BOOK V



  SOCRATES - GLAUCON - ADEIMANTUS



  SUCH is the good and true City or State, and the good and man is

of the same pattern; and if this is right every other is wrong; and

the evil is one which affects not only the ordering of the State,

but also the regulation of the individual soul, and is exhibited in

four forms.

  What are they? he said.

  I was proceeding to tell the order in which the four evil forms

appeared to me to succeed one another, when Pole marchus, who was

sitting a little way off, just beyond Adeimantus, began to whisper

to him: stretching forth his hand, he took hold of the upper part of

his coat by the shoulder, and drew him towards him, leaning forward

himself so as to be quite close and saying something in his ear, of

which I only caught the words, 'Shall we let him off, or what shall we

do?

  Certainly not, said Adeimantus, raising his voice.

  Who is it, I said, whom you are refusing to let off?

  You, he said.

  I repeated, Why am I especially not to be let off?

  Why, he said, we think that you are lazy, and mean to cheat us out

of a whole chapter which is a very important part of the story; and

you fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding; as

if it were self-evident to everybody, that in the matter of women

and children 'friends have all things in common.'

  And was I not right, Adeimantus?

  Yes, he said; but what is right in this particular case, like

everything else, requires to be explained; for community may be of

many kinds. Please, therefore, to say what sort of community you mean.

We have been long expecting that you would tell us something about the

family life of your citizens --how they will bring children into the

world, and rear them when they have arrived, and, in general, what

is the nature of this community of women and children-for we are of

opinion that the right or wrong management of such matters will have a

great and paramount influence on the State for good or for evil. And

now, since the question is still undetermined, and you are taking in

hand another State, we have resolved, as you heard, not to let you

go until you give an account of all this.

  To that resolution, said Glaucon, you may regard me as saying

Agreed.



  SOCRATES - ADEIMANTUS - GLAUCON - THRASYMACHUS



  And without more ado, said Thrasymachus, you may consider us all

to be equally agreed.

  I said, You know not what you are doing in thus assailing me: What

an argument are you raising about the State! Just as I thought that

I had finished, and was only too glad that I had laid this question to

sleep, and was reflecting how fortunate I was in your acceptance of

what I then said, you ask me to begin again at the very foundation,

ignorant of what a hornet's nest of words you are stirring. Now I

foresaw this gathering trouble, and avoided it.

  For what purpose do you conceive that we have come here, said

Thrasymachus, --to look for gold, or to hear discourse?

  Yes, but discourse should have a limit.

  Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole of life is the only limit

which wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses. But never

mind about us; take heart yourself and answer the question in your own

way: What sort of community of women and children is this which is

to prevail among our guardians? and how shall we manage the period

between birth and education, which seems to require the greatest care?

Tell us how these things will be.

  Yes, my simple friend, but the answer is the reverse of easy; many

more doubts arise about this than about our previous conclusions.

For the practicability of what is said may be doubted; and looked at

in another point of view, whether the scheme, if ever so

practicable, would be for the best, is also doubtful. Hence I feel a

reluctance to approach the subject, lest our aspiration, my dear

friend, should turn out to be a dream only.

  Fear not, he replied, for your audience will not be hard upon you;

they are not sceptical or hostile.

  I said: My good friend, I suppose that you mean to encourage me by

these words.

  Yes, he said.

  Then let me tell you that you are doing just the reverse; the

encouragement which you offer would have been all very well had I

myself believed that I knew what I was talking about: to declare the

truth about matters of high interest which a man honours and loves

among wise men who love him need occasion no fear or faltering in

his mind; but to carry on an argument when you are yourself only a

hesitating enquirer, which is my condition, is a dangerous and

slippery thing; and the danger is not that I shall be laughed at (of

which the fear would be childish), but that I shall miss the truth

where I have most need to be sure of my footing, and drag my friends

after me in my fall. And I pray Nemesis not to visit upon me the words

which I am going to utter. For I do indeed believe that to be an

involuntary homicide is a less crime than to be a deceiver about

beauty or goodness or justice in the matter of laws. And that is a

risk which I would rather run among enemies than among friends, and

therefore you do well to encourage me.

  Glaucon laughed and said: Well then, Socrates, in case you and

your argument do us any serious injury you shall be acquitted

beforehand of the and shall not be held to be a deceiver; take courage

then and speak.

  Well, I said, the law says that when a man is acquitted he is free

from guilt, and what holds at law may hold in argument.

  Then why should you mind?

  Well, I replied, I suppose that I must retrace my steps and say what

I perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place. The part of

the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes the turn of

the women. Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readily since

I am invited by you.

  For men born and educated like our citizens, the only way, in my

opinion, of arriving at a right conclusion about the possession and

use of women and children is to follow the path on which we originally

started, when we said that the men were to be the guardians and

watchdogs of the herd.

  True.

  Let us further suppose the birth and education of our women to be

subject to similar or nearly similar regulations; then we shall see

whether the result accords with our design.

  What do you mean?

  What I mean may be put into the form of a question, I said: Are dogs

divided into hes and shes, or do they both share equally in hunting

and in keeping watch and in the other duties of dogs? or do we entrust

to the males the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while we

leave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and

suckling their puppies is labour enough for them?

  No, he said, they share alike; the only difference between them is

that the males are stronger and the females weaker.

  But can you use different animals for the same purpose, unless

they are bred and fed in the same way?

  You cannot.

  Then, if women are to have the same duties as men, they must have

the same nurture and education?

  Yes.

  The education which was assigned to the men was music and gymnastic.

Yes.

  Then women must be taught music and gymnastic and also the art of

war, which they must practise like the men?

  That is the inference, I suppose.

  I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, if

they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous.

  No doubt of it.

  Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women

naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially when

they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of

beauty, any more than the enthusiastic old men who in spite of

wrinkles and ugliness continue to frequent the gymnasia.

  Yes, indeed, he said: according to present notions the proposal

would be thought ridiculous.

  But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we

must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against

this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women's attainments

both in music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing

armour and riding upon horseback!

  Very true, he replied.

  Yet having begun we must go forward to the rough places of the

law; at the same time begging of these gentlemen for once in their

life to be serious. Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the

Hellenes were of the opinion, which is still generally received

among the barbarians, that the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and

improper; and when first the Cretans and then the Lacedaemonians

introduced the custom, the wits of that day might equally have

ridiculed the innovation.

