Benjamin Jowett, translator and editor - Plato and Aristotle, 1900 by gnosisclassics

JOHN

M. KELLY

LIBRARY

Donated by

The Redemptorists of the Toronto Province from the Library Collection of Holy Redeemer College, Windsor

University of St.

Michael's College, Toronto

HOLY REDEEMER LIBRARY|&!NOSnP

c .9

*•

^*OCKVl^V*^"

XXXCXKXXXXIXXXXXXXX3XtX30OCKXXX^T>a0CXXXXXX^

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

CONTAINING

THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES, CRITO, PHAEDO, AND PROTAGORAS

WITH INTRODUCTIONS BY THE TRANSLATOR,

BENJAMIN JOWETT AND A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY

MAURICE FRANCIS EGAN,

Ph.D.

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

REVISED EDITION

9 Sg SSVfrv;

f- LONDON-

THE

COLONIAL /ftsv^rea >

nnpVr toNEWYORK

'^MJ

tee* wxf""*"

HOVt

1900,

THE COLONIAL PRESS

LJBWW )1 $3"

HTflftg

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION To

the " Dialogues of Plato "

THERE hold

are

some

that the

and " The

Politics of Aristotle

living lovers of the Latin tongue

Roman Empire

who

existed only that the

language of Cicero might be born.

Such enthusiasts

are growing fewer as the ideas of the Renaissance dwindle before the rise of modern experimentalism. But the admirers of Greek prose, which

was

also adored of the Renaissance,

are increasing rather than decreasing and, while they are not so fanatical as the elder Latinists, they hold that, if Athens had done no more for the world than give academic shelter to Plato, the city of the violet crown would have fulfilled her mission. Leaving out the question of the Attic delights of Plato's style, one will find enough reason for this belief which is not extreme in Benjamin Jowett's translation of the " Re" " public and the Dialogues " of Plato, four of which are here

—

presented.

their value Dr. Jowett gives, in his introduc-

tions to them, sufficient appreciation. The dialogues offered ; are " The Apology of Socrates " " Crito " " Phaedo, or the ;

Immortality of the Soul " and " Protagoras." These have been chosen because they are essentially Platonic because they represent, at its best, the manner of Plato, and are among ;

—

the most characteristic, stimulating, and interesting of his dialogues.

How

modern they

known them only through realize that Socrates

are

exclaims the reader, who has who begins to

paraphrases, and

and Plato and Aristotle are links which Alpha of things to the

join our time of fuller light to the very

—

Ancient of days. We have deduced and experimented, and we force physics and mechanics, controlled by the analytical mind, further and further into the unseen mystery of nature; we are more and more conquerors of matter but, when we attack the problems ;

iii

—

PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

of the mind, when we touch the things of metaphysics, we cross hands over a gulf of more than two thousand years, with Plato, Aristotle,

and Socrates, and

find the questions of the intellect

the same, and the answers similar.

The

Catholic Church, the

most psychological of all organizations, has adopted Aristotle, for he was the master of St. Thomas Aquinas, philosophically, as Vergil was the master of Dante, poetically. The philosophy of St. Thomas is based on that of Aristotle, who was the pupil of Plato, and the philosophy of Aristotle, purged, illuminated, refined as each of the great three refined on one another

—

the philosophy of Dante.

Who of the moderns has escaped these three? Montaigne, or Bacon, or Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Rosmini? Not one! Who has gone beyond them? Not one! When Emerson is not Platonic, he is not philosophical. And the same questions of the intellect which helped to make Hamlet doubt are those which arise, over and over again, in the dialogues of Plato, and which are only answered since reason and Kant and Berkeley, divine revelation have become a synthesis. who came strangely near to the all-negation of Pyrrho, are saved by Socrates and Plato. And Fichte and Hegel and Schopenhauer are combated by them, as Socrates combated Democritus, Epicurus, and Pyrrho. Kant, overwhelmed by the splendor of nature and the awful sense of human responsibility, can only find

relief in the ideality of all things.

better than this.

Pyrrho, who, too, was

Plato does

idealist,

and who

doubted the existence of the concrete thing, nevertheless shyed before the concrete chariot wheels in the streets and still his pupils believed in him and Kant and Berkeley have still pupils who believe in their doubt But, after all, comparisons in favor of the great three, who taught one another, and who were like luminous clouds, not fully illuminated, but giving light, may lead one too far. It is true, however, that to the receptive mind, there can be few greater pleasures than that of noting the effect of the great Athenians on modern thought. In fact, it may be almost said that all modern philosophy is but an elaboration, a development, a criticism, of the essence and the methods of these three

—

;

men. Socrates, born B.C. 468,

Plato and Aristotle.

was the master of the two others, a reformer pure and simple, and

He was

;

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION

he arose at a time when doubt and sensuality, as represented by the teachings of Pyrrho and the distorted dicta of Epicurus, had corrupted the Athenian mind and heart. The Sophists, too, juggled with words, and the people had come to delight in verbal pyrotechnics and to care nothing for truth. He was the son of Sophroniscus, a sculptor. Diogenes tells us that, having zealously attended the lectures of Anaxagoras and Archelaus, he was observed by a rich Athenian, who gave him the means of pursuing his studies in philosophy. This entrancing study did not prevent him from entering the

and doing

his duty as a citizen.

the hidden dcemon, on

within him.

whose

He was

army

not a dreamer, though

direction he depended, dwelt

He served as a soldier in the campaign

of Potidaea,

Delium, when he saved his pupil, Xenophon, and at Amphipolis. And yet he lived in a world of beautiful dreams. Plato, at

his disciple, represents the idealistic side of his nature

and Xenophon, no

;

Aristotle

less his acolytes, the practical side.

The

splendid Alcibiades was not easily moulded.

His inner voice warned him not to interfere in politics, though he desired, above all things, to elevate his countrymen morally and socially. He seems to have yielded to popular superstition whenever he did not clash with the great objective truths on which the base of his moral teaching rested. Nevertheless, B.C. 399, when he was seventy years of age, he was accused of not believing in the national deities and of corrupting youth. He was neutral in politics, and when he had interfered, three times in his life, it had been for the unpopular side. He had loved the younger Pericles and admired Critias and Alcibiades; he was aristocratic in his tendencies. Besides, we are told, on good authority, that Socrates had endeavored to lure the son of the rich Anytus from leather-selling to philosophy. Again, Socrates was scornful and satirical no guilty man escaped his sarcasm and irony. And his power of eloquent indignation was so great that even the victims of it forgot his fat body, his two full eyes, his careless dress, and thought for the moment that he was an avenging god. Truth and morality were real things so he thought, and, when by a small majority, he was condemned to die, he would not violate law, which was sacred. He might have bought himself off by a fine, he might have bribed the factions, he might have escaped by the help of his ;

friends.

He was

forced to wait thirty days until the sacred

PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

trireme came from Delphos. " In this interval," Dr. Browne " a book says, in his " History of Greek Classical Literature for that indebted conare we revived " ought to be which

—

versation on the immortality of the soul, which Plato has embodied in his Phaedo/ and although Plato was not himself '

present,

was last

it is

little doubt that it by those who were with him at his drank the hemlock, not for love of death,

so Socratic that there can be

faithfully reported

moments."

but for love of the law. Socrates was not a conscious teacher of systematic philosophy, he was a moral teacher, with a set of principles. The perfect intellect was the Omega of life. Knowledge, to him, was the first of all things in the way to the supreme good

—which was

otent supreme being, the

first

truth.

cause,

believed in an omnip-

and that the

rational in

man was

a part of this Governing Being. In the after life, all would be well with the noble soul, he believed. To be like this Supreme Being, we must cultivate our intellect at the expense of the lower qualities. Virtue was science; perfect knowledge was perfect virtue; therefore ignorance was the only

sin,

and that an involuntary

sin.

The

entirely wise

—the possessor of perfect science—could not Although

man

sin.

seems difficult to formulate exactly the prinand to discover their central point, the fact that Plato's system is set in one key makes it easier to analyze Platonism. The human soul is of the same spirit as the Supreme Being it neither begins nor ends the soul knew itself and still remembers some of its knowledge. The splendor of another world is reflected upon it. Plato systematized previous it

ciples of Socrates,

;

was reserved for knowledge than Socrates, and to make a summa of the best that had preceded him. The philosophical movement is not of one time; it goes on, widening, classifying, perfecting itself from epoch

theories St.

;

Aristotle followed his example.

Thomas Aquinas

meet sophisms, with

fuller

to epoch.

Aristocles (born B.C. 429), called Plato from the breadth of his shoulders, offers a striking example of this. Having

gathered the best that had preceded him, he made a great leap forward by developing his own theory above the ruins of old His methods are improved upon those of Socrates. errors. He meets Protagoras with the assertion that all knowledge is not the result of materialistic contact or, in other words, of

—

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION

vii

And he opposed himself to the Eleatic assertion no knowledge can be obtained through the senses. He held that man was composed of body and soul, intimately reThe apprehension of the intellect is pure and immutalated. sensation.

that

ble; the apprehension of the senses non-essential, changeable. is an impediment to truth. from the body, it may, unblinded, see

The body

When truth.

the soul

free

All that exists,

exists only so far as it participates in the absolute and unchangeable Divine Idea, of which the soul is part. God and He the highest good are the same the highest idea is good. believes in the living soul and in the Deity who pervades the He has been called a Pantheist as not having the universe. But a careful reading of fixed idea of a personal intelligence. the four dialogues collected here will, I fancy, show that he was much more than a believer in an abstract, pervasive, eternal The soul of the world permeates the world, and from principle. Plato is a firm beit come other souls, to be supported by it. In the most poetical of liever in the immortality of the soul. the dialogues, " Phaedo," we find this philosopher, who would have, in an ideal republic, driven poets into the wilderness, crowned with flowers, invalidating his arguments by an ascent ;

into the

myths of the

singers.

held, with Pythagoras, the

doctrine of the transmigration of souls, so fascinating in to the imagination,

and from

all

ages

this followed the theory of the

reminiscences of the half-awakened soul, which Wordsworth clouds of glory." According to Plato man may choose the good, and this the philosopher, free and unconcalls the " trailing

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

do for God is not fate. Plato was a soldier, like Unlike Socrates, to whose influence he acknowledged that he owed all, he founded a school. Aristotle (born B.C. 384), his most distinguished pupil, was not an Athenian. His father was court physician to Amyntas II, King of Macedon he was not of noble descent, as was Plato, who claimed King Codrus and Solon among his ancestors. His father, a learned man, directed his tastes. At the age of seventeen he was left alone in the world, but his inherited fortune enabled him to pursue his studies. At Athens, he deserved the praise of Plato, who called him " the mind of the school." He did not hesitate to argue with his preceptor. He loved Plato but between Plato and truth, he chose truth. It is said that, on a day when Aristotle was the only pupil present strained, will

Socrates.

;

PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

viii

at a lecture, Plato said that so long as he

had the

better half of Athens.

had

Aristotle,

Aristotle founded the Per-

After the death of Plato, he became (b.c. ipatetic school. 324) tutor to Alexander, who, later, rewarded him munificently. But, when Alexander died, the enemies of Aristotle at Athens prepared to end him or to make him give up the enormous sum which Alexander had given him. To prevent the Athenians from committing another crime, he went to the island of Eubcea, where he died B.C. 322. Aristotle was the idol of the philosophical world until the Renaissance. While Plato is of imagination all compact, Aristotle is practical, systematic, regular. Plato was an idealist, he was a poet at heart, and he had the dramatic faculty, as one may see from even a slight reading of the dialogues. Plato had inspiration, and exquisite grace of literary utterance; Aristotle had neither, but he was a master of analysis. Plato sometimes forgot man and that he was a man Aristotle was always in sight of earth; he was the most practical, the serenest, the most learned man of his time. Logic stood first with him his chief treatise on this subject is the " Organum." That the world owes to him the formulation of the deductive method is too well known to be repeated here it is a common fallacy that Bacon founded the inductive system; he merely ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

elaborated the suggestions of Aristotle.

Aristotle held that

death finished the good and bad; he doubted that the soul could exist apart from the body. Reason was omnipresent and divine. As modern scientists use the atomic theory as a tool, so Christian

philosophers have adopted the methods of

Aristotle in systematizing truth. Aristotle's " Poetics " and " Politics " cut clear to the causes " of things. The " Poetics " is better known ; the " Politics

more important. Ethics and politics, with Aristotle, are The State must be founded on a basis of good. The greatest good of each family must be safeguarded, so far as the good of the State can be safeguarded. The morality the

inseparable.

of the people determines the morality of the State. It is, and, as the

therefore, the duty of the State to direct education

;

moral condition of the citizen is a prime factor in the State, each citizen should be trained, so far as possible, in the science of politics. Administrators of private education should be Aristotle's views on efficient in the science of legislation.

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION

are worthy of the closest study.

after monarchical tyranny, the rule of the

mob.

politics

hated most,

He was

favor of a property qualification for the exercise of the highest He believed, though, he was more privileges of citizenship. that the legislator should secure democratic, than aristocratic the goodwill of the middle classes, as they are the ballast of the ship of the State.

The

He had

basis of his system

no sympathy with communism. was the union of families for common

contentment and progress. Ethics stood at one end of his system economics at the other. At the end of the beginning of the twentieth century, it becomes us to look back, and to discover the beginning of

political

things,

sown. in the

;

when the pollen flew from the plant and the seeds were The self-sufficiency {avrapxeia) which Aristotle loved State is not that modern self-sufficiency which we find

in individuals

who have

lost the possibility of

looking

intelli-

gently forward because they are not sufficiently cultured to

look backward.

CONTENTS PAGE

Introduction to the Apology of Socrates

The Apology of Socrates

Introduction to Crito

Crito

Introduction to Ph^do

PhjEDO

Introduction to Protagoras

143

Protagoras

ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE

PLATO

Frontispiece

Photogravure from the original marble bust

Socrates

Photogravure from the original marble bust

The Parthenon at Athens Photogravure reproduced from a photograph

142

INTRODUCTION TO

THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES relation the "Apology" of Plato stands to the defence of Socrates, there is no means of determining. It certainly agrees in tone and character with " the description of Xenophon, who says in the " Memorabilia " (iv. 4, 4) that Socrates might have been acquitted if in any

what

real

moderate degree he would have conciliated the favor of the dicasts " and who informs us in another passage (iv. 8, 4), on the testimony of Hermogenes, the friend of Socrates, that he had no wish to live; and that the divine sign refused to allow him to prepare a defence, and also that Socrates himself declared this to be unnecessary, on the ground that all his life long he had been preparing against that hour. For the speech breathes throughout a spirit of defiance, "ut non supplex aut reus sed magister aut dominus videretur esse judicum," (Cic. " de Orat." i. 54) and the loose and desultory style is an imitation of the " accustomed manner " in which Socrates spoke in " the agora and among the tables of the moneychangers." The allusion in the " Crito " (45 b) may, perhaps, be adduced as a further evidence ol the literal accuracy of some parts (37 c, d). But in the main it must be regarded ;

;

acceding to Plato's conception of him, appearing in the greatest and most public scene of his life, and in the height of his triumph, when he is weakest, and as the ideal of Socrates,

yet his mastery over

irony of his

life

mankind

greatest,

and the habitual

new meaning and a sort of tragic death. The facts of his life are summed

acquires a

pathos in the face of up, and the features of his character are brought out, as if by accident in the course of the defence. The looseness of the' style and the seeming want of arrangement of the topics are

found to

result in a perfect

of Socrates.

work of

art,

which

the portrait

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Yet some of the topics may have been actually used by and the recollection of his very words may have rung in the ears of his disciple. The " Apology " of Plato may be compared generally with those speeches of Thucydides in which he has embodied his conception of the lofty character and policy of the great Pericles, and which at the same time furnish a commentary on the situation of affairs from the point of view of the historian. So in the " Apology " there is an ideal rather than a literal truth; much is said that ought to have been said but was not said, and is only Plato's view o! Socrates;

And we may

perhaps even indulge in the fancy was as much greater than the Platonic defence as the master was greater than the disciple. But in any case, some of the words actually used have probably been preserved. It is significant that Plato is said to have been present at the defence (38 b), as he is also said to have been absent at the last scene in the " Phaedo " (59 b). Is it fanciful to suppose that he meant to give the stamp of authenticity to the one and not to the other? especially when we remember that these two passages are the only ones in which " Plato makes mention of himself. Moreover, the " Apology appears to combine the common characteristics both of the Xenophontean and Platonic Socrates, while the " Phaedo passes into a region of thought which is very characteristic the situation.

that the actual defence of Socrates

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

of Plato, but not of his master.

There is not much in the other dialogues which can be comThe same recollection of his pared with the " Apology." master may have been present to the mind of Plato when depicting the sufferings of the Just in the " Republic." The " Crito " may also be regarded as a sort of appendage to the " Apology," in which Socrates, who has defied the judges, is nevertheless represented as scrupulously obedient to the laws. The idealization of the sufferer is carried still further in the

which the thesis is maintained, and the art of do evil "

"Georgias" (476

foil.),

that " to suffer

better than to

rhetoric

;

described as only useful for the purpose of self-

accusation. The parallelisms which occur in the so-called " Apology " of Xenophon are not worth noticing, because the

writing in which they are contained The statements of the " Memorabilia " the trial

manifestly spurious.

(i. 2, iv.

8) respecting

and death of Socrates agree generally with Plato;

INTRODUCTION TO THE APOLOGY

but they have lost the flavor of Socratic irony in the narrative of Xenophon. "

The

Apology

" or Platonic defence of Socrates

divided

(1) The defence properly so called; shorter address in mitigation of the penalty; (3)

into three parts:

The last

words of prophetic rebuke and exhortation. first part commences with an apology for

The style

;

is,

as he has always been, the

(2)

The

his colloquial

enemy of

rhetoric,

and

knows of no rhetoric but truth; he will not falsify his character by making a speech. Then he proceeds to divide his accusers into two classes: first, there is the nameless accuser public opinion. All the world from their earliest years had heard that he was a corrupter of youth, and had seen him

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

caricatured

the

" Clouds "

there are the professed accusers,

of the others. in

a formula.

Aristophanes.

who

Secondly,

are but the mouthpiece

The accusations of both might be summed up The first say, " Socrates is an evil-doer and

a curious person, searching into things under the earth and above the heaven, and making the worst appear the better

and teaching all this to others." The second, " Socrates is an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, who does not receive the gods whom the State receives, but introduces other new divinities." These last appear to have been the words of the actual indictment, of which the previous formula is a cause,

parody.

The answer begins by

clearing up a confusion.

In the repre-

and in the opinion of the multitude, he had been confounded with the teachers of physical science and with the Sophists. But this was an error. For both of them he professes a respect in the open court, which contrasts with his manner of speaking about them in other places. But at the same time he shows that he is not one of sentations of the comic poets,

them.

natural philosophy he

knows nothing; not

despises such pursuits, but the fact

that he

ignorant of

them, and never says a word about them. Nor does he receive money for teaching; that is another mistaken notion, for he has nothing to teach. But he commends Evenus for teaching virtue at such a moderate rate. Something of the " accustomed irony," which may perhaps be expected to sleep in the

ear of the multitude,

lurking here.

then goes on to explain the reason

why

in such an

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

evil name. That had arisen out of a peculiar mission which he had taken upon himself. The enthusiastic Chaerephon (probably in anticipation of the answer he received) had gone to Delphi and asked the oracle if there was any man wiser than Socrates; and the answer was that there was no man wiser. What could be the meaning of this that he who knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing, should be declared by the oracle to be the wisest of men ? Reflecting upon this, he determined to refute the oracle by finding " a wiser " ; and first he went to the politicians, and then to the poets, and then to the craftsmen, but always with the same result he found that they knew nothing, or hardly anything more than himself and that the little advantage which in some cases they possessed was more than counterbalanced by their conceit of knowledge. He knew nothing, and knew that he knew nothing: they knew

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

or nothing, and imagined that they knew all things. Thus he had passed his life as a sort of missionary in detecting the pretended wisdom of mankind and this occupation had quite absorbed him and taken him away both from public and private affairs. Young men of the richer sort had made a pastime of the same pursuit, " which was not unamusing." And hence bitter enmities had arisen the professors of knowledge had revenged themselves by calling him a villanous corrupter of the youth, and by repeating the commonplaces about atheism and materialism and sophistry, which are the stock accusations against all philosophers when there is nothing else to be said of them. The second accusation he meets by interrogating Meletus, who is present and can be interrogated. " If he is the corrupter, who is the improver of the citizens ? " " All mankind." But how absurd, how contrary to analogy is this! How inconceivable too, that he should make the citizens worse when he has to live with them. This surely cannot be intentional: and if unintentional, he ought to have been instructed by Meletus, and not accused in the court. But there is another part of the indictment which says that he teaches men not to receive the gods whom the city receives, and has other new gods. " Is that the way in which he is supposed to corrupt the youth ? " " Yes, that is the way." " Has he only new gods, or none at all ? " " None at all." " What, not even the sun and moon ? " " No why, he says that the sun little

;

INTRODUCTION TO THE APOLOGY is

a stone, and the moon earth."

