about what has happened, and when the dice have been thrown, order our affairs in the way which reason deems best, not like children who have had a fall, keeping hold of the part struck and wasting time in setting up a howl, but always accustoming the soul, force with, to apply a remedy, raising up that which is sickly and fallen, banishing the cry of sorrow by the healing art. Yes, he said. That is the true way of meeting the attacks of fortune. Yes, I said. And how your principle is ready to follow this suggestion of reason? Clearly. And the other principle, which inclines us to recollection of our troubles and to lamentation, and can never have enough of them. We may call the rational, useless, and cowardly. Indeed, we may. And thus not the latter. I mean the rebellious principle. Furnish a great variety of materials for imitation, whereas the wise and calm temperament, being always nearly equal, is not easy to imitate or to appreciate when imitated, especially at a public festival when a promiscuous crowd is assembled in a theatre. For the feeling represented is one to which there are strangers. Certainly. Then the imitative poet, who aims at being popular, is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to place or to affect the rational principle in the soul. But he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily imitated. Clearly. And now we may fairly take him and place him by the side of the painter, for he is like him in two ways. First, it as much as his creations have an inferior degree of truth. In this I say he is like him. And he is also like him in being concerned with an inferior part of the soul. And therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason. As in a city when the evil are permitted to have authority and the good are put out of the way, so in the soul of man, as we maintain, the imitative poet implants an evil constitution. For he indulges the irrational nature, which has no discernment of greater and less, but thinks the same thing at one time great and at another small. He is a manufacturer of images, and is very far removed from the truth. Exactly. But we have not yet brought forward the heaviest count in our accusation, the power which poetry has of harming even the good, and there are very few who are not harmed. It's fairly an awful thing. Yes, certainly, if the effect is what you say. Herein judge. The best of us, as I conceive, when we listen to a passage of Homer, or one of the Tragedians, in which he represents some pitiful hero who is drawing out his sorrows in elongation, or weeping and smiting his breast. The best of us, you know, delight in giving way to sympathy, and our enraptors at the excellence of the poet who stirs our feelings most. Yes, of course I know. But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observe that we pride ourselves on the opposite quality. We would feign to be quiet and patient. This is the manly part, and the other which delighted us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman. Very true, he said. Now, can we be right in praising and admiring another who is doing that which any one of us would abominate and be ashamed of in his own person? No, he said. That is certainly not reasonable. Nay, I say, quite reasonable from one point of view. What point of view? If you consider, I said, that when in misfortune we feel a natural hunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation, and that this feeling which is kept under control in our own calamities is satisfied and delighted by the poet. The better nature in each of us, not having been sufficiently trained by reason or habit, allows the sympathetic element to break loose because the sorrow is another's. And the spectator fancies that there can be no disgrace to himself in praising and pitying any one who comes telling him what a good man he is, and making a fuss about his troubles. He thinks that the pleasure is again. And why should he be so persilious and lose this and the poem too? Few persons ever reflect, as I should imagine, that from the evil of other men something of evil is communicated to themselves. And so the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sight of the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own. How very true! And thus not the same hold also of the ridiculous. There are jests which you would be ashamed to make yourself. And yet, on the comic stage, or indeed in private, when you hear them, you are greatly amused by them, and are not at all disgusted at their unseemliness. The case of pity is repeated. There is a principle in human nature which is disposed to raise a laugh. And this, which you once restrained by reason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is now let out again. And having stimulated the risable faculty at the theatre, you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home. Quite true, he said. And the same may be said of lust and anger, and all the other affections of desire and pain and pleasure, which are held to be inseparable from every action. In all of them poetry feeds and waters, the passions, instead of drying them up. She lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue. I cannot deny it. Therefore, Glockon, I said, whatever you meet with any of the eulogists of Homer, declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas, and that he is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things, and that you should take him up again and again, and get to know him and regulate your whole life according to him. We may love