  No doubt.

  But when experience showed that to let all things be uncovered was

far better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to the

outward eye vanished before the better principle which reason

asserted, then the man was perceived to be a fool who directs the

shafts of his ridicule at any other sight but that of folly and

vice, or seriously inclines to weigh the beautiful by any other

standard but that of the good.

  Very true, he replied.

  First, then, whether the question is to be put in jest or in

earnest, let us come to an understanding about the nature of woman: Is

she capable of sharing either wholly or partially in the actions of

men, or not at all? And is the art of war one of those arts in which

she can or can not share? That will be the best way of commencing

the enquiry, and will probably lead to the fairest conclusion.

  That will be much the best way.

  Shall we take the other side first and begin by arguing against

ourselves; in this manner the adversary's position will not be

undefended.

  Why not? he said.

  Then let us put a speech into the mouths of our opponents. They will

say: 'Socrates and Glaucon, no adversary need convict you, for you

yourselves, at the first foundation of the State, admitted the

principle that everybody was to do the one work suited to his own

nature.' And certainly, if I am not mistaken, such an admission was

made by us. 'And do not the natures of men and women differ very

much indeed?' And we shall reply: Of course they do. Then we shall

be asked, 'Whether the tasks assigned to men and to women should not

be different, and such as are agreeable to their different natures?'

Certainly they should. 'But if so, have you not fallen into a

serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures

are so entirely different, ought to perform the same actions?'

--What defence will you make for us, my good Sir, against any one

who offers these objections?

  That is not an easy question to answer when asked suddenly; and I

shall and I do beg of you to draw out the case on our side.

  These are the objections, Glaucon, and there are many others of a

like kind, which I foresaw long ago; they made me afraid and reluctant

to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women

and children.

  By Zeus, he said, the problem to be solved is anything but easy.

  Why yes, I said, but the fact is that when a man is out of his

depth, whether he has fallen into a little swimming bath or into

mid-ocean, he has to swim all the same.

  Very true.

  And must not we swim and try to reach the shore: we will hope that

Arion's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us?

  I suppose so, he said.

  Well then, let us see if any way of escape can be found. We

acknowledged --did we not? that different natures ought to have

different pursuits, and that men's and women's natures are

different. And now what are we saying? --that different natures

ought to have the same pursuits, --this is the inconsistency which

is charged upon us.

  Precisely.

  Verily, Glaucon, I said, glorious is the power of the art of

contradiction!

  Why do you say so?

  Because I think that many a man falls into the practice against

his will. When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really

disputing, just because he cannot define and divide, and so know

that of which he is speaking; and he will pursue a merely verbal

opposition in the spirit of contention and not of fair discussion.

  Yes, he replied, such is very often the case; but what has that to

do with us and our argument?

  A great deal; for there is certainly a danger of our getting

unintentionally into a verbal opposition.

  In what way?

  Why, we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth,

that different natures ought to have different pursuits, but we

never considered at all what was the meaning of sameness or difference

of nature, or why we distinguished them when we assigned different

pursuits to different natures and the same to the same natures.

  Why, no, he said, that was never considered by us.

  I said: Suppose that by way of illustration we were to ask the

question whether there is not an opposition in nature between bald men

and hairy men; and if this is admitted by us, then, if bald men are

cobblers, we should forbid the hairy men to be cobblers, and

conversely?

  That would be a jest, he said.

  Yes, I said, a jest; and why? because we never meant when we

constructed the State, that the opposition of natures should extend to

every difference, but only to those differences which affected the

pursuit in which the individual is engaged; we should have argued, for

example, that a physician and one who is in mind a physician may be

said to have the same nature.

  True.

  Whereas the physician and the carpenter have different natures?

  Certainly.

  And if, I said, the male and female sex appear to differ in their

fitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit or art

ought to be assigned to one or the other of them; but if the

difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting

children, this does not amount to a proof that a woman differs from

a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive; and we

shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their

wives ought to have the same pursuits.

  Very true, he said.

  Next, we shall ask our opponent how, in reference to any of the

pursuits or arts of civic life, the nature of a woman differs from

that of a man?

  That will be quite fair.

  And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply that to give a

sufficient answer on the instant is not easy; but after a little

reflection there is no difficulty.

  Yes, perhaps.

  Suppose then that we invite him to accompany us in the argument, and

then we may hope to show him that there is nothing peculiar in the

constitution of women which would affect them in the administration of

the State.

  By all means.

  Let us say to him: Come now, and we will ask you a question:

--when you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect,

did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily,

another with difficulty; a little learning will lead the one to

discover a great deal; whereas the other, after much study and

application, no sooner learns than he forgets; or again, did you mean,

that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the

body of the other is a hindrance to him?-would not these be the sort

of differences which distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one

who is ungifted?

  No one will deny that.

  And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex has

not all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree than the

female? Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the

management of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really

appear to be great, and in which for her to be beaten by a man is of

all things the most absurd?

  You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general

inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many

things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.

  And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of

administration in a state which a woman has because she is a woman, or

which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are

alike diffused in both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of

women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man.

  Very true.

  Then are we to impose all our enactments on men and none of them

on women?

  That will never do.

  One woman has a gift of healing, another not; one is a musician, and

another has no music in her nature?

  Very true.

  And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, and

another is unwarlike and hates gymnastics?

  Certainly.

  And one woman is a philosopher, and another is an enemy of

philosophy; one has spirit, and another is without spirit?

  That is also true.

  Then one woman will have the temper of a guardian, and another

not. Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by

differences of this sort?

  Yes.

  Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian;

they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness.

  Obviously.

  And those women who have such qualities are to be selected as the

companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and whom

they resemble in capacity and in character?

  Very true.

  And ought not the same natures to have the same pursuits?

  They ought.

  Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in

assigning music and gymnastic to the wives of the guardians --to

that point we come round again.

  Certainly not.

  The law which we then enacted was agreeable to nature, and therefore

not an impossibility or mere aspiration; and the contrary practice,

which prevails at present, is in reality a violation of nature.

  That appears to be true.

  We had to consider, first, whether our proposals were possible,

and secondly whether they were the most beneficial?

  Yes.

  And the possibility has been acknowledged?

  Yes.

  The very great benefit has next to be established?

  Quite so.

  You will admit that the same education which makes a man a good

guardian will make a woman a good guardian; for their original

nature is the same?