That, replies Socrates, is the the Athenian people are

old confusion about Anaxagoras;

not so ignorant as to attribute to the influence of Socrates way into the drama, and may

notions which have found their

be learned at the theatre. Socrates undertakes to show that Meletus (rather unjustifiably) has been compounding a riddle "There are no gods, but in this part of the indictment. Socrates believes in the existence of the sons of gods, which is

absurd."

Leaving Meletus, who has had enough words spent upon him, he returns to his original accusers. The question may be asked, Why will he persist in following a profession which leads him to death ? Why because he must remain at his post where the God has placed him, as he remained at Potidaea, and Amphipolis, and Delium, where the generals placed him.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Besides, he is not so overwise as to imagine that he knows whether death is a good or an evil and he is certain that desertion of his duty is an evil. Anytus is quite right in saying that they should never have indicted him if they meant to let him go. For he will certainly obey God rather than man, and will ;

continue to preach to

all

men

all

ages the necessity of virtue

and improvement and if they refuse to listen to him he will This is his way of corrupting still persevere and reprove them. the youth, which he will not cease to follow in obedience to the God, even if a thousand deaths await mm. ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

him to death not because he is their heavensent friend (and they will never have such another), or, as he may be ludicrously described, the gadfly who stirs the generous steed into motion. Why, then, has he never taken part Because the familiar divine voice has in public affairs? hindered him; if he had been a public man and fought for the right, as he would certainly have fought against the many, he would not have lived, and could therefore have done no good. Twice in public matters he has risked his life for the sake of justice once at the trial of the generals; and again is

for his

desirous that they should not put

own

sake, but for theirs;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

in resistance to the tyrannical

commands

of the Thirty.

But, though not a public man, he has passed his days in instructing the citizens without fee or reward; this was his mission. Whether his disciples have turned out well or ill, he

cannot justly be charged with the result, for he never promised

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

them anything. They might come if they liked, and they might stay away if they liked and they did come, because they found an amusement in hearing the pretenders to wisdom to teach

If they have been corrupted, their elder relatives not themselves) might surely appear in court and witness against him, and there is an opportunity still for them to do detected. (if

this. But their fathers and brothers all apear in court (including " this " Plato), to witness on his behalf; and if their relatives are corrupted, at least they are uncorrupted ; " and they are my witnesses. For they know that I am speaking the

truth,

and that Meletus

lying."

he has to say. He will not entreat the judges to spare his life neither will he present a spectacle of weeping children, although he, too, is not made of " rock or oak." Some of the judges themselves may have complied with this practice on similar occasions, and he trusts that they will not be angry with him for not following their example. But he feels that such conduct brings discredit on the name of Athens he feels, too, that the judge has sworn not to give away justice; and he cannot be guilty of the impiety of asking the judge to forswear himself, when he is himself being tried for impiety. As he expected, and probably intended, he is convicted. And now the tone of the speech, instead of being more conciliatory, becomes more lofty and commanding. Anytus proposes death as the penalty; and what counter proposition shall he make? He, the benefactor of the Athenian people, whose whole life has been spent in doing them good, should at least have the Olympic victor's reward of maintenance in the Prytaneum. Or why should he propose any counter penalty when he does not know whether death, which Anytus proposes, is a good or an evil? and he is certain that imprisonment is an evil, exile is an evil. Loss of money might be no evil, but then he has none to give perhaps he can make up a mina. Let that then be the penalty, or, if his friends wish, thirty minae; for this they will be excellent securities. This

about

all ;

;

[He

condemned

to death.]

He is an old man already, and the Athenians will gain nothing but disgrace by depriving him of a few years of life. Perhaps he could have escaped, if he had chosen to throw down his

arms and entreat for

his

life.

But he does not

at all repent

INTRODUCTION TO THE APOLOGY

of the manner of his defence ; he would rather die in his own fashion than live in theirs. For the penalty of unrighteousness is swifter than death, and that has already overtaken his accusers as death will soon overtake him. And now, as one who is about to die, he will prophesy to them. They have put him to death in order to escape the necessity of giving an account of their lives. But his death " will be the seed " of many disciples who will convict them of their evil ways, and will come forth to reprove them in harsher terms, because they are younger and more inconsiderate.

He would like to say who would have

those

know

a few words, while there is time, to He wishes them to that the divine sign never interrupted him in the course

of his defence

the reason of which, as he conjectures,

;

the death to which he either death

acquitted him.

going

a good and not an

evil.

that

For

a long sleep, the best of sleeps, or a journey

to another world in

which the souls of the death are gathered which there may be a hope of seeing the heroes of old in which, too, there are just judges and as all are immortal, there can be no fear of anyone being put to together,

and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

death for his opinions.

can happen to the good man either in life or death has been permitted by the gods, because it was better for him to depart; and therefore he forgives his judges because they have done him no harm, although

Nothing

evil

death, and his

own

they never meant to do him any good. He has a last request to make to them that they will trouble his sons as he has troubled them, if they appear to prefer riches

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

to virtue, or think themselves something

when

they are nothing.

" Few persons will be found to wish that Socrates should have defended himself otherwise " if, as we must add, his defence was that with which Plato has provided him. But leaving this question, which does not admit of a precise solution, we may go on to ask what was the impression which Plato in the " Apology " intended to leave of the character and conduct of his master in the last great scene? Did he intend to as derepresent him (1) as employing sophistries? (2) signedly irritating the judges? Or are these sophistries to be

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

regarded as belonging to the age in which he lived and to his personal character, and this apparent haughtiness as flowing

from the natural elevation of his position? For example, when he says that it is absurd to suppose that one man is the corrupter and all the rest of the world the improvers of the youth; could have corrupted the

when he argues

that he never he had to live; or, when he proves his belief in the gods because he believes in the sons of gods, is he serious or jesting? It may be observed that these sophisms all occur in his cross-examination of Meletus, who is easily foiled and mastered in the hands of the great dialectician. Perhaps he regarded these answers as all of them good enough for his accuser (he makes very light of him throughout). Also it may be noted that there is a touch of irony in all of them, which takes them out of the category of or,

men

with

whom

sophistry.

That the manner

which he defends himself about the

can hardly be denied. Fresh in the memory of the Athenians, and detestable as they deserved to be to the newly restored democracy, were the names of Alcibiades, Critias, Charmides. It is obviously not a sufficient answer that Socrates had never professed to teach them anything, and is therefore not justly chargeable with their crimes. Yet the defence, when taken out of this ironical form, is doubtless sound: that his teaching had nothing to do with Here, then, the sophistry is rather in form their evil lives. than in substance, though we might desire that to such a serious charge Socrates had given a more serious answer. Truly characteristic of Socrates is another point in his answer, which may also be regarded as sophistical. He says that " if he has corrupted the youth, he must have corrupted them involuntarily." In these words the Socratic doctrine of the lives of his disciples is not satisfactory,

involuntariness of evil if,

as Socrates argues,

clearly intended to be conveyed.

all evil is

involuntary, then

all

But

criminals

ought to be admonished and not punished. Here again, as in the former instance, the defence of Socrates, which is untrue practically,

may

yet be true in

The commonplace

some

ideal or transcendental

he had been guilty of corrupting the youth, their relations would surely have witnessed against him, with which he concludes this part of his sense.

defence,

reply, that if

satisfactory.

INTRODUCTION TO THE APOLOGY

Again, when Socrates argues that he must believe in the gods because he believes in the sons of gods, we must remember that this is a refutation not of the original indictment, which " Socrates does not receive the gods is consistent enough whom the city receives, and has other new divinities " but of the interpretation put upon the words by Meletus, who has affirmed that he is a downright atheist. To this Socrates fairly answers, in accordance with the ideas of the time, that a downright atheist cannot believe in the sons of gods or in divine

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

The

demons or lesser divinities are the not to be regarded as ironical or sceptical. But the love of argument may certainly have led Plato to relapse into the mythological point of view, and prevented him from observing that the reasoning is only formally correct. things.

sons of gods

notion that

The second

question,

whether Plato meant to represent

Socrates as needlessly braving or irritating his judges, must also be answered in the negative. His irony, his superiority, his audacity, " regarding not the person of man," necessarily flow out of the loftiness of his situation. He is not acting a part upon a great occasion, but he is what he has been all his life long, " a king of men." He would rather not appear insolent, if

own

he could avoid

this.

not desirous of hastening

and death are simply indifferent to him. But neither will he say or do anything which might avert the penalty he cannot have his tongue bound, even in the "throat of death " his natural character must appear. He is quite willing to make his defence to posterity and to the world, for that is a true defence. But such a defence as would be acceptable to his judges and might procure an acquittal, it is not in his nature to make. With his actual accusers he will only fence and play. The singularity of the mission which he ascribes to himself is a great reason for believing that he is serious in his account of the motives which actuated him. The dedication of his life to the improvement of his fellowcitizens is not so remarkable as the ironical spirit in which he goes about doing good to all men only in vindication of the credit of the oracle, and in the vain hope of finding a wiser man than himself. Yet this singular and almost accidental his

end, for

life

;

character of his mission agrees with the divine sign which, according to our notions, is equally accidental and irrational, and is nevertheless accepted by him as the guiding principle

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Nor must we forget that Socrates is nowhere There is no represented to us as a freethinker or sceptic. reason whatever to doubt his sincerity when he implies his

in his life.

sun and moon, or when he specuon the possibility of seeing and knowing the heroes of the Trojan War in another world. On the other hand, his hope of immortality is uncertain; he also conceives of death as a long sleep (in this respect differing from the " Phsedo "), and at last falls back on resignation to the divine will, and the certainty that no evil can happen to the good man either His absolute truthfulness seems to hinder in life or death. him from asserting positively more than this. The irony of Socrates is not a mask which he puts on at will, but flows necessarily out of his character and out of his relation to mankind. This, which is true of him generally, is especially true of the last memorable act, in which his life is summed up. Such irony is not impaired but greatly heightened by a sort of belief in the divinity of the lates

natural simplicity.

has been remarked that the prophecy at the end, of a new who would rebuke and exhort the Athenian people in harsher and more violent terms, as far as we know was never fulfilled. No inference can be drawn from It

generation of teachers

this circumstance as to the probability of their

having been

They express the aspiration of the first marphilosophy, that he would leave behind him many fol-

actually uttered.

tyr of

lowers, accompanied by the not unnatural feeling that they

would be

fiercer

and more inconsiderate

in their

words when

emancipated from his control. The above remarks must be understood as applying with any degree of certainty to the Platonic Socrates only. For, however probable it may be that these or similar words may have been spoken by Socrates himself, we cannot exclude the possibility that like

poem

much

else, e.g.

the

wisdom of

of Solon, the virtues of Charmides, they due only to the imagination of Plato.

Critias, the

may have been

SOCRA TES. Photogravure from a bust

the Villa

Albanu

THE APOLOGY OF SOCRATES

HOW

you have

speeches of

felt,

men

of Athens, at hearing the

accusers, I cannot tell;

but

know

words almost made me forget who I was, such was the effect of them; and yet they have hardly spoken a word of truth. But many as their falsehoods were, there was one of them which quite amazed me I mean when they told you to be upon your guard, and not to let yourself be deceived by the force of my eloquence. They ought to have been ashamed of saying this, because they were sure to be detected as soon as I opened my lips and displayed my deficiency; they certainly did appear to be most shameless in saying this, unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth for then I do indeed admit that I am eloquent. But in how different a way from theirs! Well, as I was saying, they have hardly uttered a word, or not more than a word, of truth but you shall hear from me the whole truth that their persuasive

;

however, delivered after their manner, in a set oration duly ornamented with words and phrases. No, indeed! but I shall use the words and arguments which occur to me at not,

the

moment;

for I

certain that this

right,

and that

time of life I ought not to be appearing before you, men of Athens, in the character of a juvenile orator: let no one expect this of me. And I must beg of you to grant me one favor, which is this if you hear me using the same words in my defence which I have been in the habit of using, and which most of you may have heard in the agora, and at the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

anywhere else, I would ask you not to be surprised at this, and not to interrupt me. For I am more than seventy years of age, and this is the first time that I have ever appeared in a court of law, and I am quite a stranger to the ways of the place and therefore I would have you regard me as if I were really a stranger, whom you tables of the money-changers, or

;

;•

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

he spoke in his native tongue, and after the that I think is not an unfair request. Never mind the manner, which may or may not be good; but think only of the justice of my cause, and give heed to that: let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly. And first, I have to reply to the older charges and to my first accusers, and then I will go on to the later ones. *For I have had many accusers, who accused me of old, and their false charges have continued during many years; and I am

would excuse

fashion of his country:

more afraid of them than of Anytus and his associates, who own way. But far more dangerous are these, who began when you were children, and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man, who speculated about the heaven above, and searched into the earth beneath, and made the worse appear the better cause. These are the accusers whom I dread for they are the circulators of this rumor, and their hearers are dangerous, too, in their

are too apt to fancy that speculators of this sort do not believe

And

in the gods.

they are many, and their charges against

made them in days when you were impressible in childhood, or perhaps in youth and the cause when heard went by default, for there was none to answer. And, hardest of all, their names I do not know and cannot tell unless in the chance case of a comic poet. But the main body of these slanderers who from envy and malice have wrought upon you and there are some of them who are convinced themselves, and impart their convictions to others all these, I say, are most difficult to deal with; for I cannot have them up here, and examine them, and therefore I must simply fight with shadows in my own defence, and examine when there is no one who answers. I will ask you then to assume with me, as I was saying, that my opponents are of two kinds one recent, the other ancient; and I hope that you will see the propriety of my answering the latter first, for these accusations you heard long before the others, and are of ancient date, and they

—

;

—

much

oftener.

make my defence, and I will endeavor which is allowed to do away with this evil opinion of me which you have held for such a long time and I hope that I may succeed, if this be well for you and me, and that my words may find favor with you. But I know that Well, then,

I will

in the short time

;

APOLOGY to accomplish this task. I

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

not easy

God

Let the event be as

make my

quite see the nature of the

wills

in obedience to the

law

defence.

begin at the beginning, and ask what the accusation which has given rise to this slander of me, and which has encouraged Meletus to proceed against me. What do the They shall be my prosecutors, and I will slanderers say? sum up their words in an affidavit " Socrates is an evildoer, and a curious person, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." better cause That is the nature of the accusation, and that is what you have I will

;

seen yourselves in the comedy of Aristophanes, who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, going about and saying that he can walk in the air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little not that I mean to say anything disparaging of anyone who is a student of natural philosophy. I should be very sorry if Meletus could lay that to my charge. But the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

O Athenians, that I have nothing to do with Very many of those here present are witnesses Speak then, you who to the truth of this, and to them I appeal. have heard me, and tell your neighbors whether any of you have ever known me hold forth in few words or in many upon simple truth

is,

these studies.

matters of this sort.

from what they say of

this

You

you

hear their answer.

will

And

be able to judge of the

truth of the rest.

little

foundation

and take money

there for the report that I

no more true than the other. Although, if a man is able to teach, I honor him for being paid. There is Gorgias of Leontium, and Prodicus of Ceos, and Hippias of Elis, who go the round of the cities, and are able to persuade the young men to leave their own citizens, by whom they might be taught for nothing, and come to them, teacher,

;

that

they not only pay, but are thankful if they may be alThere is actually a Parian philosopher residing in Athens, of whom I have heard and I came to hear of him in this way I met a man who has spent a world of money

whom

lowed to pay them.

;

on the Sophists, Callias the son of Hipponicus, and knowing " Callias," I said, " if your two had sons, I asked him sons were foals or calves, there would be no difficulty in finding that he

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

someone horses

put over them; we should hire a trainer of probably who would improve and

or a farmer

them in their own proper virtue and excellence but as they are human beings, whom are you thinking of placing over them? Is there anyone who understands human and political virtue? You must have thought about this as you have sons is there anyone ? " " There is," he said. " Who

perfect

;

he ? " said I, " and of what country ? and what does he charge ? " " Evenus the Parian," he replied " he is the man, and his charge is five minse." Happy is Evenus, I said to is

;

if he really has this wisdom, and teaches at such a modest charge. Had I the same, I should have been very proud and conceited but the truth is that I have no knowledge

myself,

;

of the kind,

Athenians.

dare say that some one will ask the question, " Why is Socrates, and what is the origin of these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you I

this,

have been doing?

All this great fame

would never have arisen us, then,

why

this

is,

you had been

we should be

and

talk about

like other

men

you tell

sorry to judge hastily

of you." Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of " wise," and of this evil fame. Please to attend them. And although of you may think that I am joking, I declare that I will you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, such wisdom as is attainable by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom whether I have any, and of what sort and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his

some tell

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

APOLOGY

doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle as I was saying, I must beg you not to to tell him whether

—he

—

asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the interrupt

truth of this story.

Why

do I mention this? Because I am going to explain you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle ? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the questo

I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, " Here is a man who is wiser than I am but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed his name I need not mention; he was a politician to him whom I selected for examination and the result was as follows When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is for he

tion.

;

—

knows nothing, and thinks

that he knows.

I neither

know

nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him. After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to

—

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, the result for I must tell you the truth by the dog I swear of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the " Herculean " labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle When I left the politicians, I went to the poets irrefutable. And there, I said to my^ tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. self, you will be detected now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians. At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in But I observed this they certainly were wiser than I was. that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was. myself, the

—

;

—

;

—

This investigation has led to

having many enemies of

; ;

APOLOGY

the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies. And I am called wise, for my hearers

always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing ; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god. There is another thing: young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord they like to hear the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of persons, as they soon enough discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing: and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded Socrates, this villanous misleader of youth and then if they say somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practise or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the readymade charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause for they do not like to confess that their pretence of knowledge has been detected which is the truth: and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. And this is the reason why my three accusers, Meletus and Anytus and Lycon, have set upon me: Meletus, who has a quarrel with me on behalf of the poets; Anytus, on behalf of the craftsmen; Lycon, on behalf of the rhetoricians: and as I said at the beginning, I cannot expect to get rid of this mass of calumny find

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

And this, O men of Athens, in a moment. and the whole truth; I have concealed nothing,

all

And

sembled nothing.

yet I

know

the truth

have

dis-

that this plainness of speech

makes them hate me, and what

is their hatred but a proof speaking the truth? this is the occasion and reason of their slander of me, as you will find out either in this

that I

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

or in any future inquiry. in my defence against the first class of turn to the second class, who are headed by

have said enough

accusers;

Meletus, that good and patriotic man, as he calls himself.

And now new

will try to

defend myself against them:

accusers must also have their affidavit read.

these

What do

Something of this sort: That Socrates is a doer and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the State, and has other new divinities of his own. That is the sort of charge and now let us examine the they say? of

evil,

;

particular counts.

corrupt the youth; but

says that I I say,

men

a doer of

evil,

who

of Athens, that Meletus

and the evil is that he makes a joke of a and is too ready at bringing other men to trial from a pretended zeal and interest about matters in which he really never had the smallest interest. And the truth of this I will endeavor to prove. Come hither, Meletus, and let me ask a question of you. You think a great deal about the improvement of youth? is

a doer of

evil,

serious matter,

Yes,

I do.

who is their improver; for you must know, as you have taken the pains to discover their corrupter, and are citing and accusing me before them. Speak, then, and tell the judges who their improver is. Observe, Meletus, that you are silent, and have nothing to say. But is not this rather disgraceful, and a very considerable proof of what I was saying, that you have no interest in the matter? Speak up, friend, and tell us who their improver is. Tell the judges, then,

The

laws.

my good sir, is not my meaning. I want to know who the person is, who, in the first place, knows the laws. The judges, Socrates, who are present in court. What do you mean to say, Meletus, that they are able to But

that,

instruct

and improve youth?