and honor those who say these things. They are excellent people, as far as their lights extend, and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers. But we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the God and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our state. For if you go beyond this, and allow the honeyed views to enter, either in the epic or lyric verse, not the law and the reason of mankind which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers of our state. That is most true, he said, and now, since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let us our defense serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in sending a way out of our state and art having the tendencies which we have described. For a reason constrained us. But that she may not impute to us any harshness or want of politeness. Let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry, of which there are many proofs, such as the saying of, quote, the helping hound howling at her lord, end quote, or of one, quote, mighty in the vain talk of fools, end quote, end quote, the mob of sages circumventing Zeus, end quote, and the, quote, subtle thinkers who are beggars after all, end quote. And there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them, notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered state, we shall be delighted to receive her. We are very conscious of her terms, but we may not, on that account, betray the truth. I dare say, Glockon, that you are as much charmed by her as I am, especially when she appears in Homer. Yes indeed, I am greatly charmed. Shall I propose then that she be allowed to return from exile, but upon this condition only, that she makes a defense of herself in lyrical or some other meter? Certainly. And we may further grant to those of her defenders, who are lovers of poetry, and yet not poets, the permission to speak in prose on her behalf.  And we will listen in a kindly spirit. For if this can be proved, we shall surely be the gainers. I mean, if there is a use in poetry, as well as a delight. Certainly, he said, we shall be the gainers.  We too are inspired by that love of poetry, which the education of noble states has implanted in us. And therefore we would have her appear at her best and truest, but so long as she is unable to make good her defense, this argument of ours shall be a charm to us, which we will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains, that we may not fall away into the childish love of her, which captivates the many. At all events, we are well aware that poetry, being such as we have described, is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth. And he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the city which is within him, should be on his guard against her seductions and make our words his law. Yes, he said, I quite agree with you. Yes, I said, but dear Glockon, for great is the issue at stake, greater than appears, whether a man is to be good or bad. And what will any one be profited if under the influence of honor, or money, or power, I, or under the excitement of poetry? He neglect justice and virtue. Yes, he said, I have been convinced by the arguments, as I believe that anyone else would have been. And yet, no mention has been made of the greatest prizes and rewards which await virtue. What, are there any greater still? If there are, there must be of an inconceivable greatness. Why, I said, what was ever great in a short time? The whole period of three score years and ten is surely but a little thing in comparison with eternity. Say rather nothing, he replied, and should, an immortal being, seriously think of this little space rather than of the whole? Of the whole, certainly, but what do you ask? End of Book 10, Part 2, Recording by J. C. Guan, Montreal, December 2008. Recording by Don Oneworld, The Republic by Plato, Translated by Benjamin Joett, Book 10, Part 3. Are you aware, I said, that the soul of a man is immortal and imperishable? He looked at me in astonishment and said, No, by heaven, and are you really prepared to maintain this? Yes, I said, I ought to be, and you too. There is no difficulty in proving it. I see great difficulty, but I should like to hear you state this argument of which you make so light. Listen then, I am attending. There is a thing which you call good and another which you call evil? Yes, he replied. Would you agree with me in thinking that the corrupting and destroying element is the evil, and the saving and improving element the good? Yes. And you admit that everything has a good and also an evil, as ophthalmia is an evil of the eyes and disease of the whole body, as mildew is of corn and rot of timber or rust of copper and iron. In everything, or in almost everything, there is an inherent evil and disease? Yes, he said. And anything which is infected by any of these evils is made evil, and at last wholly dissolves and dies? True. Then vice and evil which is inherent in each is the destruction of each. And if this does not destroy them, there is nothing that will. For good certainly will not destroy them, nor again, that which is neither good nor evil. Certainly not. If then we find any nature which having this inherent corruption cannot be dissolved or destroyed, we may be certain that of such a nature there is no destruction. That may be assumed. Well, I said. And is there no evil which corrupts the soul? Yes, he said. There are all the evils which we were just now passing in review, unrighteousness, intemperance, cowardice, ignorance. But