  Yes.

  I should like to ask you a question.

  What is it?

  Would you say that all men are equal in excellence, or is one man

better than another?

  The latter.

  And in the commonwealth which we were founding do you conceive the

guardians who have been brought up on our model system to be more

perfect men, or the cobblers whose education has been cobbling?

  What a ridiculous question!

  You have answered me, I replied: Well, and may we not further say

that our guardians are the best of our citizens?

  By far the best.

  And will not their wives be the best women?

  Yes, by far the best.

  And can there be anything better for the interests of the State than

that the men and women of a State should be as good as possible?

  There can be nothing better.

  And this is what the arts of music and gymnastic, when present in

such manner as we have described, will accomplish?

  Certainly.

  Then we have made an enactment not only possible but in the

highest degree beneficial to the State?

  True.

  Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue will

be their robe, and let them share in the toils of war and the

defence of their country; only in the distribution of labours the

lighter are to be assigned to the women, who are the weaker natures,

but in other respects their duties are to be the same. And as for

the man who laughs at naked women exercising their bodies from the

best of motives, in his laughter he is plucking



  A fruit of unripe wisdom,



and he himself is ignorant of what he is laughing at, or what he is

about; --for that is, and ever will be, the best of sayings, That

the useful is the noble and the hurtful is the base.

  Very true.

  Here, then, is one difficulty in our law about women, which we may

say that we have now escaped; the wave has not swallowed us up alive

for enacting that the guardians of either sex should have all their

pursuits in common; to the utility and also to the possibility of this

arrangement the consistency of the argument with itself bears witness.

  Yes, that was a mighty wave which you have escaped.

  Yes, I said, but a greater is coming; you will of this when you

see the next.

  Go on; let me see.

  The law, I said, which is the sequel of this and of all that has

preceded, is to the following effect, --'that the wives of our

guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and

no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent.'

  Yes, he said, that is a much greater wave than the other; and the

possibility as well as the utility of such a law are far more

questionable.

  I do not think, I said, that there can be any dispute about the very

great utility of having wives and children in common; the

possibility is quite another matter, and will be very much disputed.

  I think that a good many doubts may be raised about both.

  You imply that the two questions must be combined, I replied. Now

I meant that you should admit the utility; and in this way, as I

thought; I should escape from one of them, and then there would remain

only the possibility.

  But that little attempt is detected, and therefore you will please

to give a defence of both.

  Well, I said, I submit to my fate. Yet grant me a little favour: let

me feast my mind with the dream as day dreamers are in the habit of

feasting themselves when they are walking alone; for before they

have discovered any means of effecting their wishes --that is a matter

which never troubles them --they would rather not tire themselves by

thinking about possibilities; but assuming that what they desire is

already granted to them, they proceed with their plan, and delight

in detailing what they mean to do when their wish has come true --that

is a way which they have of not doing much good to a capacity which

was never good for much. Now I myself am beginning to lose heart,

and I should like, with your permission, to pass over the question

of possibility at present. Assuming therefore the possibility of the

proposal, I shall now proceed to enquire how the rulers will carry out

these arrangements, and I shall demonstrate that our plan, if

executed, will be of the greatest benefit to the State and to the

guardians. First of all, then, if you have no objection, I will

endeavour with your help to consider the advantages of the measure;

and hereafter the question of possibility.

  I have no objection; proceed.

  First, I think that if our rulers and their auxiliaries are to be

worthy of the name which they bear, there must be willingness to

obey in the one and the power of command in the other; the guardians

must themselves obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit

of them in any details which are entrusted to their care.

  That is right, he said.

  You, I said, who are their legislator, having selected the men, will

now select the women and give them to them; --they must be as far as

possible of like natures with them; and they must live in common

houses and meet at common meals, None of them will have anything

specially his or her own; they will be together, and will be brought

up together, and will associate at gymnastic exercises. And so they

will be drawn by a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with

each other --necessity is not too strong a word, I think?

  Yes, he said; --necessity, not geometrical, but another sort of

necessity which lovers know, and which is far more convincing and

constraining to the mass of mankind.

  True, I said; and this, Glaucon, like all the rest, must proceed

after an orderly fashion; in a city of the blessed, licentiousness

is an unholy thing which the rulers will forbid.

  Yes, he said, and it ought not to be permitted.

  Then clearly the next thing will be to make matrimony sacred in

the highest degree, and what is most beneficial will be deemed sacred?

  Exactly.

  And how can marriages be made most beneficial? --that is a

question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for

hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech

you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?

  In what particulars?

  Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are

not some better than others?

  True.

  And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to

breed from the best only?

  From the best.

  And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe

age?

  I choose only those of ripe age.

  And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would

greatly deteriorate?

  Certainly.

  And the same of horses and animals in general?

  Undoubtedly.

  Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will our

rulers need if the same principle holds of the human species!

  Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve any

particular skill?

  Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the

body corporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do

not require medicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the

inferior sort of practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when

medicine has to be given, then the doctor should be more of a man.

  That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding?

  I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose

of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: we

were saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicines

might be of advantage.

  And we were very right.

  And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in the

regulations of marriages and births.

  How so?

  Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the

best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the

inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they

should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the

other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now

these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or

there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be

termed, breaking out into rebellion.

  Very true.

  Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring

together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered

and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of

weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the

rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There

are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the

effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far

as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too

large or too small.

  Certainly, he replied.

  We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less

worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and

then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

  To be sure, he said.

  And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other

honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with

women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers

ought to have as many sons as possible.

  True.

  And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for offices

are to be held by women as well as by men --

  Yes --

  The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to

the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain

nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the

inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be

put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.

  Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is

to be kept pure.

  They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers to

the fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possible care

that no mother recognizes her own child; and other wet-nurses may be

engaged if more are required. Care will also be taken that the process

of suckling shall not be protracted too long; and the mothers will

have no getting up at night or other trouble, but will hand over all

this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants.

  You suppose the wives of our guardians to have a fine easy time of

it when they are having children.

  Why, said I, and so they ought. Let us, however, proceed with our

scheme. We were saying that the parents should be in the prime of

life?

  Very true.

  And what is the prime of life? May it not be defined as a period

of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man's?

  Which years do you mean to include?

  A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children

to the State, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may begin

at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulse of

life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he be

fifty-five.

  Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the

prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigour.