Certainly they are.

—

APOLOGY What,

all

of them, or

some only and not others?

All of them.

the goddess Here, that

of improvers, then.

good news

And what do you

There are plenty

say of the audience

do they improve them? Yes, they do. the Senators?

And

Yes, the Senators improve them. But perhaps the ecclesiasts corrupt them?

—or do they too

improve them? They improve them. Then every Athenian improves and elevates them; all with the exception of myself; and I alone am their corrupter? Is that what you affirm ? That is what I stoutly affirm. I am very unfortunate if that is true. But suppose I ask you a question: Would you say that this also holds true in the case of horses? Does one man do them harm and all the world good? Is not the exact opposite of this true? One man is able to do them good, or at least not many the trainer of horses, that is to say, does them good, and others who have to do with them rather injure them? Is not that true, Meletus, of horses, or any other animals? Yes, certainly. Whether you and Anytus say yes or no, that is no matter. Happy indeed would be the condition of youth if they had one corrupter only, and all the rest of the world were their improvers. And you, Meletus, have sufficiently shown that you never had a thought about the young: your carelessness is seen in your not caring about the matters spoken of in this very ;

indictment.

And now, is

Meletus, I must ask you another question

better, to live

Answer,

among bad

friend, I say;

easily answered.

and the bad do them

Which among good ones? a question which may be

citizens,

for that

not the good do their neighbors good, evil ?

Certainly.

And

is there anyone who would rather be injured than beneby those who live with him? Answer, my good friend; the law requires you to answer does anyone like to be in-

fited

—

jured? Certainly

not

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

And when you

accuse

of corrupting and deteriorating

the youth, do you allege that I corrupt them intentionally or unintentionally

Intentionally, I say.

But you have

just admitted that the

bors good, and the evil do them

evil.

good do

their neigh-

Now

that a truth

which your superior wisdom has recognized thus early in life, and am I, at my age, in such darkness and ignorance as not to know that if a man with whom I have to live is corrupted by me, I am very likely to be harmed by him, and yet I corrupt him, and intentionally, too? that is what you are saying, and of that you will never persuade me or any other human being. But either I do not corrupt them, or I corrupt them unintentionally, so that on either view of the case you lie. If my offense is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offenses you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me; for if I had been better advised, I should have left off doing what I only did unintentionally no doubt I should; whereas you hated to conme with or teach me, but you indicted me in this court, verse which is a place, not of instruction, but of punishment. I have shown, Athenians, as I was saying, that Meletus has no care at all, great or small, about the matter. But still I should like to know, Meletus, in what I am affirmed to corrupt the young. I suppose you mean, as I infer from your indictment, that I teach them not to acknowledge the gods which :

—

the

State acknowledges, but

some other new These are the

spiritual agencies in their stead.

corrupt the youth, as you say. Yes, that I say emphatically. Then, by the gods, Meletus, of

me and

the court, in

somewhat

whom we

plainer terms,

divinities

lessons

which

are speaking,

tell

what you mean

for I do not as yet understand whether you affirm that I teach others to acknowledge some gods, and therefore do 1)elieve

—

gods and am not an entire atheist this you do not lay to my charge but only that they are not the same gods which the city recognizes the charge is that they are different gods Or, do you mean to say that I am an atheist simply, and a in

;

—

teacher of atheism? I

mean

That

—

the latter that you are a complete atheist. an extraordinary statement, Meletus.

Why

APOLOGY

you say that ? Do you mean that I do not believe in the godhead of the sun or moon, which is the common creed of all men ? I assure you, judges, that he does not believe in them for he says that the sun is stone, and the moon earth. Friend Meletus, you think that you are accusing Anaxagoras: and you have but a bad opinion of the judges, if you fancy them ignorant to such a degree as not to know that those doctrines are found in the books of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian, who is full of them. And these are the doctrines which the youth are said to learn of Socrates, when there are not unfrequently exhibitions of them at the theatre* (price of admission one drachma at the most) and they might cheaply purchase them, and laugh at Socrates if he pretends to father such eccentricities. And so, Meletus, you really think that I do not believe in any god? I swear by Zeus that you believe absolutely in none at all. You are a liar, Meletus, not believed even by yourself. For men of Athens, that Meletus is I cannot help thinking, reckless and impudent, and that he has written this indictment in a spirit of mere wantonness and youthful bravado. Has he not compounded a riddle, thinking to try me? He said to himself: I shall see whether this wise Socrates will discover my ingenious contradiction, or whether I shall be able to deceive him and the rest of them. For he certainly does appear to me to contradict himself in the indictment as much as if he said that Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods, and yet of believing in them but this surely is a ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

piece of fun.

I should like you, men of Athens, to join me in examining what I conceive to be his inconsistency; and do you, Meletus, answer. And I must remind you that you are not to interrupt me if I speak in my accustomed manner. Did ever man, Meletus, believe in the existence of human

...

and not of human beings? I wish, men of Athens, that he would answer, and not be always trying to get up an interruption. Did ever any man believe in horsemanship, and not in horses? or in flute-playing, and not in

things,

flute-players?

No,

friend;

I will

answer

you and to

* Probably in allusion to Aristophanes, who caricatured, and to Euripiwho borrowed, the notions of Anaxagoras, as well as to other dramatic poets.

des,

; ;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

the court, as you refuse to answer for yourself.

man who tion:

But now please

ever did.

Can a man

believe in spiritual

There is no answer the next quesand divine agencies, and

not in spirits or demigods?

He cannot. I am glad that

I have extracted that answer, by the assistance of the court; nevertheless you swear in the indictment that I teach and believe in divine or spiritual agencies (new or old, no matter for that) at any rate, I believe in spiritual ;

you say and swear in the divine beings, I must believe in

agencies, as

affidavit;

but

demigods is not that true ? Yes, that is true, for I may assume that your silence gives assent to that. Now what are spirits or demigods ? are they not either gods or the sons of gods ? Is that believe in

spirits or

true?

Yes, that

But

true.

which

this is just the ingenious riddle of

was speak-

ing: the demigods or spirits are gods, and you say I

don't believe in gods, and then again that I

gods; that

is, if

I believe in

demigods.

For

first

that

believe in

the demigods

Nymphs or men will parents. You

are the illegitimate sons of gods, whether by the

by any other mothers, as

thought, that, as

allow, necessarily implies the existence of their

all

might as well affirm the existence of mules, and deny that of Such nonsense, Meletus, could only have been intended by you as a trial of me. You have put this into the indictment because you had nothing real of which to accuse me. But no one who has a particle of understanding will ever be convinced by you that the same man can believe in divine and superhuman things, and yet not believe that there are gods and demigods and heroes. I have said enough in answer to the charge of Meletus: any elaborate defence is unnecessary; but as I was saying before, I certainly have many enemies, and this is what will horses and asses.

be my destruction if I am destroyed of that I am certain not Meletus, nor yet Anytus, but the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more there is no danger of my being the last of them. Someone will say And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end ? ;

;

APOLOGY

To him I may fairly answer: There you are man who is good for anything ought not to

mistaken:

calculate the

chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, according to your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when his goddess mother said to him, in his eagerness to slay Hector, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself " Fate," as she said, " waits upon you next after Hector " he, hearing this, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonor, and not to avenge his friend. " Let me die next," he replies, " and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

the beaked ships, a scorn and a burden of the earth." Achilles any thought of death and danger?

Had

For wherever

is, whether the place which he has chosen 01 which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think

a man's place

that in

of death or of anything, but of disgrace.

And

this,

men

Athens, is a true saying. men of Athens, Strange, indeed, would be my conduct, if I who, when I was ordered by the generals whom you chose to command me at Potidaea and Amphipolis and Delium, remained where they placed me, like any other man, facing death if, I say, now, when, as I conceive and imagine, God orders me to fulfil the philosopher's mission of searching into myself and other men, I were to desert my post through fear of death, or any other fear; that would indeed be strange, and I might justly be arraigned in court for denying the existence of the gods, if I disobeyed the oracle because I was afraid of death: then I should be fancying that I was wise when I was not wise. For this fear of death is indeed the pretence of wisdom, and not real wisdom, being the appearance of knowing the unknown since no one knows whether death, which they in their fear apprehend to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good. Is there not here conceit of knowledge, which is a disgraceful sort of ignorance? And this is the point in which, as I think, I am superior to men in general, and in which I might perhaps fancy myself wiser than other

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

men that whereas I know but little of the world below, I do not suppose that I know: but I do know that injustice and disobedience to a better, whether God or man, is evil and dishonorable, and I will never fear or avoid a possible good rather than a certain evil. And therefore if you let me go now, and reject the counsels of Anytus, who said that if I were not put to death I ought not to have been prosecuted, and that if I escape now, your sons will all be utterly ruined by listening to my words if you say to me, Socrates, this time we will not mind Anytus, and will let you off, but upon one condition, that you are not to inquire and speculate in this way any more, and that if you are caught doing this again you shall die if this was the condition on which you let me go, I should reply: Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you, who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul; which you never regard or heed at all ? Are you not ashamed of this? And if the person with whom I am arguing says: Yes, but I do care; I do not depart or let him go at once; I interrogate and examine and cross-examine him, and if I think that he has no virtue, but only says that he has, I reproach him with undervaluing the greater, and overvaluing

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

the

less.

young and

And

this I

old, citizen

should say to everyone

and

alien,

whom

meet,

but especially to the citizens,

inasmuch as they are my brethren. For this is the command I would have you know and I believe that to this day no greater good has ever happened in the State than my service to the God. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as priThis is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which vate. But if corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed.

of God, as

;

APOLOGY

anyone says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth. Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times. Men of Athens, do not interrupt, but hear me; there was an agreement between us that you should hear me out. And for I I think that what I am going to say will do you good have something more to say, at which you may be inclined to cry out but I beg that you will not do this. I would have you know that, if you kill such a one as I am, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me. Meletus and Anytus will not injure me: they cannot; for it is not in the nature of things that a bad man should injure a better than himself. I do not deny that he may, perhaps, kill him, or drive him into exile, or deprive him of civil rights; and he may imagine, and others may imagine, that he is doing him a great injury: but in that I do not agree with him; for the evil of doing as Anytus is doing of unjustly taking away another man's life is greater far. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God, or lightly reject his boon by condemning me. For if you kill me you will not easily find another like me, who, if I may use such a :

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ludicrous figure of speech,

a sort of gadfly, given to the is like a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has given the State, and all day long and in all places am State by the

God; and

the State

always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. And as you will not easily find another like me, I would advise you to spare me. I dare say that you may feel irritated at being suddenly awakened when you are caught napping; and you may think that if you were to strike me dead, as Anytus advises, which you easily might, then you would sleep on for the remainder of your lives, unless God in his care of you gives you another gadfly. And that I am given to you by God is proved by this: that if I had been like other men, I should not have neglected all my own concerns, or patiently seen the neglect of them during all these years, and have been doing yours, coming to you individually,

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

26 like a father this, I say,

or elder brother, exhorting you to regard virtue

would not be

anything, or

human

And had

nature.

gained

exhortations had been paid, there would have been some sense in that but now, as you will perceive, not even the impudence of my accusers dares to say that I if

have ever exacted or sought pay of anyone they have no witness of that. And I have a witness of the truth of what I say; my poverty is a sufficient witness. ;

Someone may wonder why I go about in private, giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the State. I will tell you the reason of this. You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which

to me and always forbids me to do something which going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.

comes I

For I am certain, O men of Athens, had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And don't be offended at my telling you the truth for the truth is that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly struggling against the commission of unrighteousness and wrong in the State, will save his life he who will really fight for the right, if he would live even for a little while, must have a private station and not a public one. I can give you as proofs of this, not words only, but deeds, which you value more than words. Let me tell you a passage of my own life, which will prove to you that I should never have yielded to injustice from any fear of death, and that if I had not yielded I should have died at once. I will tell you a story tasteless, perhaps, and commonplace, but nevertheless true. The only office of State which I ever held, O men of Athens, was that of Senator; the tribe Antiochis, which is my tribe, had the presidency at the trial of the generals who had not taken up the bodies of the slain after the battle of Arginusae; and you proposed to try them all together, which was illegal, as you all thought afterwards; but at the time I was the only one of the Prytanes who was opposed to the illegality, and I gave my vote against you; and when the

And

rightly, as I think.

that if I

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

APOLOGY

orators threatened to impeach and arrest me, and have

taken away, and you called and shouted, that I

would run the

risk,

made up my mind

having law and justice with me,

rather than take part in your injustice because I feared im-

This happened in the days of the prisonment and death. democracy. But when the oligarchy of the Thirty was in power, they sent for me and four others into the rotunda, and bade us bring Leon the Salaminian from Salamis, as they wanted to execute him. This was a specimen of the sort of commands which they were always giving with the view of and then I implicating as many as possible in their crimes showed, not in words only, but in deed, that, if I may be allowed to use such an expression, I cared not a straw for death, and that my only fear was the fear of doing an unrighteous or unholy thing. For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten me into doing wrong; and when we came out of the rotunda the other four went to Salamis and fetched Leon, but I went quietly home. For which I might have lost my life, had not the power of the Thirty shortly afterwards come to an end. And to this many ;

will witness.

Now

do you

imagine that I could have survived all had led a public life, supposing that like a good man I had always supported the right and had made justice, as I ought, the first thing? No, indeed, men of Athens, neither I nor any other. But I have been always the same in all my actions, public as well as private, and never have ,1 yielded any base compliance to those who are slanderously termed my disciples, or to any other. For the truth is that I have no regular disciples: but if anyone likes to come and hear me while I am pursuing my mission, whether he be young or old, he may freely come. Nor do I converse with those who pay only, and not with those who do not pay; but anyone, whether he be rich or poor, may ask and answer me and listen to my words and whether he turns out to be a bad man or a good one, that cannot be justly laid to my charge, as I never taught him anything. And if anyone says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which all the world has not heard, I should like you to know that he is speaking an untruth. But I shall be asked, Why do people delight in continually these years,

really

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

conversing with you ? I have told you already, Athenians, the whole truth about this they like to hear the cross-examination of the pretenders to wisdom there is amusement in this. And this is a duty which the God has imposed upon me, as I am assured by oracles, visions, and in every sort of way in which the will of divine power was ever signified to anyone. This :

;

true, O Athenians; or, if not true, would be soon refuted. For if I am really corrupting the youth, and have corrupted some of them already, those of them who have grown up and have become sensible that I gave them bad advice in the days of their youth should come forward as accusers and take their revenge and if they do not like to come themselves, some of is

;

their relatives, fathers, brothers, or other kinsmen, should say

what

evil their families suffered at

Many

hands.

Now

their

them I see in the court. There is Crito, who is of the same age and of the same deme with myself; and

time.

there is is

Critobulus his son,

Lysanias of Sphettus, present

;

and

also there

whom

who is

I also see.

Then again

there

the father of ^Eschines

Antiphon of Cephisus, who

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;he

the

and there are the brothers of several who have associated with me. There is Nicostratus the son of Theosdotides, and the brother of Theodotus (now Theodotus himself is dead, and therefore he, at any rate, will not seek to stop him) and there is Paralus the son of Demodocus, who had a brother Theages and Adeimantus the son of Ariston, whose brother Plato is present; and ^antodorus, who is the brother of Apollodorus, whom I also see. I might mention a great many others, any of whom Meletus should have produced as witnesses in the course of his speech; and let him still produce them, if he has forgotten; I will make way for him. And let him say, if he has any testimony of the sort which he can produce. Nay, Athenians, the very opposite is the truth. For all these are ready to witness on behalf father of Epigenes

;

of the corrupter, of the destroyer of their kindred, as Meletus and Anytus call me; not the corrupted youth only there

might have been a motive for that elder relatives.

testimony?

Why

Why,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;but

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

their uncorrupted

should they too support

with their

indeed, except for the sake of truth and

justice, and because they know that I am speaking the truth, and that Meletus is lying. Well, Athenians, this and the like of this is nearly all the

APOLOGY

defence which I have to offer. Yet a word more. Perhaps there may be someone who is offended at me, when he calls to mind how he himself, on a similar or even a less serious occasion, had recourse to prayers and supplications with many tears, and how he produced his children in court, which was a moving spectacle, together with a posse of his relations and

whereas I, who am probably in danger of my life, will do none of these things. Perhaps this may come into his mind, and he may be set against me, and vote in anger because he is displeased at this. Now if there be such a person among you, which I am far from affirming, I may fairly reply to him My friend, I am a man, and like other men, a creature of flesh and blood, and not of wood or stone, as Homer says and I have a family, yes, and sons, O Athenians, three in number, one of whom is growing up, and the two others are still young; and yet I will not bring any of them hither in order to petition you for an acquittal. And why not ? Not from any self-will or disregard of you. Whether I am or am not afraid of death is another question, of which I will not now speak. But my reason simply is that I feel such conduct to be discreditable to myself, and you, and the whole State. One who has reached my years, and who has a name for wisdom, whether deserved or not, ought not to debase himself. At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men. And if those among you who are said to be superior in wisdom and courage, and any other virtue, demean themselves in this way, how shameful friends

;

is their conduct! I have seen men of reputation, when they have been condemned, behaving in the strangest manner they seemed to fancy that they were going to suffer something dreadful if they died, and that they could be immortal if you only allowed them to live; and I think that they were a dishonor to the State, and that any stranger coming in would say of them that the most eminent men of Athens, to whom the Athenians themselves give honor and command, are no better than women. And I say that these things ought not to be done by those of us who are of reputation; and if they are done, you ought not to permit them; you ought rather to show that you are more inclined to condemn, not the man :

who

quiet,

makes the

but the

man who

city ridiculous.

gets

up a

doleful scene,

and

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

3Â°

But, setting aside the question of dishonor, there seems to be something wrong in petitioning a judge, and thus procuring an acquittal instead of informing and convincing him. For his duty is, not to make a present of justice, but to give

judgment; and he has sworn that he will judge according to the laws, and not according to his own good pleasure; and

we should get into the habit of perjuring ourcan be no piety in that. Do not then require me to do what I consider dishonorable and impious and wrong, especially now, when I am being tried for impiety on the inmen of Athens, by force of dictment of Meletus. For if, persuasion and entreaty, I could overpower your oaths, then I should be teaching you to believe that there are no gods, neither he nor selves

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;there

and convict myself, in my own defence, of not believing in them. But that is not the case; for I do believe that there are gods, and in a far higher sense than that in which any of my accusers believe in them. And to you and to God I commit my cause, to be determined by you as is best for you and me.

There are many reasons why I am not grieved, men of Athens, at the vote of condemnation. I expected this, and am only surprised that the votes are so nearly equal; for I had thought that the majority against me would have been far larger; but now, had thirty votes gone over to the other side, I should have been acquitted. And I may say that I have escaped Meletus. And I may say more; for without the assistance of Anytus and Lycon, he would not have had a fifth part of the votes, as the law requires, in which case he would have incurred a fine of a thousand drachmae, as is evident.

I is

And so he proposes death as the penalty. And what shall propose on my part, O men of Athens? Clearly that which

ceive?