does any of these dissolve or destroy her? And here do not let us fall into the air of supposing that the unjust and foolish man, when he is detected, parishes through his own injustice, which is an evil of the soul. Take the analogy of the body. The evil of the body is a disease which wastes and reduces and annihilates the body. And all the things of which we were just now speaking come to annihilation through their own corruption, attaching to them and inhering in them and so destroying them. Is not this true? Yes. Consider the soul in a like manner. Does the injustice or other evil which exists in the soul waste and consume her? Do they be attaching to the soul and inhering in her at the last bring her to death and so separate her from the body? Certainly not. And yet, I said, it is unreasonable to suppose that anything can perish from without through affection of external evil which could not be destroyed from within by a corruption of its own. It is, he replied. Consider, I said, that even the badness of food, whether staleness, decomposition, or any other bad quality, when confined to the actual food, is not supposed to destroy the body. Although, if the badness of food communicates corruption to the body, then we should say that the body has been destroyed by a corruption of itself, which is the disease brought on by this, but that the body being one thing can be destroyed by the badness of food, which is another, and which does not engender any natural infection. This we shall absolutely deny. Very true. And on the same principle, unless some bodily evil can produce an evil of the soul, which we must not suppose that the soul, which is one thing, can be dissolved by any merely external evil which belongs to another. Yes, he said, there is reason in that. Either then, let us refute this conclusion, or, while it remains unrefuted, let us never say that fever, or any other disease, or the knife put to the throat, or even the cutting up of the whole body into the minutest pieces, can destroy the soul, until she herself is proved to become more unholy or unrighteous in consequence of these things being done to the body, but that the soul, or anything else if not destroyed by an internal evil, can be destroyed by an external one, is not to be affirmed by any man. And surely, he replied, no one will ever prove that the souls of men become more unjust in consequence of death. But if someone who would rather not admit the immortality of the soul boldly denies this, and says that the dying do really become more evil and unrighteous, then if the speaker is right, I suppose that injustice, like disease, must be assumed to be fatal to the unjust, and that those who take this disorder die by the natural and inherent power of destruction which evil has, and which kills them sooner or later, but in quite another way from that in which at present the wicked receive death at the hands of others as a penalty for their deeds. Nay, he said, in that case injustice, if fatal to the unjust, would not be so very terrible to him, for he would be delivered from evil, but I rather suspect the opposite to be the truth, and that injustice which, if it have the power, will murder others, keep the murderer alive, I, and well awake too, so far removed as her dwelling place from being a house of death. True, I said, and if the inherent natural vice or evil of the soul is unable to destroy or kill her, hardly will that which is appointed to be the destruction of some other body destroy a soul or anything else except that of which it was appointed to be the destruction. Yes, that can hardly be. But the soul which cannot be destroyed by an evil, whether inherent or external, must exist forever, and if existing forever must be immortal, certainly. That is the conclusion I said, and if a true conclusion, then the souls must always be the same, for if none be destroyed, they will not diminish in number, neither will they increase, for the increase of their mortal natures must come from something mortal, and all things would thus end in immortality, very true. But this we cannot believe, reason will not allow us, any more than we can believe the soul, in her truest nature, to be full of variety and difference and dissimilarity. What do you mean, he said? The soul, I said, being, as is now proven, immortal, must be the fairest of compositions and cannot be compounded of many elements. Certainly not. Her immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument, and there are many other proofs. But to see her as she really is, not as we now behold her, marred by communion with the body and other miseries, you must contemplate her with the eye of reason, in her original purity, and then her beauty will be revealed, and justice and injustice, and all the things which we have described will be manifested more clearly. Thus far we have spoken the truth concerning her, as she appears at present, but we must remember also, that we have seen her only in a condition, which may be compared to that of the sea god Glaucas, whose original image can hardly be discerned, because his natural members are broken off, and crushed and damaged by the waves, in all sorts of ways, and in crustaceans have grown over them of seaweed and shells and stones, so that he is more like some monster, than he is to his own natural form, and the soul which we behold is in a similar condition, disfigured by ten thousand ills, but not there Glaucan, not there must we look. Where then? At her love of wisdom, let us see whom she affects, and what society