  Any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes part in the

public hymeneals shall be said to have done an unholy and

unrighteous thing; the child of which he is the father, if it steals

into life, will have been conceived under auspices very unlike the

sacrifices and prayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and

priest and the whole city will offer, that the new generation may be

better and more useful than their good and useful parents, whereas his

child will be the offspring of darkness and strange lust.

  Very true, he replied.

  And the same law will apply to any one of those within the

prescribed age who forms a connection with any woman in the prime of

life without the sanction of the rulers; for we shall say that he is

raising up a bastard to the State, uncertified and unconsecrated.

  Very true, he replied.

  This applies, however, only to those who are within the specified

age: after that we allow them to range at will, except that a man

may not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his mother

or his mother's mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibited

from marrying their sons or fathers, or son's son or father's

father, and so on in either direction. And we grant all this,

accompanying the permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo

which may come into being from seeing the light; and if any force a

way to the birth, the parents must understand that the offspring of

such an union cannot be maintained, and arrange accordingly.

  That also, he said, is a reasonable proposition. But how will they

know who are fathers and daughters, and so on?

  They will never know. The way will be this: --dating from the day of

the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call all the

male children who are born in the seventh and tenth month afterwards

his sons, and the female children his daughters, and they will call

him father, and he will call their children his grandchildren, and

they will call the elder generation grandfathers and grandmothers. All

who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers came

together will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, as I

was saying, will be forbidden to inter-marry. This, however, is not to

be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage of brothers

and sisters; if the lot favours them, and they receive the sanction of

the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them.

  Quite right, he replied.

  Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to which the guardians of our

State are to have their wives and families in common. And now you

would have the argument show that this community is consistent with

the rest of our polity, and also that nothing can be better --would

you not?

  Yes, certainly.

  Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what

ought to be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in

the organization of a State, --what is the greatest I good, and what

is the greatest evil, and then consider whether our previous

description has the stamp of the good or of the evil?

  By all means.

  Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and

plurality where unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the

bond of unity?

  There cannot.

  And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains

--where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasions

of joy and sorrow?

  No doubt.

  Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a State

is disorganized --when you have one half of the world triumphing and

the other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the city or

the citizens?

  Certainly.

  Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the

use of the terms 'mine' and 'not mine,' 'his' and 'not his.'

  Exactly so.

  And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest

number of persons apply the terms 'mine' and 'not mine' in the same

way to the same thing?

  Quite true.

  Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of the

individual --as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt,

the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a center and forming one

kingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizes

all together with the part affected, and we say that the man has a

pain in his finger; and the same expression is used about any other

part of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or of

pleasure at the alleviation of suffering.

  Very true, he replied; and I agree with you that in the best-ordered

State there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which you

describe.

  Then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil,

the whole State will make his case their own, and will either

rejoice or sorrow with him?

  Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a well-ordered State.

  It will now be time, I said, for us to return to our State and see

whether this or some other form is most in accordance with these

fundamental principles.

  Very good.

  Our State like every other has rulers and subjects?

  True.

  All of whom will call one another citizens?

  Of course.

  But is there not another name which people give to their rulers in

other States?

  Generally they call them masters, but in democratic States they

simply call them rulers.

  And in our State what other name besides that of citizens do the

people give the rulers?

  They are called saviours and helpers, he replied.

  And what do the rulers call the people?

  Their maintainers and foster-fathers.

  And what do they call them in other States?

  Slaves.

  And what do the rulers call one another in other States?

  Fellow-rulers.

  And what in ours?

  Fellow-guardians.

  Did you ever know an example in any other State of a ruler who would

speak of one of his colleagues as his friend and of another as not

being his friend?

  Yes, very often.

  And the friend he regards and describes as one in whom he has an

interest, and the other as a stranger in whom he has no interest?

  Exactly.

  But would any of your guardians think or speak of any other guardian

as a stranger?

  Certainly he would not; for every one whom they meet will be

regarded by them either as a brother or sister, or father or mother,

or son or daughter, or as the child or parent of those who are thus

connected with him.

  Capital, I said; but let me ask you once more: Shall they be a

family in name only; or shall they in all their actions be true to the

name? For example, in the use of the word 'father,' would the care

of a father be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedience

to him which the law commands; and is the violator of these duties

to be regarded as an impious and unrighteous person who is not

likely to receive much good either at the hands of God or of man?

Are these to be or not to be the strains which the children will

hear repeated in their ears by all the citizens about those who are

intimated to them to be their parents and the rest of their kinsfolk?

  These, he said, and none other; for what can be more ridiculous than

for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only and

not to act in the spirit of them?

  Then in our city the language of harmony and concord will be more

often beard than in any other. As I was describing before, when any

one is well or ill, the universal word will be with me it is well'

or 'it is ill.'

  Most true.

  And agreeably to this mode of thinking and speaking, were we not

saying that they will have their pleasures and pains in common?

  Yes, and so they will.

  And they will have a common interest in the same thing which they

will alike call 'my own,' and having this common interest they will

have a common feeling of pleasure and pain?

  Yes, far more so than in other States.

  And the reason of this, over and above the general constitution of

the State, will be that the guardians will have a community of women

and children?

  That will be the chief reason.

  And this unity of feeling we admitted to be the greatest good, as

was implied in our own comparison of a well-ordered State to the

relation of the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or

pain?

  That we acknowledged, and very rightly.

  Then the community of wives and children among our citizens is

clearly the source of the greatest good to the State?

  Certainly.

  And this agrees with the other principle which we were affirming,

--that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any other

property; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive

from the other citizens, and they were to have no private expenses;

for we intended them to preserve their true character of guardians.

  Right, he replied.

  Both the community of property and the community of families, as I

am saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will not

tear the city in pieces by differing about 'mine' and 'not mine;' each

man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house

of his own, where he has a separate wife and children and private

pleasures and pains; but all will be affected as far as may be by

the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion about

what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towards a

common end.

  Certainly, he replied.

  And as they have nothing but their persons which they can call their

own, suits and complaints will have no existence among them; they will

be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or

relations are the occasion.

  Of course they will.

  Neither will trials for assault or insult ever be likely to occur

among them. For that equals should defend themselves against equals we

shall maintain to be honourable and right; we shall make the

protection of the person a matter of necessity.

  That is good, he said.

  Yes; and there is a further good in the law; viz. that if a man

has a quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then and

there, and not proceed to more dangerous lengths.