And what is that which I ought to pay or to reWhat shall be done to the man who has never had

due.

the wit to be idle during his whole life; but has been careless of what the many care about wealth and family inter-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and military magistracies, and

and speaking in the assembly, and plots, and parties. Reflecting that I was really too honest a man to follow in this way and live, I did not go where I could do no good to you or to myself; but

ests,

offices,

APOLOGY

where I could do the greatest good privately to everyone of you, thither I went, and sought to persuade every man among you that he must look to himself, and seek virtue and wisdom before he looks to his private interests, and look to the State before he looks to the interests of the State;

and that

this should be the order which he observes in all his actions. What shall be done to such a one? Doubtless some good men of Athens, if he has his reward; and the good thing, should be of a kind suitable to him. What would be a reward

man who is your benefactor, who desires may instruct you? There can be no more reward than maintenance in the Prytaneum, O men of

suitable to a poor leisure that he fitting

Athens, a reward which he deserves far more than the citizen who has won the prize at Olympia in the horse or chariot race, whether the chariots were drawn by two horses or by many. For I am in want, and he has enough; and he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I give you the reality.

And

if I

to estimate the penalty justly, I say that

maintenance in the Prytaneum is the just return. Perhaps you may think that I am braving you in saying this, as in what I said before about the tears and prayers. But that is not the case. I speak rather because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone, although I cannot convince you of that for we have had a short conversation only; but if there were a law at Athens, such as there is in other cities, that a capital cause should not be decided in one day, then I believe that I should have convinced you but now the time is too short. I cannot in a

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

and, as I am convinced that I never wronged another, I will assuredly not wrong myself. I will not say of myself that I deserve any evil, or propose any penalty. Why should I ? Because I am afraid of the penalty of death which Meletus proposes? When I do not know whether death is a good or an evil, why should I propose a Shall I say impenalty which would certainly be an evil? prisonment? And why should I live in prison, and be the of the Eleven ? Or shall slave of the magistrates of the year the penalty be a fine, and imprisonment until the fine is paid ? There is the same objection. I should have to lie in prison, And if I say for money I have none, and cannot pay.

moment

refute great slanders

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

exile

(and

this

may

possibly be the penalty which

you

will

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

must indeed be blinded by the love of

affix), I

when

to consider that

you,

who

are

my own

life if I

citizens,

were

cannot

endure my discourses and words, and have found them so grievous and odious that you would fain have done with them, others are likely to endure me. No, indeed, men of Athens, that is not very likely. And what a life should I lead, at

changing

age, wandering from city to city, living in ever-

exile,

and always being driven out

For

quite

sure that into whatever place I go, as here so also there, the

young men

will

come

me; and

if I

drive

them away,

their

out at their desire: and if I let them come, their fathers and friends will drive me out for their elders will drive

sakes.

Someone will say: Yes, Socrates, but cannot you hold your tongue, and then you may go into a foreign city, and no one will interfere with you ? Now I have great difficulty in making you understand my answer to this. For if I tell you that this would be a disobedience to a divine command, and therefore that I cannot hold my tongue, you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living that you are still And yet what I say is true, although less likely to believe. a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you. Moreover, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve any punishment. Had I money I might have proposed to give you what But you see that I I had, and have been none the worse. have none, and can only ask you to proportion the fine to my means. However, I think that I could afford a mina, and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

therefore I propose that penalty: Plato, Crito, Critobulus, and Apollodorus, my friends here, bid me say thirty minae,

and they

will be the sureties.

that be the penalty

Not much time

;

Well, then, say thirty minae,

for that they will be

will

be gained,

Athenians, in return for detractors of the

name which you will get from the who will say that you killed Socrates,

the evil

let

ample security to you.

a wise man; for wise even although I am not wise when they want to reproach you. If you had waited a little while, your desire would have been fulfilled in the course of nature. For I am far advanced in years, as you may perceive, and not far city,

they will

call

APOLOGY

from death. I am speaking now only to those of you who have condemned me to death. And I have another thing to say to them: You think that I was convicted through deficiency of words I mean, that if I had thought fit to leave nothing undone, nothing unsaid, I might have gained an acthe deficiency which led to my conviction was quittal. Not so not of words certainly not. But I had not the boldness or impudence or inclination to address you as you would have liked me to address you, weeping and wailing and lamenting, and saying and doing many things which you have been accustomed to hear from others, and which, as I say, are unworthy of me. But I thought that I ought not to do anything common or mean in the hour of danger: nor do I now repent of the manner of my defence, and I would rather die having spoken after my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death and in other dangers

—

;

—

;

there are other to say

ways of escaping death,

and do anything.

The

difficulty,

man

willing

friends, is not

in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness;

for that

runs faster than death. I am old and move slowly, and the slower runner has overtaken me, and my accusers are keen and quick, and the faster runner, who is unrighteousness, has overtaken them. And now I depart hence condemned by you to suffer the penalty of death, and they, too, go their

ways condemned by the truth to suffer the penalty of villany and wrong; and I must abide by my award let them abide by theirs. I suppose that these things may be regarded as fated and I think that they are well. And now, O men who have condemned me, I would fain prophesy to you for I am about to die, and that is the hour in which men are gifted with prophetic power. And I prophesy to you who are my murderers, that immediately after my death punishment far heavier than you have inflicted on me will surely await you. Me you have killed because you wanted to escape the accuser, and not to give an account of your lives. But that will not be as you suppose: far otherwise. For I say that there will be more accusers of you than there are now; accusers whom hitherto I have restrained: and as

—

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

they are younger they will be more severe with you, and you For if you think that by will be more offended at them.

men you can avoid the accuser censuring your lives, you are mistaken that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honorable; the easiest and the noblest way is not to be crushing others, but to be improving yourselves. This is the prophecy which I utter before my departure, to the judges who have condemned me. Friends, who would have acquitted me, I would like also to talk with you about this thing which has happened, while the magistrates are busy, and before I go to the place at which Stay then awhile, for we may as well talk with I must die. one another while there is time. You are my friends, and I should like to show you the meaning of this event which has happened to me. O my judges for you I may truly call judges I should like to tell you of a wonderful circumstance. killing

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Hitherto the familiar oracle within me has constantly been opposing me even about trifles, if I was going to make a slip or error about anything; and now as you see there has come upon me that which may be thought, and is in the habit of

generally believed to be, the last and worst

made no

oracle

evil.

But the

sign of opposition, either as I was leaving

house and going out in the morning, or when I was going up into this court, or while I was speaking, at anything which I was going to say; and yet I have often been stopped in

the middle of a speech; but now in nothing I either said or did touching this matter has the oracle opposed me. What do I take to be the explanation of this? I will tell you. I regard this as a proof that what has happened to me is a good, and that those of us who think that death is an evil are in error. This is a great proof to me of what I am saying, for the customary sign would surely have opposed me had I been going to evil and not to good. Let us reflect in another way, and we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good, for one of two things either death is a state of nothingness and utter unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of Now if you suppose the soul from this world to another. that there is no consciousness, but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even by the sight of dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain. For if a person were to select :

APOLOGY

the night in which his sleep was undisturbed even by dreams, and were to compare with this the other days and nights of his life, and then were to tell us how many days and nights he had passed in the course of his life better and more pleasantly than this one, I think that any man, I will not say a private man, but even the great king, will not find many such days or nights, when compared with the others. Now if

death is like this, I say that to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night. But if death is the journey to another place, and there, as men say, all the dead are, what

good, my friends and judges, can be greater than this? If indeed when the pilgrim arrives in the world below, he is delivered from the professors of justice in this world, and finds the true judges who are said to give judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and ^Eacus and Triptolemus, and other sons of God who were righteous in their own life, that pilgrimage will be worth making. What would not a man give if he might converse with Orpheus and Musaeus and Hesiod and Homer? Nay, if this be true, let me die again and again. I, too, shall have a wonderful interest in a place where I can converse with Palamedes, and Ajax the son of Telamon, and other heroes of old, who have suffered death through an unjust judgment; and there will be no small pleasure, as I think, in comparing my own sufferings with Above all, I shall be able to continue my search into theirs. true and false knowledge; as in this world, so also in that; I shall find out who is wise, and who pretends to be wise, and judges, to be able to is not. What would not a man give, examine the leader of the great Trojan expedition; or Odysseus or Sisyphus, or numberless others, men and women too! What infinite delight would there be in conversing with them and asking them questions! For in that world they do not put a man to death for this certainly not. For besides being happier in that world than in this, they will be immortal, if

;

what

said

Wherefore,

know

true.

judges, be of good cheer about death, and

this of a truth

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;that no

evil

can happen to a good man,

and his are not neglected by the gods; nor has my own approaching end happened by mere chance. But I see clearly that to die and be released was better for me; and therefore the oracle gave no sign. either in life or after death.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

For which reason, also, I am not^ angry with my accusers, or condemners they have done me no harm, although neither and for this I may gently of them meant to do me any good

;

blame them. When my sons are Still I have a favor to ask of them. grown up, I would ask you, O my friends, to punish them and I would have you trouble them, as I have troubled you, if they seem to care about riches, or anything, more than about virtue; or if they pretend to be something when they are really nothing then reprove them, as I have reproved you, for not caring about that for which they ought to care, and thinking that they are something when they are really nothing. And if you do this, I and my sons will have received justice at your hands. The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways I to die, and you to live. Which is better, God only knows.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

INTRODUCTION TO CRITO

THE

" Crito " seems intended to exhibit the character of Socrates in one light only, not as the philosopher,

fulfilling a divine mission and trusting in the will of Heaven, but simply as the good citizen, who having been

unjustly condemned

willing to give

his life in obedience

to the laws of the State.

The days

of Socrates are drawing to a close;

ship* has been seen off Sunium, as he friend

and contemporary

dawn has broken

Crito,

who

the fatal

informed by his aged

visits

him before

the

he himself has been warned in a dream that on the third day he must depart. Time is precious and Crito has come early in order to gain his consent to a plan of escape. This can be easily accomplished by his friends, who will incur no danger in making the attempt to save him, but will be He should disgraced forever if they allow him to perish. think of his duty to his children, and not play into the hands of his enemies. Money is already provided by Crito as well as by Simmias and others, and he will have no difficulty in finding friends in Thessaly and other places. Socrates is afraid that Crito is but pressing upon him the opinions of the many whereas, all his life long he has followed the dictates of reason only and the opinion of the one wise or skilled man. There was a time when Crito himself had allowed the propriety of this. And although someone will say " The many can kill us," that makes no difference but a good life, that is to say a just and honorable life, is alone to be All considerations of loss of reputation or injury to valued. the only question is whether his children should be dismissed he would be right in attempting to escape. Crito, who is a disinterested person, not having the fear of death before his eyes, Before he was condemned they shall answer this for him. ;

;

(

* The sacred ship, during whose thirty days' voyage to and from the oracle at Delos no Athenian citizen could be put to death.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

had often held discussions, in which they agreed that no man should either do evil, or return evil for evil, or betray the right.

Are

these principles to be altered because the circum-

stances of Socrates are altered

the same.

of them ?

Then

Crito admits that they remain

his escape consistent with the maintenance

this Crito is unable or unwilling to reply.

Suppose the laws of Athens to come and remonstrate with him they will ask, " Why does he seek to overturn them ? " and if he replies, " They have injured him," will not the laws answer, " Yes, but was that the agreement ? Has he any objection to make to them which would justify him in overturning them ? Was he not brought into the world and educated by their help, and are they not his parents ? He might have left Athens and gone where he pleased, but he has lived there for seventy years more constantly than any other citizen." Thus he has clearly shown that he acknowledged the agreement which he cannot now break without dishonor to himself and danger to his friends. Even in the course of the trial he might have proposed exile as the penalty, but then he declared Socrates proceeds:

And whither will he direct In any well-ordered State the laws will consider him as an enemy. Possibly in a land of misrule like Thessaly he may be welcomed at first, and the unseemly narrative of his escape regarded by the inhabitants as an amusing tale. But if he offends them he will have to learn another sort of lesson. Will he continue to give lectures in virtue? That would hardly be decent. And how will his children be the gainers if he takes them into Thessaly, and deprives them of Athenian citizenship? Or if he leaves them behind, does he expect that they will be better taken care of by his friends because he is in Thessaly? Will not true friends care for them equally whether he is alive or dead ? Finally, they exhort him to think of justice first, and of life and children afterwards. He may now depart in peace and But if he breaks innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil. agreements, and returns evil for evil, they will be angry with him while he lives and their brethren, the laws of the world Such is the mystic voice below, will receive him as an enemy. that he preferred death to exile. his footsteps?

;

which is always murmuring in his ears. That Socrates was not a good citizen was a charge made against him during his lifetime, which has been often repeated

INTRODUCTION TO CRITO

The crimes of Alcibiades, Critias, and Charwho had been his pupils, were still recent in the memory now restored democracy. The fact that he had been

in later ages.

mides, of the

neutral in the death struggle of Athens ciliate

popular good-will.

was not

likely to con-

Plato, writing probably in the next

generation, undertakes the defence of his friend and master in this particular, not to the

and the world

Athenians of his day, but to posterity

at large.

Whether such an

incident ever really occurred as the visit

of Crito and the proposal of escape

uncertain

Plato could

have invented far more than that; and in the selection of Crito, the aged friend, as the fittest person to make the proposal to Socrates, we seem to recognize the hand of the artist. Whether anyone who has been subjected by the laws of his country to an unjust judgment is right in attempting to escape is a thesis about which casuists might disagree. easily

is of opinion that Socrates " did well to die," but not for the " sophistical " reasons which Plato has put into his mouth. And there would be no difficulty in arguing that

Shelley

Socrates should have lived and preferred to a glorious death good which he might still be able to perform. " skil-

the ful

rhetorician

would have had much

say about that" (50 c). It may be remarked, however, that Plato never intended to answer the question of casuistry, but only to exhibit the ideal of patient virtue which refuses to do the least evil in order to avoid the greatest, and to show Socrates, his to

master, maintaining in death the opinions which he had professed in his life. Not " the world," but the " one wise man," is still

the philosopher's paradox in his last hours.

CRITO; OR,

THE DUTY OF A CITIZEN PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE Crito

Socrates

Scene

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;The Prison of Socrates

Socrates.

WHY

have you come at

this hour, Crito?

must be

quite early.

Yes, certainly.

Crito.

What

Soc.

The dawn

Cr.

the exact time? is

breaking.

wonder the keeper of the prison would let you in. Cr. He knows me because I often come, Socrates; moreover, I have done him a kindness. So c. And are you only just come? Cr. No, I came some time ago. Soc. Then why did you sit and say nothing, instead of awakening me at once? Cr. Why, indeed, Socrates, I myself would rather not have But I have been wonderall this sleeplessness and sorrow. ing at your peaceful slumbers, and that was the reason why I did not awaken you, because I wanted you to be out of pain. I have always thought you happy in the calmness of Soc.

your temperament; but never did I see the like of the easy, cheerful way in which you bear this calamity. Soc. Why, Crito, when a man has reached my age he ought not to be repining at the prospect of death. Cr.

And

yet other old

men

find themselves in similar mis-

and age does not prevent them from repining. Soc. That may be. But you have not told me why you

fortunes,

come Cr. ful;

at this early hour. I

come

not as

to bring

you a message which

I believe, to yourself,

your friends, and saddest of

all

but to

to me.

all

sad and pain-

of us

who

are

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; DIALOGUES OF PLATO

What!

Soc.

on the

arrival of

suppose that the ship has come from Delos,

which

to die?

No, the ship has not actually arrived, but she will probably be here to-day, as persons who have come from Sunium tell me that they left her there; and therefore tomorrow, Socrates, will be the last day of your life. Soc. Very well, Crito; if such is the will of God, I am Cr.

willing; Cr.

but

Why

belief is that there will be a delay of

a day.

do you say this?

Soc. I will

tell

you.

to die

on the day

after the arrival

of the ship ?

Yes; that is what the authorities say. But I do not think that the ship will be here until to-morrow; this I gather from a vision which I had last night, or rather only just now, when you fortunately allowed Cr.

Soc.

to sleep.

Cr.

Soc.

And what was There came

the nature of the vision?

the likeness of a

comely, clothed in white raiment,

who

woman,

called to

fair

me and

and

said:

Socrates "

Cr.

Soc.

The

third day hence, to Phthia shalt thou go."

What a

singular dream, Socrates! There can be no doubt about the meaning,

Crito, I

think.

Cr. Yes: the meaning is only too clear. But, O! my beloved Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my For if you die I shall not only lose a advice and escape. friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do not know you and me will believe that I might

have saved you if I had been willing to give money, but that not care. Now, can there be a worse disgrace than this that I should be thought to value money more than the For the many will not be persuaded that I life of a friend? wanted you to escape, and that you refused. Soc. But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many ? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened. Cr. But do you see, Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they 1 did

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

CRITO can do the very greatest

good

evil to

anyone who has

lost their

opinion.

Soc. I only wish, Crito, that they could; for then they could also do the greatest good, and that would be well. But the truth is, that they can do neither good nor evil: they cannot make a man wise or make him foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance.

not dispute about that; but please to tell me, Socrates, whether you are not acting out of regard to me and your other friends are you not afraid that if you escape Cr.

Well,

I will

hence

we may

get into trouble with the informers for having

stolen you away, and lose either the whole or a great part of our property; or that even a worse evil may happen to us? Now, if this is your fear, be at ease; for in order to save you, we ought surely to run this or even a greater risk; be persuaded, then, and do as I say. Soc. Yes, Crito, that is one fear which you mention, but by no means the only one. Cr. Fear not. There are persons who at no great cost are willing to save you and bring you out of prison and as for the informers, you may observe that they are far from being exorbitant in their demands a little money will satisfy them. My means, which, as I am sure, are ample, are at your service, and if you have a scruple about spending all mine, here are strangers who will give you the use of theirs and one of them, Simmias the Theban, has brought a sum of money for this very purpose; and Cebes and many others are willing to spend their money too. I say, therefore, do not on that account hesitate about making your escape, and do not say, as you did in the court, that you will have a difficulty in knowing what to do with yourself if you escape. For men will love you in other places to which you may go, and not in Athens only; there are friends of mine in Thessaly, if you like to go to them, who will value and protect you, and no Thessalian will give you any trouble. Nor can I think that you are justified, Socrates, in betraying your own life when you might be saved this is playing into the hands of your enemies and destroyers; and moreover I should say that you were betraying your children; for you might bring them up and educate them instead of which you go away and leave them, and they will have to take their chance; and if they do not ;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

meet with the usual

fate of orphans, there will be small thanks should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in their nurture and education. But you are choosing the easier part, as 1 think, not the better and manlier, which would rather have become one

to you.

who

No man

professes virtue in

indeed, I

am ashamed

all his actions,

like yourself.

not only of you, but of us

who

And,

are your

friends, when I reflect that this entire business of yours will be attributed to our want of courage. The trial need never have come on, or might have been brought to another issue; and the end of all, which is the crowning absurdity, will seem

have been permitted by us, through cowardice and basewho might have saved you, as you might have saved yourself, if we had been good for anything (for there was no difficulty in escaping) and we did not see how disgraceful, Socrates, and also miserable all this will be to us as well Make your mind up then, or rather have your as to you. mind already made up, for the time of deliberation is over, and there is only one thing to be done, which must be done, if at all, this very night, and which any delay will render all to

ness,

;

I beseech you therefore, Socrates, to be persuaded by me, and to do as I say. Soc. Dear Crito, your zeal is invaluable, if a right one but if wrong, the greater the zeal the greater the evil and therefore we ought to consider whether these things shall be done or not. For I am and always have been one of those natures who must be guided by reason, whatever the reason may be which upon reflection appears to me to be the best; and now that this fortune has come upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor, and unless we can find other and better principles on the instant, I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of

but impossible;

;

the multitude could inflict

many more

imprisonments, confis-

cations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors.

But what

will be the fairest

way

of considering the

Shall I return to your old argument about the

question?

men? some of which are we were saying, are not to be

opinions of

to be regarded,

others, as

regarded.

Now

and were

right in maintaining this before I was condemned ? And has the argument which was once good now proved to be talk

CRITO

for the sake of talking; in fact an amusement only, and altogether vanity? That is what I want to consider with your help, Crito: whether, under my present circumstances, the argument appears to be in any way different or not and is to be allowed by me or disallowed. That argument, which, as I believe, is maintained by many who assume to be authorities, was to the effect, as I was saying, that the opinions of some men are to be regarded, and of other men not to be regarded. Now you, Crito, are a disinterested person who are not going at least, there is no human probability of to die to-morrow this, and you are therefore not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in which you are placed. Tell me, then, whether I am right in saying that some opinions, and the opinions of some men only, are to be valued, and other opinions, and the opinions of other men, are not to be valued. I ask you whether I was right in maintaining this? ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Cr.

Soc. Cr.

Soc.

Certainly.

The good

are to be regarded, and not the bad?

Yes.

And

the opinions of the wise are good,

and the opin-

ions of the unwise are evil? Cr.

Certainly.

said about another matter? Was the gymnastics supposed to attend to the praise and blame and opinion of every man, or of one man only his

Soc.

And what was

disciple in

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

physician or trainer, whoever that was? Cr.

Soc.

Of one man only. And he ought to fear

praise of that one only, Cr.

Soc.

That

And

the censure and welcome the and not of the many?

is clear.

he ought to

live

way which seems good

and

train,

and eat and drink master

who

has understanding, rather than according to the opinion of all other men put together? Cr. True. the

to his single

Soc. And if he disobeys and disregards the opinion and approval of the one, and regards the opinion of the many who have no understanding, will he not suffer evil? Cr. Certainly he will. Soc. And what will the evil be, whither tending and what affecting, in the disobedient person ?

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Clearly, affecting the

Cr.

by the

body; that

what

destroyed

evil.

Soc. Very good and is not this true, Crito, of other things which we need not separately enumerate? In the matter of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding, and whom we ought to fear and reverence more than all the rest of the world and whom deserting we shall destroy and injure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice; is there not such a principle? ;

Cr,

Certainly there

is,

Socrates.

Soc. Take a parallel instance:

men who have no

acting under the advice

if,

we destroy that which improvable by health and deteriorated by disease when that has been destroyed, I say, would life be worth having? of

understanding,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

And

that

Cr.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the body

Soc. Could Cr.

Yes.

live,

having an

evil

and corrupted body?

Certainly not.

And will life be worth having, if that higher part of be depraved, which is improved by justice and deteriorated by injustice? Do we suppose that principle, whatever it may be in man, which has to do with justice and injustice, to be inferior to the body? Soc.

man

Cr.

Certainly not.

More honored, then?

Soc. Cr.

Far more honored.

Soc. Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.

And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. Well, someone will say, " But the many can kill us." Cr. Yes, Socrates that will clearly be the answer. Soc. That is true: but still I find with surprise that the ;

old

argument

should like to proposition

valued ?

is,

as I conceive, unshaken as ever.

know whether

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;that

not

life,

may

And

say the same of another

but a good

life,

to be chiefly

CRITO Cr.

Yes, that also remains. And a good life is equivalent to a just and honorable that holds also?

Soc.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

one

Cr, Yes, that holds.

From

these premises I proceed to argue the question ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent of the Athenians and if I am clearly right in escap-

Soc.

whether

ing, then I will

The

make

the attempt; but

not, I will abstain.

money and and the duty of educating children, are, as I hear, only the doctrines of the multitude, who would be as ready to call people to life, if they were able, as they are to put them to death and with as little reason. But now, since the argument has thus far prevailed, the only question which remains to be considered is, whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in suffering others to aid in our escape and paying them in money and thanks, or whether we shall not do rightly and if the latter, then death or any other calamity which may ensue on my remaining here must not be allowed other considerations which you mention, of

loss of character,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

to enter into the calculation. Cr.

I think that

you are

right, Socrates;

how

then shall

we proceed? Soc. Let us consider the matter together, and do you either me if you can, and I will be convinced or else cease,

refute

;

dear friend, from repeating to me that I ought to escape against the wishes of the Athenians: for I am extremely desirous to be persuaded by you, but not against my own better judgment. And now please to consider my first position,

and do your best to answer me. I will do my best.

Cr.

Soc. Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? Are all our former admissions which were made within a few days to be thrown away? And have we, at our age, been earnestly discoursing with one another all our life long only to discover that we are no better than

children?

are

to rest assured, in spite of the opinion

of the many, and in spite of consequences whether better or

worse, of the truth of what was then said, that injustice

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

always an

evil

and dishonor

him who

acts unjustly?

Shall

affirm that?

Yes.

Cr.

Soc.

Then we must do no wrong? Certainly not.

Cr.

Nor when injured injure in return, we must injure no one at all?

Soc.

as the

many

imagine; for Cr.

Clearly not.

Soc. Again, Crito,

may we do

evil?

Surely not, Socrates. Soc. And what of doing evil in return for morality of the many is that just or not? Cr.

evil,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

which

the

Cr. Not just. So c. For doing evil to another is the same as injuring him? Cr. Very true. Soc. Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.

would have you consider, Crito, whether you really are saying. For this opinion has never been held, and never will be held, by any considerable number of persons; and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground, and can

But

mean what you

only despise one another differ.

when they

Tell me, then, whether

first

principle,

that

see

how

widely they

you agree with and assent

neither

injury nor

retaliation

nor

And shall that be the off evil by evil is ever right. premise of our argument? Or do you decline and dissent from this ? For this has been of old and is still my opinion but, if you are of another opinion, let me hear what you have If, however, you remain of the same mind as forto say. merly, I will proceed to the next step. Cr. You may proceed, for I have not changed my mind. Soc. Then I will proceed to the next step, which may be put in the form of a question: Ought a man to do what he warding

admits to be right, or ought he to betray the right? Cr. He ought to do what he thinks right. Soc. But if this is true, what is the application ? In leaving the prison against the will of the Athenians, do I wrong any ? or rather do I not wrong those whom I ought least to wrong?

not desert the principles which were acknowledged by What do you say?

us to be just?

;

CRITO cannot

do not know. way: Imagine that I am about to play truant (you may call the proceeding by any name which you like), and the laws and the government come and interrogate me " Tell us, Socrates," they say " what are you about ? are you going by an act of yours to overturn us the laws and the whole State, as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a State can subsist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by individuals ?" What will be our answer, Crito, to these and the like words? Anyone, and especially a clever rhetorician, will have a good deal to urge about the evil of setting aside the law which requires a sentence to be carried out and we might reply, " Yes but the State has injured us and given an unjust sentence." SupCr.

Soc.

tell,

Socrates, for I

Then consider

the matter in this

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

pose

;

say that?

Very good, Socrates. Soc. "And was that our agreement with you?" the law " or were you to abide by the sentence of the would say Cr.

;

State ? "

And

were to express astonishment at their say" Answer, Socrates, eyes you in your are the habit of asking instead of opening and answering questions. Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the State? In the first place did we not bring you into existence? Your father married your mother by our aid and begat you. Say whether you have any objection to urge against those of us who regulate marriage ? " None,

ing

this,

if I

the law would probably add

should reply. " Or against those of us who regulate the system of nurture and education of children in which you were trained? Were not the laws, who have the charge of.

this, right in commanding your father to train you in music and gymnastic ? " Right, I should reply. " Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? And if this is true you are not on equal terms with us; nor can you think that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to strike or revile or do any other evil to a father or to your master, if you had one, when you have been struck or reviled by him, or received some other

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

5Â°

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

hands? you would not say this? And because think right to destroy you, do you think that you have

evil at his

any right to destroy us in return, and your country as far you lies? And will you, O professor of true virtue, say that you are justified in this? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier far than mother or father or any ancestor, and more to be regarded in the eyes of the gods and of men of understanding? also to be soothed, and gently and reverently entreated when angry, even more than a father, and if not persuaded, obeyed ? And when we are punished by her, whether with imprisonment or stripes, the punishment is to be endured in silence and if she leads us to wounds or death in battle, thither we follow as is right; neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him or he must change their view and if he may do no violence to his father of what is just or mother, much less may he do violence to his country." What answer shall we make to this, Crito? Do the laws speak truly, or do they not? as in

;

Cr.

Soc.

think that they do.

Then

the laws will say

" Consider, Socrates,

if this

your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other is

true, that in

citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does' not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he and none of us laws pleases and take his goods with him will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is secondly, because we are the authors disobeying his parents ;

;

of his education

;

thirdly, because

he has made an agreement

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; CRITO

with us that he will duly obey our commands ; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us that is what we offer, and ;

he does neither.

These are the

sort of accusations to which,

we were saying, you, Socrates, will be exposed if you accomplish your intentions; you, above all other Athenians." Suppose I ask, why is this? they will justly retort upon me that I above all other men have acknowledged the agreement. " There is clear proof," they will say, " Socrates, that we and the city were not displeasing to you. Of all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city, which, as you never leave, you may be supposed to love. For you never went out of the city either to see the games, except once when you went to the Isthmus, or to any other as

place unless

when you were on military service nor did you men do. Nor had you any curiosity to know ;

travel as other

your affections did not go beyond us and our State; we were your special favorites, and you acquiesced in our government of you; and this is the State in which you begat your children, which is a proof of your satisfaction. Moreover, you might, if you had liked, have fixed the penalty at banishment in the course of the trial other States or their laws

let you go now would have let you go then. But you pretended that you preferred death to exile, and that you were not grieved at death. And now you have forgotten these fine sentiments, and pay no respect to us, the laws, of whom you are the destroyer; and are doing what only a miserable slave would do, running away and turning your back upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citizen. And first of all answer this very question: Are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed according to us in deed, and not in word only? Is that true or not?" How shall we answer that, Crito? Must we not agree? Cr. There is no help, Socrates. " You, Socrates, are breakThen will they not say Soc. ing the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception, but having had seventy years to think of them, during which time you were at liberty to leave the city, if we were not to your mind, or if our covenants appeared to you

the State which refuses to

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

to be unfair.

You had your

choice,

to Lacedsemon or Crete, which

good government, or Whereas you, above fond of the State,

who would

and might have gone you often praise for

either their

some other Hellenic or foreign State. all other Athenians, seemed to be so

words, of us her laws (for has no laws), that you never

or, in other

like a State that

stirred out of her: the halt, the blind, the maimed, were not more stationary in her than you were. And now you run away and forsake your agreements. Not so, Socrates, if you will take our advice; do not make yourself ridiculous by

escaping out of the

city.

For just consider, if you transgress and err in this sort of way, what good will you do, either to yourself or to your That your friends will be driven into exile and friends? deprived of citizenship, or will lose their property, is tolerably and you yourself, if you fly to one of the neighbor-

certain;

Thebes or Megara, both of which come to them as an enemy, Socrates, and their government will be against you, and all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who ing

are

cities, as,

for example,

well-governed

cities, will

a corrupter of the laws is more than likely to be corrupter young and foolish portion of mankind. Will you then

of the flee

from well-ordered

cities

and virtuous men?

ancl is exist-

ence worth having on these terms? Or will you go to them, without shame, and talk to them, Socrates? And what will

you say to them? What you say here about virtue and justice and institutions and laws being the best things among men? Would that be decent of you? Surely not. But if you go away from well-governed States to Crito's friends in Thessaly, where there is great disorder and license, they will be charmed to have the tale of your escape from prison, set orf" with ludicrous particulars of the manner in which you were wrapped in a goatskin or some other disguise, and metamorphosed as the fashion of runaways is that is very likely; but will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the most sacred laws from a miserable desire of a little more life ? Perhaps not, if you keep them in a good temper but if they are out of temper you will hear many degrading things; you will live, but how? as the flatterer of all men,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

CRITO and the servant of

all

men; and doing what?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;eating

and

drinking in Thessaly, having gone abroad in order that you may get a dinner. And where will be your fine sentiments about justice and virtue then? Say that you wish to live for the sake of your children, that you may bring them up and educate them will you take them into Thessaly and deprive

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

them of Athenian citizenship? Is that the benefit which you would confer upon them? Or are you under the impression that they will be better cared for and educated here if you are still alive, although absent from them; for that your friends will take care of them? Do you fancy that if you are an inhabitant of Thessaly they will take care of them, and if you are an inhabitant of the other world they will not take care of them? Nay; but if they who call themselves friends are truly friends, they surely will. " Listen, then, Socrates, to us

who have brought you up. and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you do as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil a victim, not of the laws, but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Think not of

life

;

Crito."

This

the voice which I seem to hear

ears, like the

sound of the

murmuring

flute in the ears of the

mystic;

is humming in my ears, and prevents me from hearing any other. And I know that anything more which you may say will be in vain. Yet speak, if you have

that voice, I say,

anything to say. Cr. I have nothing to say, Socrates. Soc.

Then

let

follow the intimations of the will of God.

INTRODUCTION TO PUJEDO an AFTER a town

interval of

some months or

years, at Phlius,

of Sicyon, the tale of the last hours of Soc-

rates is narrated to Echecrates and other Phliasians by Phaedo, the "beloved disciple." The dialogue necessarily takes the form of a narrative, because Socrates has to be

The minutest

particu-

lars of the event are interesting to distant friends,

and the

described acting as well as speaking.

narrator has an equal interest in them.

During the voyage of the sacred ship to and from Delos, which has occupied thirty days, the execution of Socrates has been deferred. (Cp. Xen. " Mem." iv. 8, 2.) The time has been passed by him in conversation with a select company of disciples. But now the holy season is over, and the disciples meet earlier than usual in order that they may converse with Socrates for the last time. Those who were present, and those who might have been expected to be present, are specially mentioned. There are Simmias and Cebes (" Crito," 45 b), two disciples of Philolaus whom Socrates "by his enchantments has attracted from Thebes " (" Mem." iii. 11, 17), Crito, the aged friend, the attendant of the prison, who is as good as a friend these take part in the conversation. There are present also, Hermogenes, from whom Xenophon derived

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

his information about the trial of Socrates ("

the

less

known members

madman

Mem."

iv. 8,

;

Apollodorus Euclid and Terpsion from Megara; Ctesippus, Antisthenes Menexenus, and some other silent auditors.

;

of the Socratic circle, all of whom are Aristippus and Plato are noted as absent.

Soon the wife and children of Socrates are

sent away, under he himself has just been released from chains, and is led by this circumstance to make the natural remark that " pleasure follows pain." (Observe that Plato is preparing the way for his doctrine of the alternation of op-

the direction of Crito

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

" ^sop would have represented them in a fable as a two-headed creature of the gods." The mention of Msop reminds Cebes of a question which had been asked by Evenus

posites.)

the poet (cp. Apol. 20 a)

Why

Socrates,

who was

not a "

poet, while in prison had been putting Msop into verse ? " Because several times in his life he had been warned in

dreams that he should make music; and as he was about to die and was not certain what was the meaning of this, he wished to fulfil the admonition in the letter as well as in the spirit, by writing verses as well as by cultivating philosophy. " He is Tell Evenus this and bid him follow me in death." not the sort of man to do that, Socrates." " Why, is he not a philosopher? " " Yes." " Then he will be willing to die, although he will not take his own life, for that is held not to be right."

why men

say that suicide is not right, if death is Well ( 1 ) according to one explanation, because man is a prisoner, and is not allowed to open the door of his prison and run away this is the truth in a " mystery." Or rather, perhaps, (2) because man is not his own

Cebes asks

to be accounted a

good ?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

property, but a possession of the gods, and he has that which does not belong to him.

make away with asks Cebes,

no right to But why,

a possession of the gods, will he wish to die

is under their protection; and surely he cannot take better care of himself than they take of him. Simmias explains that Cebes is really referring to Socrates, whom they think too unmoved at the prospect of leaving the gods and his friends. Socrates answers that he is going to other gods who are wise and good, and perhaps to better friends and he professes that he is ready to defend himself against the charge of Cebes. They shall be his judges, and he hopes that he will be more successful in convincing them than he had been in convincing the court. The philosopher desires death which the wicked world will insinuate that he also deserves and perhaps he does, but not in any sense which they are capable of understanding. Enough of them the real question is, What is the nature of that death which he desires? Death is the separation of soul and body and the philosopher desires such a separation. He would like to be freed from the dominion of bodily pleasures and of the senses, which are always perturbing his mental vision. He

and leave them? for he

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; INTRODUCTION TO PEUEDO

wants to get rid of eyes and ears, and with the light of the mind only to behold the light of truth. All the evils and imAnd purities and necessities of men come from the body. death separates him from these evils, which in this life he cannot wholly cast aside. Why then should he repine when the hour of separation arrives? Why, if he is dead while he lives, should he fear that other death, through which alone he

can behold wisdom

her purity ?

Besides, the philosopher has notions of

good and

evil unlike

those of other men. For they are courageous because they are afraid of greater dangers, and temperate because they But he disdains this balancing of desire greater pleasures.

he knows no virtue but that which is the companion of wisdom. All the virtues, including wisdom, are regarded by him only as purifications of the soul. And this was the meaning of the founders of the mysteries when they said, " Many are the wand-bearers, but few are the mystics." (Cp. Matt. xxii. 14: " Many are called, but few are chosen.") And in the hope that he is one of these mystics, Socrates is now departing. This is his answer to those who charge him with indifference at the prospect of leaving the gods and his

pleasures and pains

;

friends.

a fear is expressed that the soul, upon leaving the body, vanish away like smoke or air. Socrates, in answer, ap-

Still,

may

first of all to the old Orphic tradition that the souls of the dead are in the world below, and that the living come from them. This he attempts to found on a philosophical assump-

peals

tion that all opposites sleeping,

Nor can

waking

;

life,

e.g.

death

less,

greater; weaker, stronger;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;are generated out of each

other.

be only a passage from living to dying, for then all would end in death. The perpetual sleeper (Endymion) would be no longer distinguished, for The circle of nature is not all the world would sink in rest. complete unless the living come from the dead as well as pass to them. The favorite Platonic doctrine of reminiscence is then adduced as a confirmation of the pre-existence of the soul. Some proofs of this doctrine are demanded. One proof given is derived from the latent knowledge of mathematics, which may be elicited from an unlearned person when a diagram is presented to him. Again, there is a power of association, which this process of generation

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

from seeing Simmias may remember Cebes, or from seeing a picture of Simmias may remember Simmias. The lyre may recall the player of the lyre, and equal pieces of wood or stone may be associated with the higher notion of absolute equality. But here observe that material equalities fall short of the conception of absolute equality with which they are compared, and which is the measure of them. And the measure or standard must be prior to that which is measured, the idea of equality prior to the visible equals.

And

also to the perceptions of the senses

prior to them, then prior

which

recall

them, and

therefore either given before birth or at birth. But all men have not this knowledge, nor have any without a process of

reminiscence

and

a proof that it is not innate or given was given and taken away at the same instant, which is absurd). But if not given to men in birth, it must have been given before birth this is the only alternative which remains. And if we had ideas in a former state, then our souls must have existed and must have had intelligence in a former state. The pre-existence of the soul stands or falls with the doctrine of ideas. It is objected by Simmias and Cebes that these arguments only prove a former and not a future existence. Socrates answers this objection by recalling the previous argument, in which he had shown that the living had come from the dead. But the fear that the soul at departing may vanish into air (especially if there is a wind blowing at the time) has not yet been charmed away. He proceeds: When we fear that the soul will vanish away, let us ask ourselves what is that we suppose to be liable to dissolution ? Is it the simple or the compound, the unchanging or the changing, the invisible idea or the visible object of sense? Clearly the latter and not the former; and therefore not the soul, which in her own pure thought is unchangeable, and only when using the senses descends into the region of change. Again, the soul commands, the body serves: in this respect, too, the soul is akin to the divine, and the body to the mortal. And in every point of view the soul is the image of divinity and immortality, and the body of the human and mortal. And whereas the body is liable to speedy dissolution, the soul is almost if not quite indissoluble. Yet even the body may be preserved for ages by the embalmer's art; how much more the soul returning into ;

this is

at birth (unless indeed

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

INTRODUCTION TO PHiEDO

She has been good and wise God long, and is now finally released from the errors and follies and passions of men, and forever dwells in the company of the gods. But the soul which is polluted and engrossed by the corporeal, and has no eye except that of the senses, and is weighed down by the bodily appetites, cannot attain to this abstraction. In her fear of the world below she lingers about her sepulchre, a ghostly apparition, saturated with sense, and therefore visible. At length she enters into the body of some animal of a herself

on her way

practising death

all

to the

her

life

nature congenial to her former life of sensuality or violence, and becomes an ass or a wolf or a kite. And of these earthy souls the happiest are those who have practised virtue without philosophy they are allowed to pass into gentle and civil natBut only the philosopher who ures, such as bees and ants. ;

departs pure

This

permitted to enter the company of the gods. why he abstains from fleshly lusts, and not

the reason

from the fear of loss or disgrace, which are the motives of He, too, has been a captive, and the willing agent of his own captivity. But Philosophy has spoken to him, and he has heard her voice; she has gently entreated him, and brought his soul out of the " miry clay," and purged away the mists of passion and the illusions of sense which envelop her, and taught her to resist the influence of pleasures and pains, which are like nails fastening her to the body. To that prisonhouse she will not return; and therefore she abstains from bodily pleasures not from a desire of having more or greater ones, which is the exchange of commerce and not of virtue, but because she knows that only in the calm of pleasures and other men.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

passions she will behold the light of truth.