  Certainly.

  To the elder shall be assigned the duty of ruling and chastising the

younger.

  Clearly.

  Nor can there be a doubt that the younger will not strike or do

any other violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him;

nor will he slight him in any way. For there are two guardians,

shame and fear, mighty to prevent him: shame, which makes men

refrain from laying hands on those who are to them in the relation

of parents; fear, that the injured one will be succoured by the others

who are his brothers, sons, one wi fathers.

  That is true, he replied.

  Then in every way the laws will help the citizens to keep the

peace with one another?

  Yes, there will be no want of peace.

  And as the guardians will never quarrel among themselves there

will be no danger of the rest of the city being divided either against

them or against one another.

  None whatever.

  I hardly like even to mention the little meannesses of which they

will be rid, for they are beneath notice: such, for example, as the

flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which

men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy

necessaries for their household, borrowing and then repudiating,

getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands of women and

slaves to keep --the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer

in this way are mean enough and obvious enough, and not worth speaking

of.

  Yes, he said, a man has no need of eyes in order to perceive that.

  And from all these evils they will be delivered, and their life will

be blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more blessed.

  How so?

  The Olympic victor, I said, is deemed happy in receiving a part only

of the blessedness which is secured to our citizens, who have won a

more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance at the

public cost. For the victory which they have won is the salvation of

the whole State; and the crown with which they and their children

are crowned is the fulness of all that life needs; they receive

rewards from the hands of their country while living, and after

death have an honourable burial.

  Yes, he said, and glorious rewards they are.

  Do you remember, I said, how in the course of the previous

discussion some one who shall be nameless accused us of making our

guardians unhappy --they had nothing and might have possessed all

things-to whom we replied that, if an occasion offered, we might

perhaps hereafter consider this question, but that, as at present

advised, we would make our guardians truly guardians, and that we were

fashioning the State with a view to the greatest happiness, not of any

particular class, but of the whole?

  Yes, I remember.

  And what do you say, now that the life of our protectors is made out

to be far better and nobler than that of Olympic victors --is the life

of shoemakers, or any other artisans, or of husbandmen, to be compared

with it?

  Certainly not.

  At the same time I ought here to repeat what I have said

elsewhere, that if any of our guardians shall try to be happy in

such a manner that he will cease to be a guardian, and is not

content with this safe and harmonious life, which, in our judgment, is

of all lives the best, but infatuated by some youthful conceit of

happiness which gets up into his head shall seek to appropriate the

whole State to himself, then he will have to learn how wisely Hesiod

spoke, when he said, 'half is more than the whole.'

  If he were to consult me, I should say to him: Stay where you are,

when you have the offer of such a life.

  You agree then, I said, that men and women are to have a common

way of life such as we have described --common education, common

children; and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether

abiding in the city or going out to war; they are to keep watch

together, and to hunt together like dogs; and always and in all

things, as far as they are able, women are to share with the men?

And in so doing they will do what is best, and will not violate, but

preserve the natural relation of the sexes.

  I agree with you, he replied.

  The enquiry, I said, has yet to be made, whether such a community be

found possible --as among other animals, so also among men --and if

possible, in what way possible?

  You have anticipated the question which I was about to suggest.

  There is no difficulty, I said, in seeing how war will be carried on

by them.

  How?

  Why, of course they will go on expeditions together; and will take

with them any of their children who are strong enough, that, after the

manner of the artisan's child, they may look on at the work which they

will have to do when they are grown up; and besides looking on they

will have to help and be of use in war, and to wait upon their fathers

and mothers. Did you never observe in the arts how the potters' boys

look on and help, long before they touch the wheel?

  Yes, I have.

  And shall potters be more careful in educating their children and in

giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their duties than

our guardians will be?

  The idea is ridiculous, he said.

  There is also the effect on the parents, with whom, as with other

animals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest

incentive to valour.

  That is quite true, Socrates; and yet if they are defeated, which

may often happen in war, how great the danger is! the children will be

lost as well as their parents, and the State will never recover.

  True, I said; but would you never allow them to run any risk?

  I am far from saying that.

  Well, but if they are ever to run a risk should they not do so on

some occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the better

for it?

  Clearly.

  Whether the future soldiers do or do not see war in the days of

their youth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some

risk may fairly be incurred.

  Yes, very important.

  This then must be our first step, --to make our children

spectators of war; but we must also contrive that they shall be

secured against danger; then all will be well.

  True.

  Their parents may be supposed not to be blind to the risks of war,

but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions are

safe and what dangerous?

  That may be assumed.

  And they will take them on the safe expeditions and be cautious

about the dangerous ones?

  True.

  And they will place them under the command of experienced veterans

who will be their leaders and teachers?

  Very properly.

  Still, the dangers of war cannot be always foreseen; there is a good

deal of chance about them?

  True.

  Then against such chances the children must be at once furnished

with wings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away and

escape.

  What do you mean? he said.

  I mean that we must mount them on horses in their earliest youth,

and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see

war: the horses must be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable

and yet the swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an

excellent view of what is hereafter to be their own business; and if

there is danger they have only to follow their elder leaders and

escape.

  I believe that you are right, he said.

  Next, as to war; what are to be the relations of your soldiers to

one another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to propose that

the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or is

guilty of any other act of cowardice, should be degraded into the rank

of a husbandman or artisan. What do you think?

  By all means, I should say.

  And he who allows himself to be taken prisoner may as well be made a

present of to his enemies; he is their lawful prey, and let them do

what they like with him.

  Certainly.

  But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done to

him? In the first place, he shall receive honour in the army from

his youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crown

him. What do you say?

  I approve.

  And what do you say to his receiving the right hand of fellowship?

  To that too, I agree.

  But you will hardly agree to my next proposal.

  What is your proposal?

  That he should kiss and be kissed by them.

  Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say: Let

no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the

expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his

love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of

valour.

  Capital, I said. That the brave man is to have more wives than

others has been already determined: and he is to have first choices in

such matters more than others, in order that he may have as many

children as possible?

  Agreed.

  Again, there is another manner in which, according to Homer, brave

youths should be honoured; for he tells how Ajax, after he had

distinguished himself in battle, was rewarded with long chines,

which seems to be a compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower

of his age, being not only a tribute of honour but also a very

strengthening thing.

  Most true, he said.

  Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our teacher; and we too, at

sacrifices and on the like occasions, will honour the brave

according to the measure of their valour, whether men or women, with

hymns and those other distinctions which we were mentioning; also with



  seats of precedence, and meats and full cups;



and in honouring them, we shall be at the same time training them.

  That, he replied, is excellent.

  Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say,

in the first place, that he is of the golden race?

  To be sure.

  Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for affirming that when

they are dead



  They are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters of

evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men?



  Yes; and we accept his authority.

  We must learn of the god how we are to order the sepulture of divine

and heroic personages, and what is to be their special distinction and

we must do as he bids?

  By all means.

  And in ages to come we will reverence them and knee. before their

sepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but any who

are deemed pre-eminently good, whether they die from age, or in any

other way, shall be admitted to the same honours.

  That is very right, he said.

  Next, how shall our soldiers treat their enemies? What about this?

  In what respect do you mean?

  First of all, in regard to slavery? Do you think it right that

Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave

them, if they can help? Should not their custom be to spare them,

considering the danger which there is that the whole race may one

day fall under the yoke of the barbarians?

  To spare them is infinitely better.

  Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave; that is a rule

which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe.

  Certainly, he said; they will in this way be united against the

barbarians and will keep their hands off one another.

  Next as to the slain; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anything

but their armour? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy

afford an excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the

dead, pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army

before now has been lost from this love of plunder.

  Very true.

  And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and

also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of the

dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his

fighting gear behind him, --is not this rather like a dog who cannot

get at his assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him

instead?

  Very like a dog, he said.

  Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their

burial?

  Yes, he replied, we most certainly must.

  Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least

of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good feeling

with other Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the

offering of spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless

commanded by the god himself?

  Very true.

  Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burning of

houses, what is to be the practice?

  May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing your opinion?

  Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I would take the annual

produce and no more. Shall I tell you why?

  Pray do.

  Why, you see, there is a difference in the names 'discord' and

'war,' and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures;

the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of

what is external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed

discord, and only the second, war.

  That is a very proper distinction, he replied.

  And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Hellenic race is

all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alien and

strange to the barbarians?

  Very good, he said.

  And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians

with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when

they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism

should be called war; but when Hellenes fight with one another we

shall say that Hellas is then in a state of disorder and discord, they

being by nature friends and such enmity is to be called discord.

  I agree.

  Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to be

discord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy the

lands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strife

appear! No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear in

pieces his own nurse and mother: There might be reason in the

conqueror depriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they

would have the idea of peace in their hearts and would not mean to

go on fighting for ever.

  Yes, he said, that is a better temper than the other.

  And will not the city, which you are founding, be an Hellenic city?

  It ought to be, he replied.

  Then will not the citizens be good and civilized?

  Yes, very civilized.

  And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as

their own land, and share in the common temples?

  Most certainly.

  And any difference which arises among them will be regarded by

them as discord only --a quarrel among friends, which is not to be

called a war?

  Certainly not.

  Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to be

reconciled? Certainly.

  They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroy

their opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies?

  Just so.

  And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate

Hellas, nor will they burn houses, not even suppose that the whole

population of a city --men, women, and children --are equally their

enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a

few persons and that the many are their friends. And for all these

reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and raze their

houses; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent

sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction?

  I agree, he said, that our citizens should thus deal with their

Hellenic enemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with

one another.

  Then let us enact this law also for our guardians:-that they are

neither to devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their houses.

  Agreed; and we may agree also in thinking that these, all our

previous enactments, are very good.

  But still I must say, Socrates, that if you are allowed to go on

in this way you will entirely forget the other question which at the

commencement of this discussion you thrust aside: --Is such an order

of things possible, and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to

acknowledge that the plan which you propose, if only feasible, would

do all sorts of good to the State. I will add, what you have

omitted, that your citizens will be the bravest of warriors, and

will never leave their ranks, for they will all know one another,

and each will call the other father, brother, son; and if you

suppose the women to join their armies, whether in the same rank or in

the rear, either as a terror to the enemy, or as auxiliaries in case

of need, I know that they will then be absolutely invincible; and

there are many domestic tic advantages which might also be mentioned

and which I also fully acknowledge: but, as I admit all these

advantages and as many more as you please, if only this State of yours

were to come into existence, we need say no more about them;

assuming then the existence of the State, let us now turn to the

question of possibility and ways and means --the rest may be left.

  If I loiter for a moment, you instantly make a raid upon me, I said,

and have no mercy; I have hardly escaped the first and second waves,

and you seem not to be aware that you are now bringing upon me the

third, which is the greatest and heaviest. When you have seen and

heard the third wave, I think you be more considerate and will

acknowledge that some fear and hesitation was natural respecting a

proposal so extraordinary as that which I have now to state and

investigate.

  The more appeals of this sort which you make, he said, the more

determined are we that you shall tell us how such a State is possible:

speak out and at once.

  Let me begin by reminding you that we found our way hither in the

search after justice and injustice.

  True, he replied; but what of that?

  I was only going to ask whether, if we have discovered them, we

are to require that the just man should in nothing fail of absolute

justice; or may we be satisfied with an approximation, and the

attainment in him of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in

other men?

  The approximation will be enough.

  We are enquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into the

character of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the

perfectly unjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at

these in order that we might judge of our own happiness and

unhappiness according to the standard which they exhibited and the

degree in which we resembled them, but not with any view of showing

that they could exist in fact.

  True, he said.

  Would a painter be any the worse because, after having delineated

with consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he was

unable to show that any such man could ever have existed?

  He would be none the worse.

  Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State?

  To be sure.

  And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to prove

the possibility of a city being ordered in the manner described?

  Surely not, he replied.

  That is the truth, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try

and show how and under what conditions the possibility is highest, I

must ask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admissions.

  What admissions?

  I want to know whether ideals are ever fully realised in language?

Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the actual,

whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall

short of the truth? What do you say?

  I agree.

  Then you must not insist on my proving that the actual State will in

every respect coincide with the ideal: if we are only able to discover

how a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit

that we have discovered the possibility which you demand; and will

be contented. I am sure that I should be contented --will not you?

  Yes, I will.

  Let me next endeavour to show what is that fault in States which

is the cause of their present maladministration, and what is the least

change which will enable a State to pass into the truer form; and

let the change, if possible, be of one thing only, or if not, of

two; at any rate, let the changes be as few and slight as possible.

  Certainly, he replied.