Simmias and Cebes remain

doubt

to raise objections at such a time.

;

but they are unwilling

Socrates wonders at

this.

Let them regard him rather as the swan, who, having sung the praises of Apollo all his life long, sings at his death more lustily than ever. (Cp. 60 d.) Simmias acknowledges that there is cowardice in not probing truth to the bottom. " And if truth divine and inspired is not to be had, then let a man take the best of human notions, and upon this frail bark let him sail through life." He proceeds to state his difficulty: It has been argued that the soul is invisible and incorporeal, and therefore immortal, and prior to the body. But is not the

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

and has she not the same body as the harmony which, like her, is in-

soul acknowledged to be a harmony, relation to the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;has

visible

to the lyre?

And

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

yet the

harmony does not

sur-

Cebes has also an objection, which like Simmias he expresses in a figure. He is willing to admit that the But the more lasting soul is more lasting than the body. nature of the soul does not prove her immortality; for after having worn out many bodies in a single life, and many more

vive the lyre.

in successive births

and deaths, she may

at last perish, or, as

Socrates afterwards restates the objection, the very act of birth may be the beginning of her death, and the last body

may

survive the last soul, just as the coat of an old weaver

behind him after he is dead, although a man is more lasting than his coat. And he who would prove the immortality of the soul must prove not only that the soul outlives one or many bodies, but that she outlives them all. The audience, like the chorus in a play, for a moment interpret the feelings of the actors there is a temporary depresIt is a melancholy resion, and then the inquiry is resumed. flection that arguments, like men, are apt to be deceivers and those who have been often deceived become distrustful both But this unfortunate experiof arguments and of friends. ence should not make us either haters of men or haters of arguments. The hatred of arguments is equally mistaken, whether we are going to live or die. At the approach of death Socrates desires to be impartial, and yet he cannot help feeling that he has too great an interest in the truth of his own argument. And therefore he wishes his friends to examine and refute him, if they think that he is not speaking the truth. Socrates requests Simmias and Cebes to state their objections again. They do not go to the length of denying the pre-existence of ideas. Simmias is of opinion that the soul But the admission of the pre-exis a harmony of the body. istence of ideas, and therefore of the soul, is at variance with For a harmony is an effect, whereas the soul is not an this. effect, but a cause a harmony follows, but the soul leads a harmony admits of degrees, and the soul has no degrees. Again, upon the supposition that the soul is a harmony, why Are they more or less haris one soul better than another? monized, or is there one harmony within another? But the soul does not admit of degrees, and cannot therefore be more left

;

INTRODUCTION TO PHiEDO or less harmonized.

Further, the soul

sisting the affections of the body, as seus " rebuking his heart." Could he

often engaged in re-

Homer

describes

Odys-

have written this under Nay rather, the idea that the soul is a harmony of the body ? are we not contradicting Homer and ourselves in affirming anything of the sort? The goddess Harmonia, as Socrates playfully terms the argument of Simmias, has been happily disposed of; and now an answer has to be given to the Theban Cadmus. Socrates recapitulates the argument of Cebes, which, as he remarks, involves the whole question of natural growth or causation; about this he proposes to narrate his own mental experience. When he was young he had puzzled himself with physics he had inquired into the growth and decay of animals, and the origin of thought, until at last he began to doubt the self-evident fact that growth is the result of eating and drinking, and thus he arrived at the conclusion that he was not meant for such inquiries. Nor was he less perplexed with notions of comparison and number. At first he had imagined himself to understand differences of greater and less, and to know that ten is two more than eight, and the like. But now those very notions appeared to him to contain a contradiction. For how can one be divided into two? or two be compounded into one? These are difficulties which Socrates cannot answer. Of generation and destruction he knows nothing. But he has a confused notion of another method in which matters of this sort are to be investigated. Then he heard some one reading out of a book of Anaxagoras, that mind is the cause of all things. And he said to him;

mind

mind must dispose show me this man and nature. How great had been his hopes and how great his disappointment! For he found that his new friend was anything but consistent in his use of mind as a cause, and that he soon introduced winds, waters, and other eccentric notions. It was as if a person had said that Socrates is sitting here because he is made up of bones self

them

the cause of

for the best. " order of the best " in all

all

The new

things,

teacher will

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and muscles, instead of telling the true reason that he is here because the Athenians have thought good to sentence him to death, and he has thought good to await his sentence. Had his bones and muscles been left by him to their own ideas of

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

62 right, they

surely there

would long ago have taken themselves off. But is a great confusion of the cause and condition in

And

all this.

this confusion also leads* people into all sorts

of erroneous theories about the position and motions of the None of them know how much stronger than any Atlas earth. But this " best " is still undiscovered of the best. power is the

and

in inquiring after the cause,

we can

only hope to attain the

second best.

Now

a danger in the contemplation of the nature of is a danger in looking at the sun during an eclipse, unless the precaution is taken of looking only at the image reflected in the water, or in a glass. And I was afraid, there

things, as there

I I might injure the eye of the soul. had better return to the old and safe method of Though I do not mean to say that he who contemplates ideas. existence through the medium of ideas sees only through a glass darkly, any more than he who contemplates actual effects.

says Socrates, that

thought that

If the existence of ideas is granted to him, Socrates is of opinion that he will then have no difficulty in proving the immortally of the soul. He will only ask for a further admisis the cause of the beautiful, greatness the cause of the great, smallness of the small, and so on of other Thus he avoids the contradictions of greater and less things.

sion: that beauty

(greater by reason of that which

and the other

subtraction, tleties

smaller!), of addition and

difficulties

of relation.

for leaving to wiser heads than his

to test ideas

their consequences, and,

These sub-

own he ;

prefers

asked to give an

account of them, goes back to some higher idea or hypothesis which appears to him to be the best, until at last he arrives at a resting-place. The doctrine of ideas, which has long ago received the assent of the Socratic circle, is now affirmed by the Phliasian

command the assent of any men of sense. The narcontinued Socrates is desirous of explaining how op* posite ideas may appear to coexist but not really coexist in the same thing or person. For example, Simmias may be said to have greatness and also smallness, because he is greater than Socrates and less than Phaedo. And yet Simmias is not really great and also small, but only when compared to Phaedo and

auditor to rative

Socrates. to

;

use the illustration, says Socrates, because

show you not only

want

that ideal opposites exclude one an*

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ;

INTRODUCTION TO PH^EDO other, but also the opposites in us.

for example, having

the attribute of smallness remain small, and cannot

great:

the smallness in

become

drives out greatness.

One

of the company here remarked that this was inconwith the old assertion that opposites generated opposites. But that, replies Socrates, was affirmed, not of opposite ideas either in us or in nature, but of opposite things not of life and death, but of individuals living and dying. When this objection has been removed, Socrates proceeds: This doctrine of the mutual exclusion of opposites is not only true of the opposites themselves, but of things which are inseparable from them. For example, cold and heat are opposed and fire, which is inseparable from heat, cannot coexist with cold, or snow, which is inseparable from cold, with heat. Again, the number three excludes the number four, because three is an odd number and four is an even number, and sistent

the odd is opposed to the even. Thus we are able to proceed a step beyond " the safe and simple answer." We may say, not only that the odd excludes the even, but that the number three, which participates in oddness, excludes the even. And in like manner, not only does life exclude death, but the soul, of which life is the inseparable attribute, also excludes

And that of which life is the inseparable attribute by the force of the terms imperishable. If the odd principle were imperishable, then the number three would not perish, but remove on the approach of the even principle. But the immortal is imperishable; and therefore the soul on the approach of death does not perish but removes. Thus all objections appear to be finally silenced. And now death. is

the application has to be

made

If the soul

immortal, "

What

manner of persons ought we to be ? " having regard not only to time but to eternity. For death is not the end of all, and the wicked is not released from his evil by death but everyone carries with him into the world below that which he is and that which he becomes, and that only. For after death the soul is carried away to judgment, and ;

when she has received her punishment returns to earth in the course of ages. The wise soul is conscious of her situation, and follows the attendant angel who guides her through the windings of the world below; but the impure soul wanders hither and thither without a guide, and is carried at last to her

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

u In pure soul is also carried away to hers. describe to order that you may understand this, I must first earth." you the nature and conformation of the Now the whole earth is a globe placed in the centre of the heavens, and is maintained there by the perfection of balance. That which we call the earth is only a small hollow, of which

own

place, as the

but the true earth is above, and is a finer and is full of precious stones and bright colors, of which the stones and colors in our earth are but fragments and reflections, and the earth itself is corroded and crusted there are

many

subtler element,

;

and

over just as the shore is by the sea. And if, like birds, we could fly to the surface of the air, in the same manner that fishes come to the top of the sea, then we should behold the This true earth and the true heaven and the true stars. heavenly earth is of divers colors, sparkling with jewels brighter than gold and whiter than any snow, having flowers

and

fruits innumerable.

the shore of the sea of

And

air,

the inhabitants dwell, some on others in " islets of the blest," and

they hold converse with the gods, and behold the sun, moon, stars as they truly are, and their other blessedness is of a

and

piece with this.

But the interior of the earth has other and deeper hollows, and one huge chasm or opening called Tartarus, into which vast streams of water and fire are ever flowing to and fro, of which small portions find their way to the surface and form There is a perpetual inhalation seas and rivers and volcanoes. and exhalation of the air rising and falling as the waters pass into the depths of the earth and return again, in their course, forming lakes and rivers, but never descending below the centre of the earth, the opposite side of which is a precipice to the These rivers are many and mighty, and rivers on both sides. there are four principal ones, Oceanus, Acheron, Pyriphlegethon, and Cocytus. Oceanus is the river which encircles the earth Acheron takes an opposite direction, and after flowing under the earth and in desert places at last reaches the Acherusian Lake, and this is the river at which the dead await their Pyriphlegethon is a stream of fire, which return to earth. coils around the earth and flows into the depths of Tartarus. The fourth river (Cocytus) is that which is called by the poets the Stygian River, and falls into, and forms the Lake Styx, receiving strange powers in the waters. This river, too, falls ;

into Tartarus.

INTRODUCTION TO PH^EDO

The dead are first of all judged according to their deeds, and those who are incurable are thrust into Tartarus, from which they never come out. Those who have only committed venial sins are first purified of them, and then rewarded for Those who have committed the good which they have done. crimes, great indeed, but not unpardonable, are thrust into

Tartarus, but are cast forth at the end of the year on the shores of the rivers, where they stand crying to their victims to let them come out, and if they prevail, then they are let out

and

their sufferings cease

;

not, they are

whirl along the rivers of Tartarus.

borne in a ceaseless

The pure

souls also re-

abode in the upper earth, and a select few in still fairer " mansions." Socrates is not prepared to insist on the literal accuracy of this description, but he is confident that something of the kind is true. He who has sought after the pleasures of knowledge and rejected the pleasures of the body has reason to be of good hope at the approach of death, whose voice is already heard calling to him, and will be heard calling by all men. The hour has come at which he must drink the poison, and not much remains to be done. How shall they bury him? That is a question which he refuses to entertain, for they are not burying him, but his dead body. His friends had once been sureties that he would remain, and they shall now be sureties that he has run away. Yet he would not die without the customary ceremonies of washing and burial. Shall he make a libation of the poison ? In the spirit he will, but not in the letter. One request he utters in the very act of death, which has been a puzzle to after-ages. The puzzle has been occasioned by the simplicity of his words, for there is no reason to suppose that they have any hidden meaning. With a sort of irony he remembers that a trifling religious duty is still unfulfilled, just as above (60 e) he is represented as desirous before he departs to make a few verses in order to satisfy a scruple about the meaning of a dream. 1. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul has such a ceive their reward,

and have

their

great interest for all mankind that they are apt to rebel against any examination of the nature of their belief. They do not like to acknowledge that this, as well as the other "eternal ideas " of man, has a history in time, which may be traced in Greek poetry or philosophy, and also in the Hebrew scriptures. 5

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

â&#x20AC;˘

They convert

feeling into reasoning,

dialectics over that which

and throw a network of

really a deeply rooted instinct.

In the same temper which Socrates reproves in himself (91 b) they are disposed to think that even bad arguments will do no harm, for they will die with them, and while they live they will gain by the delusion. But there is a better and higher spirit " Phsedo," as well as from the other to be gathered from the writings of Plato, which says that first principles should be most constantly reviewed (" Phsed." 107 b), and that the high-

demand of us the greatest Modern philosophy is perplexed

est subjects 2.

accuracy.

whole question,

at this

given up and handed over to the realm of faith. The perplexity should not be forgotten by us when we attempt to submit the " Phaedo " of Plato to the requirements of logic. For what idea can we form of the soul when separated from the body? Or how can the soul be united with the body and still be independent? Is the soul

which

sometimes

related to the

fairly

body as the

ideal to the real, or as the

whole to

the parts, or as the subject to the object, or as the cause to the effect,

or as the end to the means?

totle, that

living

the soul

Shall

say with Aris-

the entelechy or form of an organized

body ? or with Plato, that she has a

life

of her

own ?

the Pythagorean image of the harmony, or of the monad, the truer expression?

the eye, or as the

Is the soul related to the

boatman

And

to his boat?

body as sight in

another state

of being

is the soul to be conceived of as vanishing into infinity, hardly possessing an existence which she can call her own,

as in the pantheistic system of Spinoza individual spirit informed with another

and others? or as an body and retaining the

impress of her former character? (Cp. " Gorgias," 524 B.C.) Or is the opposition of soul and body a mere illusion, and the true self neither soul nor body, but the union of the two in the " I " which is above them ? And is death the assertion of this individuality in the higher nature, and the falling away into nothingness of the lower? Or are we vainly attempting to pass the boundaries of human thought? The body and the

soul

seem to be inseparable, not only in fact, but in our conthem and any philosophy which too closely unites

ceptions of

;

them, or too widely separates them, either in this life or in another, disturbs the balance of human nature. Neither Plato nor any other philosopher has perfectly adjusted them, or been

INTRODUCTION TO PHvEDO

perfectly consistent with himself in describing their relation to

one another. 3. Again, believing in the immortality of the soul, we must still ask the question of Socrates, " What is that which we suppose to be immortal ? " Is it the personal and individual ele-

ment in us, or the spiritual and universal ? Is it the principle of knowledge or of goodness, or the union of the two? Is it the mere force of life which is determined to be, or the consciousness of self which cannot be got rid of, or the fire of genius which refuses to be extinguished? Or is there a hidden being which is allied to the Author of all existence, who is because he is perfect, and to whom our ideas of perfection give us a title to belong? Whatever answer is given by us to these questions, there

still

the permanence of evil, in order that the

wicked "

For the annihilation of

remains the necessity of allowing not forever, at any rate for a time,

may

not have too good a bargain." or the eternal duration of

evil at death,

seems to involve equal difficulties in the moral order of the Sometimes we are led by our feelings, rather than by our reason, to think of the good and wise only as existing in another life. Why should the mean, the weak, the idiot, the infant, the herd of men who have never in any proper sense the use of reason, reappear with blinking eyes in the light of another world? But our second thought is that the hope of humanity is a common one, and that all or none have a right Reason does not allow us to suppose that we to immortality. have any greater claims than others, and experience sometimes reveals to us unexpected flashes of the higher nature in Such are some of the distractthose whom we had despised. ing thoughts which press upon us when we attempt to assign any form to our conceptions of a future state. 4. Again, ideas must be given through something; and we are always prone to argue about the soul from analogies of outward things which may serve to embody our thoughts, but For we cannot reason from the natare also partly delusive. The ural to the spiritual, or from the outward to the inward.

it,

universe.

progress of physiological science, without bringing us nearer to the great secret, has perhaps tended to remove some erroneous notions respecting the relations of body and mind, and in But no one imthis we have the advantage of the ancients. agines that any seed of immortality

to be discerned in our

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

those who have mortal frames. The result seems to be that soul have been the of immortality the on thought most deeply the more enof agreement the on belief their content to rest connection inseparable the on and mankind, of part lightened our ideas of and God, of a existence the with doctrine such a of the impossibility of divine justiceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;also in a less degree on in this world. reverence we thinking otherwise of those whom the arguanalogy, the figure, And after all has been said, the forms to different in approximations ment, are felt to be only heart. human the of sentiment common the the expression of " Phsedo " of Plato may also be regarded as a dialecThe 5. tical

Beginning

approximation to the truth of immortality.

in mystery, Socrates, in the intermediate part of the dialogue,

attempts to bring the doctrine of a future life into connection with his theory of knowledge. In proportion as he succeeds in this, the individual seems to disappear in a more general no" under the form tion of the soul the contemplation of ideas ;

of eternity " takes the place of past and future states of exHis language may be compared to that of some modistence.

ern philosophers, who speak of eternity, not in the sense of perpetual duration of time, but as an ever-present quality of Yet at the conclusion of the dialogue, having " arthe soul. rived at the end of the intellectual world," he replaces the veil of mythology, and describes the soul and her attendant genius in the

language of the mysteries or of a disciple of Zoroaster.

Nor can we fairly demand of Plato a consistency which is wanting among ourselves, who acknowledge that another world is beyond the range of human thought, and yet are always seeking to represent the mansions of heaven or hell in the colors of the painter, or in the descriptions of the poet or rhetorician. 6.

The

doctrine of the immortality of the soul

was not new

to the Greeks in the

age of Socrates, but, like the unity of God, had a foundation in the popular belief. The old Homeric notion of a gibbering ghost flitting away to Hades or of a few illustrious heroes enjoying the isles of the blest or of an existence divided between the two; or the Hesiodic, of righteous spirits, who become guardian angels had given place in the mysteries and the Orphic poets to representations, partly fanciful, of a future state of rewards and punishments. The reticence of the Greeks on public occasions and in some part of ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

INTRODUCTION TO PH^EDO

underground " religion is not measure of the diffusion of such beliefs. If Pericles in the funeral oration is silent on the consolations of immortality, the poet Pindar and the tragedians on the other hand constantly assume the continued existence of the dead Darius and Laius are still alive in an upper or under world. Antigone will be dear to her brethren after death ; the way to the palace of Cronos is found by those who " have thrice departed from evil." The tragedy of the Greeks is not " rounded " by this life, but is deeply set in decrees of fate and mysteIn the caricature rious workings of powers beneath the earth. of Aristophanes there is also a witness to the common sentiment. The Ionian and Pythagorean philosophies arose, and some new elements were added to the popular belief. The individual must find an expression as well as the world. Either the soul was supposed to exist in the form of a magnet or of a particle of fire, or light, or air, or water or of a number or of a harmony of number or to be or have, like the stars, a principle of motion. At length Anaxagoras, hardly distinguishing between life and mind, or between mind human and divine, attained the pure abstraction and this, like the other abstractions of Greek philosophy, sank deep into the human intelligence. The opposition of the intelligible and the sensible, and of God to the world, supplied an analogy which assisted in the If ideas were separable from separation of soul and body. phenomena, mind was also separable from matter if the ideas were eternal, the mind that conceived them was eternal, too. As the unity of God was more distinctly acknowledged, the conception of the human soul became more developed. The succession, or alternation of life and death, had occurred to Heracleitus. The Eleatic Parmenides had stumbled upon the modern thesis that " thought and being are the same." The

their literature respecting this "

to be taken as a

;

Eastern belief in transmigration defined the sense of individand some, like Empedocles, fancied that the blood which they had shed in another state of being was crying against them, and that for thirty thousand years they were to be " fugi-

uality

;

and vagabonds upon the earth." The desire of recognizing a lost love or friend in the world below (" Phsedo," 68) is a natural feeling which, in that age as well as in every other,

tives

has given distinctness to the hope of immortality. Nor were ethical considerations wanting, partly derived from the neces-

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

punishing the greater sort of criminals, whom no avenging power of this world could reach. The voice of conscience, too, was heard reminding the good man that he was not altogether innocent. To these indistinct longings and fears an sity of

expression was given in the mysteries and Orphic poets: a " heap of books," passing under the names of Musaeus and

Orpheus

in Plato's time,

were

rilled

with notions of an under-

world.