  I think, I said, that there might be a reform of the State if only

one change were made, which is not a slight or easy though still a

possible one.

  What is it? he said.

  Now then, I said, I go to meet that which I liken to the greatest of

the waves; yet shall the word be spoken, even though the wave break

and drown me in laughter and dishonour; and do you mark my words.

  Proceed.

  I said: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of

this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political

greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who

pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand

aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, --nor the human

race, as I believe, --and then only will this our State have a

possibility of life and behold the light of day. Such was the thought,

my dear Glaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not

seemed too extravagant; for to be convinced that in no other State can

there be happiness private or public is indeed a hard thing.

  Socrates, what do you mean? I would have you consider that the

word which you have uttered is one at which numerous persons, and very

respectable persons too, in a figure pulling off their coats all in

a moment, and seizing any weapon that comes to hand, will run at you

might and main, before you know where you are, intending to do

heaven knows what; and if you don't prepare an answer, and put

yourself in motion, you will be prepared by their fine wits,' and no

mistake.

  You got me into the scrape, I said.

  And I was quite right; however, I will do all I can to get you out

of it; but I can only give you good-will and good advice, and,

perhaps, I may be able to fit answers to your questions better than

another --that is all. And now, having such an auxiliary, you must

do your best to show the unbelievers that you are right.

  I ought to try, I said, since you offer me such invaluable

assistance. And I think that, if there is to be a chance of our

escaping, we must explain to them whom we mean when we say that

philosophers are to rule in the State; then we shall be able to defend

ourselves: There will be discovered to be some natures who ought to

study philosophy and to be leaders in the State; and others who are

not born to be philosophers, and are meant to be followers rather than

leaders.

  Then now for a definition, he said.

  Follow me, I said, and I hope that I may in some way or other be

able to give you a satisfactory explanation.

  Proceed.

  I dare say that you remember, and therefore I need not remind you,

that a lover, if lie is worthy of the name, ought to show his love,

not to some one part of that which he loves, but to the whole.

  I really do not understand, and therefore beg of you to assist my

memory.

  Another person, I said, might fairly reply as you do; but a man of

pleasure like yourself ought to know that all who are in the flower of

youth do somehow or other raise a pang or emotion in a lover's breast,

and are thought by him to be worthy of his affectionate regards. Is

not this a way which you have with the fair: one has a snub nose,

and you praise his charming face; the hook-nose of another has, you

say, a royal look; while he who is neither snub nor hooked has the

grace of regularity: the dark visage is manly, the fair are children

of the gods; and as to the sweet 'honey pale,' as they are called,

what is the very name but the invention of a lover who talks in

diminutives, and is not adverse to paleness if appearing on the

cheek of youth? In a word, there is no excuse which you will not make,

and nothing which you will not say, in order not to lose a single

flower that blooms in the spring-time of youth.

  If you make me an authority in matters of love, for the sake of

the argument, I assent.

  And what do you say of lovers of wine? Do you not see them doing the

same? They are glad of any pretext of drinking any wine.

  Very good.

  And the same is true of ambitious men; if they cannot command an

army, they are willing to command a file; and if they cannot be

honoured by really great and important persons, they are glad to be

honoured by lesser and meaner people, but honour of some kind they

must have.

  Exactly.

  Once more let me ask: Does he who desires any class of goods, desire

the whole class or a part only?

  The whole.

  And may we not say of the philosopher that he is a lover, not of a

part of wisdom only, but of the whole?

  Yes, of the whole.

  And he who dislikes learnings, especially in youth, when he has no

power of judging what is good and what is not, such an one we maintain

not to be a philosopher or a lover of knowledge, just as he who

refuses his food is not hungry, and may be said to have a bad appetite

and not a good one?

  Very true, he said.

  Whereas he who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and who is

curious to learn and is never satisfied, may be justly termed a

philosopher? Am I not right?

  Glaucon said: If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will find many a

strange being will have a title to the name. All the lovers of

sights have a delight in learning, and must therefore be included.

Musical amateurs, too, are a folk strangely out of place among

philosophers, for they are the last persons in the world who would

come to anything like a philosophical discussion, if they could

help, while they run about at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had

let out their ears to hear every chorus; whether the performance is in

town or country --that makes no difference --they are there. Now are

we to maintain that all these and any who have similar tastes, as well

as the professors of quite minor arts, are philosophers?

  Certainly not, I replied; they are only an imitation.

  He said: Who then are the true philosophers?

  Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision of truth.

  That is also good, he said; but I should like to know what you mean?

  To another, I replied, I might have a difficulty in explaining;

but I am sure that you will admit a proposition which I am about to

make.

  What is the proposition?

  That since beauty is the opposite of ugliness, they are two?

  Certainly.

  And inasmuch as they are two, each of them is one?

  True again.

  And of just and unjust, good and evil, and of every other class, the

same remark holds: taken singly, each of them one; but from the

various combinations of them with actions and things and with one

another, they are seen in all sorts of lights and appear many? Very

true.

  And this is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving,

art-loving, practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and who

are alone worthy of the name of philosophers.

  How do you distinguish them? he said.

  The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fond

of fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial products

that are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing or

loving absolute beauty.

  True, he replied.

  Few are they who are able to attain to the sight of this.

  Very true.

  And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of

absolute beauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that

beauty is unable to follow --of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a

dream only? Reflect: is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who

likens dissimilar things, who puts the copy in the place of the real

object?

  I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming.

  But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of

absolute beauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects

which participate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the

place of the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects --is he a

dreamer, or is he awake?

  He is wide awake.

  And may we not say that the mind of the one who knows has knowledge,

and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion

  Certainly.

  But suppose that the latter should quarrel with us and dispute our

statement, can we administer any soothing cordial or advice to him,

without revealing to him that there is sad disorder in his wits?

  We must certainly offer him some good advice, he replied.

  Come, then, and let us think of something to say to him. Shall we

begin by assuring him that he is welcome to any knowledge which he may

have, and that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we should like to

ask him a question: Does he who has knowledge know something or

nothing? (You must answer for him.)

  I answer that he knows something.

  Something that is or is not?

  Something that is; for how can that which is not ever be known?

  And are we assured, after looking at the matter from many points

of view, that absolute being is or may be absolutely known, but that

the utterly non-existent is utterly unknown?

  Nothing can be more certain.