Yet probably the belief in the individuality of the soul had but a feeble hold on the Greek mind. Like the personality of God, the personality of man in a future state was not inseparably bound up with the reality of his existence. For the distinction between th^ personal and impersonal, and also between the divine and human, was far less marked to the Greek than to ourselves. And as Plato readily passes from the notion of the good to that of God, he also passes, almost imperceptibly to himself and his reader, from the future life of the individual soul to the eternal being of the absolute soul. There has been a clearer statement and a clearer denial of the belief in modern times than is found in early Greek philosophy, and hence the comparative silence on the whole subject which is often remarked in ancient writers, and particularly in Aristotle. For Plato and Aristotle are not further removed in 7.

after death

their teaching about the immortality of the soul than they are

knowledge. an age when logic was beginning to mould human thought Plato should have cast his belief in immortality into in their theory of 8.

That

a logical form,

much

not surprising.

the doctrine of ideas

wonder

was

And when we

how we cannot

consider

also one of words,

that he should have fallen into verbal fallacies: early always mistaking the truth of the form for the truth of the matter. It is easy to see that the alternation of opposites is not the same as the generation of them out of each other; and that the generation out of each other, which is the first argument in the " Phaedo," is at variance with their mutual exclusion of each other, whether in themselves or in us, which is the last. For even if we admit the distinction which he draws (103) between the opposites and the things which have the opposites, still individuals fall under the latter class; and we have to pass out of the region of human hopes and fears to a conception of an abstract soul which is the impersonation of the logic

;

INTRODUCTION TO PHiEDO

Such a conception, which in Plato himself is but half expressed, is unmeaning to us, and relative only to a particular ideas.

stage in the history

of,

thought.

The

doctrine of reminiscence

which has no place in the philosophy of modern times. But Plato had the wonders of psychology just opening to him, and he had not the explanation of them which is supplied by the analysis of language and

also a fragment of a former world,

the history of the

human mind.

The

question, "

Whence come

" he could only

answer by an imaginary our abstract ideas ? that his crowning argudifficult to see it is Nor hypothesis. ment is purely verbal, and is but the expression of an instinctive " The soul is immortal beconfidence put into a logical form :

cause it contains a principle of imperishableness." Nor does he himself seem at all to be aware that nothing is' added to human knowledge by his " safe and simple answer," that beauty is the cause of the beautiful; and that he is merely reasserting the Eleatic being " divided by the Pythagorean numbers," against the Heracleitean doctrine of perpetual generation. The answer to the " very serious questions " of generation and destruction is really the denial of them. For this he

would substitute a system of ideas, tested not by experience, but by their consequences, and not explained by actual causes, but by a higher, that is, more general, notion : consistency with themselves is all that is required of them. 9. To deal fairly with such arguments they should not only not be separated from the age to which they belong, ÂŁ>ut they should be translated as far as possible into their modern equiv" If the ideas of men are eternal, their souls are eternal, alents.

and

if not the ideas, then not the souls." Such an argument stands nearly in the same relation to Plato and his age as the argument from the existence of God to immortality among

ourselves.

and

there

" If is

God

exists,

then the soul exists after death is no existence of the soul after

no God, there

death." For the ideas are to his mind the reality, the truth, the principle of permanence, as well as of mind and order in the world. When Simmias and Cebes say that they are more

strongly persuaded of the existence of ideas than they are of the immortality of the soul, they represent fairly enough the order of thought in Greek philosophy. And we might say in

same way that we are more certain of the existence of God than we are of the immortality of the soul, and are led

the

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

by the

belief in the

would

as Socrates

one to a belief in the other.

The

parallel,

say, is not perfect, but agrees in as far as the

mind in either case is regarded as dependent on something above and beyond herself. Nor need we shrink from pressing " We are more certain of our the analogy one step further : are of the existence of God, we than right and ideas of truth and are led on in the order of thought from one to the other." " Phaedo " is derived from the 10. The main argument of the existence of eternal ideas of which the soul is a partaker; the other argument of the alternation of opposites is replaced by And there have not been wanting philosophers of the this. idealist school who have imagined that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul

a theory of knowledge only, and that preparing for this. Such a view

in all that precedes Plato is

" Phaedo," and seems is far from lying on the surface of the to be inconsistent with the " Gorgias " and the " Republic."

Those who maintain it are immediately compelled to renounce the shadow which they have grasped, as a play of words only. But the truth is that Plato in his argument for the immortality of the soul has collected

many

elements of proof or persuasion,

and mythological as well as dialectical, which are not easily to be reconciled with one another and he is as much in earnest about his doctrine of retribution, which is repeated in all his more ethical writings, as about his thory of knowledge. ethical

;

And

while

we may

fairly translate the dialectical into the lan-

guage of Hegel, and the religious and mythological into the language of Dante or Bunyan, the ethical speaks to us still in the same voice, reaching across the ages. ii. Two arguments of this sort occur in the " Phaedo." The first

may be

described as the aspiration of the soul after another

Like the Oriental or Christian ascetic, the phiseeking to withdraw from impurities of sense, to

sort of being.

losopher

leave the world

higher

and the things of the world, and to

find his

Plato recognizes in these aspirations the foretaste of immortality, as Butler and Addison in modern times have self.

argued, the one from the moral tendencies of mankind, the other from the progress of the soul towards perfection. In using this argument Plato has certainly confused the soul

which has left the body, with the soul of the good and wise. Such a confusion was natural, and arose partly out of the antithesis of soul and body. The soul in her own essence, and

INTRODUCTION TO PH^EDO

the soul " clothed

upon " with virtues and graces, were easilyinterchanged with one another, because on a subject which passes expression the distinctions of language can hardly be maintained.

The other

12.

ethical proof of the immortality of the soul

be too well off

their evil deeds

came

The wicked would

derived from the necessity of retribution.

an end.

It is

not to

be supposed that an Ardiaeus, an Archelaus, an Ismenias, could ever have suffered the penalty of their crimes in this world.

The manner

which

this retribution is

represents under the figure of mythology.

was

accomplished Plato Doubtless he felt

improve than to invent, and that in religion form was required in order to give verisimilitude to the myth. The myth, too, is far more probable to that age than to ours, and may fairly be regarded as " one guess among many " about the nature of the earth, which he cleverly supports by the indications of geology. Not that he insists on the absolute truth of his own particular notions " no man of sense will be confident of that but he will be conAs in fident that something of the kind is true" (114 d). other passages he wins belief for his fictions by the moderation of his statements he does not, like Dante or Swedenborg, allow himself to be deceived by his own creations. The dialogue must be read in the light of the situation. And Like first of all we are struck by the calmness of the scene. the spectators at the time, we cannot pity Socrates, his mien and his language are so noble and fearless. He is the same as he ever was, but milder and gentler, and he has in no degree lost his interest in dialectics the argument is the greatest gain to him, and he will not forego the delight of it in compliance with the jailer's intimation that he should not heat himself with talking. Some other traits of his character may be noted for example, the courteous manner in which he inclines his head that

easier to

especially the traditional

;

to the last objector, or the ironical touch, "

already, as the

would say, the voice of fate calls " or the depreciation of the arguments with which " he comforted himself and them " or the allusion to the possibility of finding another

tragic poet

;

teacher

among barbarous

races; or the mysterious reference

to another science (mathematics?) of generation

which he only now he

tion for

him

;

is is

vainly feeling.

There

and destrucno change in

invested with a sort of sacred character,

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

as the prophet or priest of Apollo the god of the festival, in whose honor he first of all composes a hymn, and then like the swan pours forth his dying lay. Perhaps the extreme eleva-

above his own situation, and the ordinary inhis jeu d' esprit about his burial) (compare terests of create in the mind of the reader an impression stronger than could be derived from arguments that such a one, in his own language, has in him "a principle which does not admit of tion of Socrates life

death."

other persons of the dialogue may be considered under two heads: (i) private friends; (2) the respondents in the

The

argument. First there

Crito,

who

has been already introduced to us

Euthydemus " and the " Crito " he is the equal in years of Socrates, and stands in quite a different relation to him from his younger disciples. He is a man of the world who is rich and prosperous (cp. the jest in the " Euthydemus " in the "

;

304 c), the best friend of Socrates, who wants to know his last commands, in whose presence he talks to his family, and who performs the last duty of closing his eyes. It is observable, too, that, as in the "

Euthydemus," Crito shows no aptitude for

philosophical discussions.

Nor among

the friends of Soc-

must the jailer be forgotten, who seems to have been introduced by Plato in order to show the impression made by the extraordinary man on the common. The gentle nature of the man is indicated by his weeping at the announcement of his errand and then turning away, and also by the words of " How charming the man is since Socrates to his disciples I have been in prison he has been always coming to me, and has been as good as could be to me." We are reminded, too, that he has retained this gentle nature amid scenes of death and violence by the contrasts which he draws between the behavior of Socrates and of others when about to die. Another person who takes no part in the philosophical discussion is the excitable Apollodorus, who testifies his grief by the most violent emotions. Phsedo is also present, the "berates

loved disciple " as he may be termed, who is described, if not " leaning on his bosom," as seated next to Socrates, who is playing with his hair. At a particular point the argument is described as falling before the attack of Simmias. despair is introduced in the minds of the company.

sort of

The

effect

INTRODUCTION TO PPLEDO

of this is heightened by the description of Phsedo, who has been the eye-witness of the scene, and by the sympathy of his Phliasian auditors, who are beginning to think " that they, too,

can never trust an argument again." Like Apollodorus, Phaedo himself takes no part in the argument. But the calmness of his behavior, " veiling his face " when he can no longer contain his tears, contrasts with the passionate cries of the other.

The two

Simmias and Cebes, the Pythagorean philosopher of Thebes. Simmias is described in the " Phaedrus " as fonder of an argument than any man living; and Cebes, although finally persuaded by Socrates, is said to be the most incredulous of human beings. It is Cebes who at the commencement of the dialogue raises the question why " suicide is unlawful," and principal interlocutors are

disciples of Philolaus" the

who

first

supplies the doctrine of recollection as a confirma-

tion of the

Cebes

argument of the pre-existence of the

soul.

It is

who

urges that the pre-existence does not necessarily involve the future existence of the soul, and who brings forward the argument of the weaver and his coat. To Simmias, on the other hand, is attributed the notion that the soul is a harnaturally put into the mouth of a Pythagorean Simmias, too, who first remarks on the uncertainty of human knowledge, and only at last concedes to the argument such a qualified approval as is consistent with the

mony, which disciple.

It is

feebleness of the

human

faculties.

There is no proof that the conversation was ever actually held, and the place of the dialogue in the series is doubtful. The doctrine of ideas is certainly carried beyond the Socratic point of view; in no other of the writings of Plato is the theory of them so completely developed. Whether the belief be attributed to Socrates or not is uncerthe silence of the " Memorabilia," and of the earlier dia-

in immortality can

tain

;

logues of Plato, is an argument to the contrary. Yet in the " Cyropaedia " Xenophon has put language into the mouth of the dying Cyrus which recalls the " Phaedo," and

may perhaps have been derived from the teaching of Socrates. Some elements of the drama may be noted in all the dialogues of Plato. The " Phaedo " is the tragedy of which Socrates is the protagonist and Simmias and Cebes the secondary performers. No dialogue has a greater unity of subject and

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

feeling. Plato has certainly fulfilled the condition of Greek, or rather of all, art, which requires that scenes of death and The gathering of the suffering should be clothed in beauty. friends at the commencement of the dialogue, the dejection of the audience at the temporary overthrow of the argument, the picture of Socrates playing with the hair of Phsedo, the final

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

which Socrates alone retains his composure are masThe chorus at the end might have interpreted " There can no evil happen to a good the feeling of the play scene, in

terpieces of art.

man

in life or death."

PH^DO PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE Ph^do, who

the narrator of

the dialogue

Echecrates

ApollodoruS

Simmias Cebes Crito

of Phlius

Socrates

Attendant of the Prison Scene: The Prison of Socrates Place of the Narration: Phlius

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Eehecrates.

WERE

you yourself, Phsedo, in the prison with Socrates on the day when he drank the poison ?

Phcedo. Yes, Eehecrates, I was. Ech. I wish that you would tell me about his death. What did he say in his last hours? We were informed that he died by taking poison, but no one knew anything more; for no Phliasian ever goes to Athens now, and a long time has elapsed since any Athenian found his way to Phlius, and therefore we

had no

clear account.

Phced. Did you not hear of the proceedings at the

trial ?

Ech. Yes; some one told us about the trial, and we could not understand why, having been condemned, he was put to death, as appeared, not at the time, but long afterwards. What

was the reason of Phced.

this ?

accident, Eehecrates.

The reason was

that the

stern of the ship which the Athenians send to Delos happened to have been

Ech.

crowned on the day before he was

What

tried.

this ship?

Phced. This is the ship in which, as the Athenians say, Theseus went to Crete when he took with him the fourteen youths, and was the saviour of them and of himself. And they were said to have vowed to Apollo at the time, that if they were saved they would make an annual pilgrimage to Delos. Now this custom still continues, and the whole period of the 77

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

voyage to and from Delos, beginning when the priest of Apollo crowns the stern of the ship, is a holy season, during which the city is not allowed to be polluted by public executions; and often, when the vessel is detained by adverse winds, there may be a very considerable delay. crowned on the day before the Socrates lay in prison and

As trial,

I was saying, the ship was and this was the reason why

was not put

to death until long after

he was condemned. Ech. What was the manner of his death, Phaedo? What was said or done ? And which of his friends had he with him ? Or were they not allowed by the authorities to be present?

And

did he die alone?

Phced.

;

there were several of his friends with him. I wish that you would

Ech. If you have nothing to do,

me what

tell

passed, as exactly as you can.

have nothing to do, and will try to gratify your to me, too, there is no greater pleasure than to have Socrates brought to my recollection, whether I speak myself or hear another speak of him. Ech. You will have listeners who are of the same mind with you, and I hope that you will be as exact as you can. Phced. I remember the strange feeling which came over me at Phced.

For

wish.

being with him. For I could hardly believe that I was present at the death of a friend, and therefore I did not pity him, Echecrates his mien and his language were so noble and fearI less in the hour of death that to me he appeared blessed. thought that in going to the other world he could not be without a divine call, and that he would be happy, if any man ever was, when he arrived there and therefore I did not pity him as might seem natural at such a time. But neither could I feel ;

;

the pleasure which I usually felt in philosophical discourse

was the theme of which we spoke). I was and I was also pained, because I knew that he was soon to die, and this strange mixture of feeling was shared by us all we were laughing and weeping by turns, especially the excitable Apollodorus you know the sort of man? (for philosophy

pleased,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Ech. Yes. Phced. He was quite overcome and I myself, and all of us were greatly moved. Ech. Who were present? Phced. Of native Athenians there were, besides Apollodorus, ;

PH^DO

and his father Crito, Hermogenes, Epigenes, ^Eschines, and Antisthenes; likewise Ctesippus of the deme of Paeania, Menexenus, and some others but Plato, if I am not mistaken, was ill. Ech. Were there any strangers? Phced. Yes, there were; Simmias the Theban, and Cebes, and Phsedondes Euclid and Terpison, who came from Megara. Ech. And was Aristippus there, and Cleombrotus? Phced. No, they were said to be in yÂŁgina. Critobulus

;

Ech. Anyone Phced.

Ech.

else

think that these were about

And what was

all.

the discourse of which you spoke ?

begin at the beginning, and endeavor to repeat You must understand that we had been previously in the habit of assembling early in the morning at the court in which the trial was held, and which is not far from the prison. There we remained talking with one another until the opening of the prison doors (for they were not opened very early), and then went in and generally passed the day with Socrates. On the last morning the meeting was earlier than usual this was owing to our having heard on the previous evening that the sacred ship had arrived from Delos, and therefore we agreed to meet very early at the accustomed place. On our going to the prison, the jailer who answered the door, instead of admitting us, came out and bade us wait and he would call us. " For the Eleven," he said, " are now with Socrates they are taking off his chains, and giving orders He soon returned and said that we that he is to die to-day." Phced.

I will

the entire conversation.

;

might come in. On entering we found Socrates just released from chains, and Xanthippe, whom you know, sitting by him, and holding his child in her arms. When she saw us she ut" O Socrates, this is the tered a cry and said, as women will last time that either you will converse with your friends, or " Crito, they with you." Socrates turned to Crito and said let some one take her home." Some of Crito's people accordingly led her away, crying out and beating herself. And when she was gone, Socrates, sitting up on the couch, began to bend and rub his leg, saying, as he rubbed " How singular is the thing called pleasure, and how curiously related to pain, which might be thought to be the opposite of it for they never come to a man together, and yet he who pursues either of them is :

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

generally compelled to take the other. They are two, and yet they grow together out of one head or stem and I cannot help thinking that if ^Esop had noticed them, he would have made ;

a fable about God trying to reconcile their strife, and when he could not, he fastened their heads together; and this is the reason why when one comes the other follows, as I find in my own case pleasure comes following after the pain in my leg,

which was caused by the chain." Upon this Cebes said I am very glad indeed, Socrates, that you mentioned the name of JEsop. For that reminds me of a question which has been asked by others, and was asked of me only the day before yesterday by Evenus the poet, and as he will be sure to ask again, you may as well tell me what I should say He wanted to him, if you would like him to have an answer. to know why you who never before wrote a line of poetry, now that you are in prison are putting ^Esop into verse, and also composing that hymn in honor of Apollo. Tell him, Cebes, he replied, that I had no idea of rivalling him or his poems which is the truth, for I knew that I could But I wanted to see whether I could purge away not do that. I felt about certain dreams. In the course of which scruple a my life I have often had intimations in dreams " that I should make music." The same dream came to me sometimes in one form, and sometimes in another, but always saying the same or nearly the same words Make and cultivate music, said And hitherto I had imagined that this was only the dream. intended to exhort and encourage me in the study of philosophy, which has always been the pursuit of my life, and is the noblest and best of music. The dream was bidding me do what I was already doing, in the same way that the competitor in a race is bidden by the spectators to run when he is already running. But I was not certain of this, as the dream might have meant music in the popular sense of the word, and being under sentence of death, and the festival giving me a respite, I thought that I should be safer if I satisfied the scruple, and, in obedience to the dream, composed a few verses before I departed. And first I made a hymn in honor of the god of the festival, and then considering that a poet, if he is really to be a poet or maker, should not only put words together but make stories, and as I have no invention, I took some fables of ^Esop, which I had ready at hand and knew, and turned them into :

;

PH^EDO

Tell Evenus this, and bid him be of good cheer; say would have him come after me if he be a wise man, and not tarry; and that to-day I am likely to be going, for the verse.

that I

Athenians say that

must.

Simmias said What a message for such a man having been a frequent companion of his I should say that, as far as I know him, he will never take your advice unless he is obliged. Why, said Socrates. Is not Evenus a philosopher ? !

think that he

is,

said Simmias.

Then he, or any man who has willing to die,

though he

will

the spirit of philosophy, will be

not take his

own

life,

for that

held not to be right.