  Good. But if there be anything which is of such a nature as to be

and not to be, that will have a place intermediate between pure

being and the absolute negation of being?

  Yes, between them.

  And, as knowledge corresponded to being and ignorance of necessity

to not-being, for that intermediate between being and not-being

there has to be discovered a corresponding intermediate between

ignorance and knowledge, if there be such?

  Certainly.

  Do we admit the existence of opinion?

  Undoubtedly.

  As being the same with knowledge, or another faculty?

  Another faculty.

  Then opinion and knowledge have to do with different kinds of matter

corresponding to this difference of faculties?

  Yes.

  And knowledge is relative to being and knows being. But before I

proceed further I will make a division.

  What division?

  I will begin by placing faculties in a class by themselves: they are

powers in us, and in all other things, by which we do as we do.

Sight and hearing, for example, I should call faculties. Have I

clearly explained the class which I mean?

  Yes, I quite understand.

  Then let me tell you my view about them. I do not see them, and

therefore the distinctions of fire, colour, and the like, which enable

me to discern the differences of some things, do not apply to them. In

speaking of a faculty I think only of its sphere and its result; and

that which has the same sphere and the same result I call the same

faculty, but that which has another sphere and another result I call

different. Would that be your way of speaking?

  Yes.

  And will you be so very good as to answer one more question? Would

you say that knowledge is a faculty, or in what class would you

place it?

  Certainly knowledge is a faculty, and the mightiest of all

faculties.

  And is opinion also a faculty?

  Certainly, he said; for opinion is that with which we are able to

form an opinion.

  And yet you were acknowledging a little while ago that knowledge

is not the same as opinion?

  Why, yes, he said: how can any reasonable being ever identify that

which is infallible with that which errs?

  An excellent answer, proving, I said, that we are quite conscious of

a distinction between them.

  Yes.

  Then knowledge and opinion having distinct powers have also distinct

spheres or subject-matters?

  That is certain.

  Being is the sphere or subject-matter of knowledge, and knowledge is

to know the nature of being?

  Yes.

  And opinion is to have an opinion?

  Yes.

  And do we know what we opine? or is the subject-matter of opinion

the same as the subject-matter of knowledge?

  Nay, he replied, that has been already disproven; if difference in

faculty implies difference in the sphere or subject matter, and if, as

we were saying, opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties, then the

sphere of knowledge and of opinion cannot be the same.

  Then if being is the subject-matter of knowledge, something else

must be the subject-matter of opinion?

  Yes, something else.

  Well then, is not-being the subject-matter of opinion? or, rather,

how can there be an opinion at all about not-being? Reflect: when a

man has an opinion, has he not an opinion about something? Can he have

an opinion which is an opinion about nothing?

  Impossible.

  He who has an opinion has an opinion about some one thing?

  Yes.

  And not-being is not one thing but, properly speaking, nothing?

  True.

  Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to be the necessary correlative;

of being, knowledge?

  True, he said.

  Then opinion is not concerned either with being or with not-being?

  Not with either.

  And can therefore neither be ignorance nor knowledge?

  That seems to be true.

  But is opinion to be sought without and beyond either of them, in

a greater clearness than knowledge, or in a greater darkness than

ignorance?

  In neither.

  Then I suppose that opinion appears to you to be darker than

knowledge, but lighter than ignorance?

  Both; and in no small degree.

  And also to be within and between them?

  Yes.

  Then you would infer that opinion is intermediate?

  No question.

  But were we not saying before, that if anything appeared to be of

a sort which is and is not at the same time, that sort of thing

would appear also to lie in the interval between pure being and

absolute not-being; and that the corresponding faculty is neither

knowledge nor ignorance, but will be found in the interval between

them?

  True.

  And in that interval there has now been discovered something which

we call opinion?

  There has.

  Then what remains to be discovered is the object which partakes

equally of the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly be

termed either, pure and simple; this unknown term, when discovered, we

may truly call the subject of opinion, and assign each to its proper

faculty, -the extremes to the faculties of the extremes and the mean

to the faculty of the mean.

  True.

  This being premised, I would ask the gentleman who is of opinion

that there is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty --in whose

opinion the beautiful is the manifold --he, I say, your lover of

beautiful sights, who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is

one, and the just is one, or that anything is one --to him I would

appeal, saying, Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell us

whether, of all these beautiful things, there is one which will not be

found ugly; or of the just, which will not be found unjust; or of

the holy, which will not also be unholy?

  No, he replied; the beautiful will in some point of view be found

ugly; and the same is true of the rest.

  And may not the many which are doubles be also halves? --doubles,

that is, of one thing, and halves of another?

  Quite true.

  And things great and small, heavy and light, as they are termed,

will not be denoted by these any more than by the opposite names?

  True; both these and the opposite names will always attach to all of

them.

  And can any one of those many things which are called by

particular names be said to be this rather than not to be this?

  He replied: They are like the punning riddles which are asked at

feasts or the children's puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the bat,

with what he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the bat

was sitting. The individual objects of which I am speaking are also

a riddle, and have a double sense: nor can you fix them in your

mind, either as being or not-being, or both, or neither.

  Then what will you do with them? I said. Can they have a better

place than between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in

greater darkness or negation than not-being, or more full of light and

existence than being.

  That is quite true, he said.

  Thus then we seem to have discovered that the many ideas which the

multitude entertain about the beautiful and about all other things are

tossing about in some region which is halfway between pure being and

pure not-being?

  We have.

  Yes; and we had before agreed that anything of this kind which we

might find was to be described as matter of opinion, and not as matter

of knowledge; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detained

by the intermediate faculty.

  Quite true.

  Then those who see the many beautiful, and who yet neither see

absolute beauty, nor can follow any guide who points the way

thither; who see the many just, and not absolute justice, and the

like, --such persons may be said to have opinion but not knowledge?

  That is certain.

  But those who see the absolute and eternal and immutable may be said

to know, and not to have opinion only?

  Neither can that be denied.

  The one loves and embraces the subjects of knowledge, the other

those of opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare say will

remember, who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colours,

but would not tolerate the existence of absolute beauty.

  Yes, I remember.

  Shall we then be guilty of any impropriety in calling them lovers of

opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they be very angry with

us for thus describing them?

  I shall tell them not to be angry; no man should be angry at what is

true.

  But those who love the truth in each thing are to be called lovers

of wisdom and not lovers of opinion.

  Assuredly.