Here he changed his position, and put his legs off the couch onto the ground, and during the rest of the conversation he remained sitting. Why do you say, inquired Cebes, that a man ought not to take his own life, but that the philosopher will be ready to follow the dying? Socrates replied: And have you, Cebes and Simmias, who are acquainted with Philolaus, never heard him speak of this ? I never understood him, Socrates. My words, too, are only an echo but I am very willing to say what I have heard and indeed, as I am going to another place, I ought to be thinking and talking of the nature of the pilgrimage which I am about to make. What can I do better in the interval between this and the setting of the sun ? Then tell me, Socrates, why is suicide held not to be right? as I have certainly heard Philolaus affirm when he was staying with us at Thebes: and there are others who say the same, although none of them has ever made me understand him. But do your best, replied Socrates, and the day may come when you will understand. I suppose that you wonder why, as most things which are evil may be accidentally good, this is to be the only exception (for may not death, too, be better than life in some cases ?), and why, when a man is better dead, he is not permitted to be his own benefactor, but must wait for the ;

hand

of another.

Jupiter

yes, indeed, said Cebes, laughing,

and speaking

in his native Doric. I

admit the appearance of inconsistency, replied Socrates, but may not be any real inconsistency after all in this. There

there

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

a doctrine uttered in secret that man is a prisoner who has right to open the door of his prison and run away this is a great mystery which I do not quite understand. Yet I, too, believe that the gods are our guardians, and that we are a pos-

;

Do you not agree agree to that, said Cebes.

session of theirs.

Yes,

And if one of your own possessions, an ox or an ass, for example, took the liberty of putting himself out of the way when you had given no intimation of your wish that he should die, would you not be angry with him, and would you not punish him if you could ? Certainly, replied Cebes. Then there may be reason in saying that a man should wait, and not take

his

own

life

until

God summons him,

as he

now

summoning me. Yes, Socrates, said Cebes, there is surely reason in that. And how can you reconcile this seemingly true belief that God is

yet

our guardian and we his possessions, with that willingness to die which we were attributing to the philosopher? That the wisest of men should be willing to leave this service in which they are ruled by the gods who are the best of rulers is not reasonable, for surely no wise man thinks that when set at liberty he can take better care of himself than the gods take of him. A fool may perhaps think this he may argue that he had better run away from his master, not considering that his duty is to remain to the end, and not to run away from the good, and that there is no sense in his running away. But the wise man will want to be ever with him who is better than himself.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Now for

this, Socrates, is

upon

this

the reverse of what

view the wise

rejoice at passing out of

The

man

was

just

now

said

should sorrow and the fool

life.

earnestness of Cebes seemed to please Socrates.

Here,

a man who is always inquiring, and is not to be convinced all in a moment, nor by every argument. And in this case, added Simmias, his objection does appear said he, turning to us,

me to have some force. For what can be the meaning of a man wanting to fly away and lightly leave a master who is better than himself? And I rather imagine that Cebes

truly wise

you he thinks that you are too ready to leave and too ready to leave the gods who, as you acknowledge, are our good rulers. is

referring to

us,

;

PH^DO

Yes, replied Socrates there is reason in that. And this indictment you think that I ought to answer as if I were in court ? That is what we should like, said Simmias. Then I must try to make a better impression upon you than For I am I did when defending myself before the judges. quite ready to acknowledge, Simmias and Cebes, that I ought to be grieved at death, if I were not persuaded that I am going to other gods who are wise and good (of this I am as certain as I can be of anything of the sort) and to men departed (though ;

not so certain of

this),

who

are better than those

whom

and therefore I do not grieve as I might have done, for I have good hope that there is yet something remaining for the dead, and, as has been said of old, some far better thing for the good than for the evil. But do you mean to take away your thoughts with you, Socrates? said Simmias. Will you not communicate them to us? the benefit is one in which we too may hope to share. Moreover, if you succeed in convincing us, that will be an anleave behind

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

swer to the charge against yourself. But you must first let I will do my best, replied Socrates. was going he to say something to Crito wants me hear what me. ;

Only

this,

who is to me that you are not to talk you know this for that by talk-

Socrates, replied Crito: the attendant

give you the poison has been telling

much, and he wants me to let and this

ing, heat is increased,

;

interferes with the action of the

poison those who excite themselves are sometimes obliged to drink the poison two or three times. Then, said Socrates, let him mind his business and be prepared to give the poison two or three times, if necessary that ;

;

is all.

was almost certain that you would say that, replied Crito I was obliged to satisfy him. Never mind him, he said. And now I will make answer to you, O my judges, and show I

but

that he

who

has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of

good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world. And how this may be, Simmias and Cebes, I will endeavor to explain. For I deem that the true disciple of philosophy is likely to be misunderstood by other men they do not perceive that he is ;

— DIALOGUES OF PLATO

ever pursuing death and dying and if this is true, why, having had the desire of death all his life long, should he repine at the arrival of that which he has been always pursuing and desiring? ;

Simmias laughed and said Though not in a laughing humor, swear that I cannot help laughing when I think what the wicked world will say when they hear this. They will say that this is very true, and our people at home will agree with them in saying that the life which philosophers desire is truly death, and that they have found them out to be deserving of the death which they desire. And they are right, Simmias, in saying this, with the exception of the words " They have found them out " for they have not found out what is the nature of this death which the true philosopher desires, or how he deserves or desires death. But let us leave them and have a word with ourselves Do we believe that there is such a thing as death ? To be sure, replied Simmias. And is this anything but the separation of soul and body ? And being dead is the attainment of this separation when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul that is death ? Exactly: that and nothing else, he replied. And what do you say of another question, my friend, about which I should like to have your opinion, and the answer to which will probably throw light on our present inquiry Do you think that the philosopher ought to care about the pleasures if they are to be called pleasures of eating and drinking ? Certainly not, answered Simmias. And what do you say of the pleasures of love should he care about them? By no means. And will he think much of the other ways of indulging the body for example, the acquisition of costly raiment, or sandals, or other adornments of the body? Instead of caring about them, does he not rather despise anything more than nature needs ? What do you say ? I should say that the true philosopher would despise them. Would you not say that he is entirely concerned with the soul and not with the body ? He would like, as far as he can, to be :

;

—

quit of the

That

body and turn

true.

to the soul.

ph;edo

In matters of this sort philosophers, above all other men, may be observed in every sort of way to dissever the soul from the body.

That is true. Whereas, Simmias, the rest of the world are of opinion that a life which has no bodily pleasures and no part in them is not worth having but that he who thinks nothing of bodily pleasures is almost as though he were dead. That is quite true. What again shall we say of the actual requirement of knowledge ? is the body, if invited to share in the inquiry, a hinderer or a helper ? I mean to say, have sight and hearing any truth in them? Are they not, as the poets are always telling us, inaccurate witnesses ? and yet, if even they are inaccurate and indistinct, what is to be said of the other senses ? for you will allow that they are the best of them ? ;

—

Certainly, he replied.

Then when does

—

the soul attain truth ?

consider anything in

company with

the

for in attempting to

body she

obviously

deceived.

Yes, that

true.

Then must not

existence be revealed to her in thought,

all?

Yes.

And thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure when she has as little as possible to do with the body, and has no bodily sense or feeling, but is aspiring after being? That is true.

—

And

in this the

away from That

the

philosopher dishonors the body his soul runs desires to be alone and by herself ? ;

body and

true.

Well, but there is another thing, Simmias not an absolute justice ?

Assuredly there

is.

And an absolute

beauty and absolute good

Is there or is there

Of course. But did you ever behold any

them with your eyes ?

Certainly not.

did

you ever reach them with any other bodily sense?

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everyHas the reality of them ever been perceived by you thing). bodily organs? or rather, is not the nearest apthe through

(and

health,

proach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of that which he considers ? Certainly.

he attains to the knowledge of them in their highest to each of them with the mind alone, not purity allowing when in the act of thought the intrusion or introduction of sight or any other sense in the company of reason, but with the very light of the mind in her clearness penetrates into the very light of truth in each he has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and of the whole body, which he conceives of only as a disturbing element, hindering the soul from the ac-

And

who goes

;

quisition of

the sort of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

knowledge when in company with her man who, if ever man did, is likely to

knowledge of existence ? There is admirable truth

And when make

they consider

in that, Socrates, replied all this,

not this

attain the

Simmias.

must not true philosophers

a reflection, of which they will speak to one another in

such words as these

have found, they

will say,

a path of

speculation which seems to bring us and the argument to the conclusion that while we are in the body, and while the soul is mingled with this mass of evil, our desire will not be satisfied,

and our desire less trouble to

and also

of the truth. For the body is a source of endus by reason of the mere requirement of foocf;

is liable

to diseases

which overtake and impede us in full of loves, and and idols, and every sort of folly,

the search after truth: and by filling us so lusts,

and

fears,

and

fancies,

prevents our ever having, as people say, so

much

as a thought.

For whence come wars, and fightings, and factions? whence but from the body and the lusts of the body? For wars are occasioned by the love of money, and money has to be acquired for the sake and in the service of the body and in consequence of all these things the time which ought to be given to philosophy is lost. Moreover, if there is time and an inclination toward philosophy, yet the body introduces a turmoil and confusion and fear into the course of speculation, and hinders us from seeing the truth and all experience shows that if we would ;

;

PPLEDO

have pure knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body, and the soul in herself must behold all things in themselves then I suppose that we shall attain that which we desire, and of which we say that we are lovers, and that is wisdom not while we live, but after death, as the argument shows for if while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be in herself alone and without the body. In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible concern or interest in the body, and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but remain pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

And when the foolishness of the body will be away and we shall be pure and hold converse with other

release us.

cleared

pure souls, and know of ourselves the clear light everywhere and this is surely the light of truth. For no impure thing is allowed to approach the pure. These are the sort of words, Simmias, which the true lovers of wisdom cannot help saying to one another, and thinking. You will agree with me in that ? Certainly, Socrates.

But if this is true, O my friend, then there is great hope that, going whither I go, I shall there be satisfied with that which has been the chief concern of you and me in our past lives. And now that the hour of departure is appointed to me, this is the hope with which I depart, and not I only, but every man who believes that he has his mind purified. Certainly, replied Simmias. And what is purification but the separation of the soul from the body, as I was saying before the habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself, out of all the courses of the ;

body the dwelling ;

so also in

the chains of the

Very

in her

this, as far as

true,

And what

own

place alone, as in another

she can

;

life,

the release of the soul from

body ? said.

is that which is termed death, but this very separaand release of the soul from the body ? To be sure, he said. And the true philosophers, and they only, study and are eager to release the soul. Is not the separation and release of the soul from the body their especial study ?

tion

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

That

is true.

saying at first, there would be a ridiculous constudying to live as nearly as they can in a repining when death comes. yet and death, state of

And as I was

tradiction in

men

Certainly.

Then, Simmias, as the true philosophers are ever studying Look at death, to them, of all men, death is the least terrible. the matter in this way how inconsistent of them to have been always enemies of the body, and wanting to have the soul alone, and when this is granted to them, to be trembling and repining :

instead of rejoicing at their departing to that place where,

when they

arrive, they hope to gain that which in life they loved (and this was wisdom), and at the same time to be rid of Many a man has been willing to the company of their enemy.

go to the world below in the hope of seeing there an earthly and conversing with them. And will he who is a true lover of wisdom, and is persuaded in like manner that only in the world below he can worthily enjoy her, still relove, or wife, or son,

Will he not depart with joy? Surely he will, he be a true philosopher. For he will have a firm conviction that there only, and nowhere else, he can find wisdom in her purity. And if this be true, he would be very absurd, as I was saying, if he were to fear death. He would, indeed, replied Simmias. And when you see a man who is repining at the approach of death, is not his reluctance a sufficient proof that he is not a lover of wisdom, but a lover of the body, and probably at the same time a lover of either money or power, or both ? That is very true, he replied. There is a virtue, Simmias, which is named courage. Is not pine at death?

friend,

that a special attribute of the philosophy. Certainly.

Again, there is temperance. Is not the calm, and control, and disdain of the passions which even the many call temperance, a quality belonging only to those who despise the body and live in philosophy ? That is not to be denied. For the courage and temperance of other men, if you will consider them, are really a contradiction.

How is that,

Socrates ? Well, he said, you are aware that death in general as a great evil.

regarded by

men

PH^DO That

And do

he said. not courageous

true,

men endure

death because they are

afraid of yet greater evils?

That

Then

true.

but the philosophers are courageous only from and because they are afraid; and yet that a man should be courageous from fear, and because he is a coward, is surely a all

fear,

strange thing.

Very

And

true.

are not the temperate exactly in the

are temperate because they are intemperate

same case ?

They

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;which may seem

is nevertheless the sort of thing which happens with this foolish temperance. For there are pleasures which they must have, and are afraid of losing and therefore they abstain from one class of pleasures because they are overcome by another and whereas intemperance is defined as "being under the dominion of pleasure," they overcome only because they are overcome by pleasure. And that is what I mean by saying that they are temperate through intemperance. That appears to be true. Yet the exchange of one fear or pleasure or pain for another fear or pleasure or pain, which are measured like coins, the greater with the less, is not the exchange of virtue. O my dear Simmias, is there not one true coin for which all things ought and that is wisdom and only in exchange for to exchange ? this, and in company with this, is anything truly bought or sold, whether courage or temperance or justice. And is not all true virtue the companion of wisdom, no matter what fears or pleasures or other similar goods or evils may or may not attend her ? But the virtue which is made up of these goods, when they are severed from wisdom and exchanged with one another, is a shadow of virtue only, nor is there any freedom or health or truth in her but in the true exchange there is a purging away of all these things, and temperance, and justice, and courage, and wisdom herself are a purgation of them. And I conceive that the founders of the mysteries had a real meaning and were not mere triflers when they intimated in a figure long ago that he who passed unsanctified and uninitiated into the world below will live in a slough, but that he who arrives there after initiaFor " many," tion and purification will dwell with the gods. " are the thyrsus bearers, but few as they say in the mysteries,

to be a contradiction, but

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

are the mystics,"

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;meaning, as

In the

philosophers.

number

I interpret

the words, the true

whom

have been seeking,

a place during my whole life according to whether I have sought in a right way or not, and whether I have succeeded or not, I shall truly know in a little while, if God will, when I myself arrive in the other world that is my And now, Simmias and Cebes, I have answered those belief.

ability, to find

with not grieving or repining at parting from in this world and I am right in not repinmasters you and ing, for I believe that I shall find other masters and friends who But all men cannot receive are as good in the world below.

who charge me

;

and I shall be glad if my words have any more success with you than with the judges of Athenians. this,

Cebes answered: I agree, Socrates, in the greater part of what you say. But in what relates to the soul, men are apt to be incredulous; they fear that when she leaves the body her place may be nowhere, and that on the very day of death she may be destroyed and perish immediately on her release from the body, issuing forth like smoke or air and vanishing away For if she could only hold together and be into nothingness. herself after she was released from the evils of the body, there would be good reason to hope, Socrates, that what you say is But much persuasion and many arguments are required true. in order to prove that when the man is dead the soul yet exists, and has any force of intelligence. True, Cebes, said Socrates and shall I suggest that we talk

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

little

of the probabilities of these things ?

sure, said

Cebes, that I should greatly like to

know

your opinion about them. I reckon, said Socrates, that no one who heard me now, not even if he were one of my old enemies, the comic poets, could accuse me of idle talking about matters in which I have no conLet us, then, if you please, proceed with the inquiry. cern. Whether the souls of men after death are or are not in the world below, is a question which may be argued in this manner. The ancient doctrine of which I have been speaking affirms that they go from this into the other world, and return hither, and are born from the dead. Now if this be true, and the living come from the dead, then onr souls must be in the other world, And this would be for if not, how could they be born again ? conclusive, if there were any real evidence that the living are

PH^EDO

only born from the dead but if there is no evidence of this, then other arguments will have to be adduced. That is very true, replied Cebes. Then let us consider this question, not in relation to man ;

and to

only, but in relation to animals generally,

plants,

and to

everything of which there is generation, and the proof will be Are not all things which have opposites generated out easier. I mean such things as good and evil, just of their opposites ?

and unjust

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and there are innumerable other opposites which

are generated out of opposites.

holds universally of that anything

being True.

after

all

opposites

And ;

want

mean

show

that this

to say, for example,

which becomes greater must become greater

less.

And that which becomes and then become less.

less

must have been once greater

Yes.

And swifter

Very

And

the weaker is generated from the stronger, and the from the slower. true.

the worse

from the

better,

and the more

just

from

more unjust? Of course.

the

And all

this true of all opposites ?

them

and are we convinced that

are generated out of opposites

Yes.

And

in this universal opposition of all things, are there not

two intermediate processes which are ever going on, from one to the other, and back again where there is a greater and a less there is also an intermediate process of increase and diminution, and that which grows is said to wax, and that which also

;

decays to wane? Yes, he said.

And there are many other processes, such as division and composition, cooling and heating, which equally involve a passage into and out of one another. And this holds of all oppothey are sites, even though not always expressed in words generated out of one another, and there is a passing or process

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

from one to the other of them ? Very true, he replied. Well, and is there not an opposite of site of waking?

life,

as sleep

the oppo-

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

True, he said.

And what

that?

Death, he answered.

And these, then, are generated, if they are opposites, the one from the other, and have there their two intermediate processes also?

Of course. Now, said

Socrates, I will analyze one of the

two

opposites which I have mentioned to you, and also

pairs of its inter-

mediate processes, and you shall analyze the other to me. The state of sleep is opposed to the state of waking, and out of sleeping waking is generated, and out of waking, sleeping ; and the process of generation is in the one case falling asleep, and in the other waking up. Are you agreed about that ? Quite agreed. Then, suppose that you analyze life and death to me in the same manner. Is not death opposed to life ? Yes.

And

they are generated one from the other?

Yes.

What

generated from

life?

Death.

And what from

death ? can only say in answer life. Then the living, whether things or persons, Cebes, are generated from the dead? That is clear, he replied. Then the inference is, that our souls are in the world below ?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

That

true.

And one

of the

two processes or generations

surely the act of dying

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

visible

for

visible?

Surely, he said.

And may not the other be inferred as the complement of who is not to be supposed to go on one leg only ? And

nature, if

not, a corresponding process of generation in death

must

also be assigned to her?

Certainly, he replied.

And what

that process?

Revival.

And

revival,

there be such a thing,

into the world of the living?

the birth of the dead

PH.EDO

Quite true.

Then here

a new way in which we arrive at the inference come from the dead, just as the dead come from

that the living

the living; and if this is true, then the souls of the dead must be in some place out of which they come again. And this, as I think, has been satisfactorily proved. Yes, Socrates, he said all this seems to flow necessarily out of our previous admissions. And that these admissions were not unfair, Cebes, he said, may be shown, as I think, in this way If generation were in a straight line only, and there were no compensation or circle in nature, no turn or return into one another, then you know that all things would at last have the same form and pass into the same state, and there would be no more generation of them. ;

What do you mean ? he

said.

simple thing enough, which

of sleep, he replied.

You know

by the case no compenthe sleeping En-

I will illustrate

that

there were

and waking, the story of dymion would in the end have no meaning, because all other things would be asleep, too, and he would not be thought of. Or if there were composition only, and no division of substances, then the chaos of Anaxagoras would come again. sation of sleeping

manner, my dear Cebes, if all things which partook were to die, and after they were dead remained in the form of death, and did not come to life again, all would at last die, and nothing would be alive how could this be otherwise ? For if the living spring from any others who are not the dead, and they die, must not all things at last be swallowed up in death? There is no escape from that, Socrates, said Cebes; and I

And of

in like

life

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

think that what you say

entirely true.

Yes, he said, Cebes, I entirely think so, too and we are not walking in a vain imagination but I am confident in the belief that there truly is such a thing as living again, and that the living spring from the dead, and that the souls of the dead are ;

;

in existence,

the

and that the good souls have a better portion than

evil.

Cebes added Your favorite doctrine, Socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also necessarily implies a previous time in which we learned that which we now recollect. But this would be impossible unless our soul was in some place :

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

before existing in the human form ; here, then, is another argument of the soul's immortality. But tell me, Cebes, said Simmias, interposing, what proofs are given of this doctrine of recollection moment that I remember them.

not very sure

at this

One If

excellent proof, said Cebes,

you put a question

afforded by questions.

to a person in a right way, he will give a

true answer of himself but how could he do this unless there were knowledge and right reason already in him? And this is most clearly shown when he is taken to a diagram or to any;

thing of that sort.

But if, said Socrates, you are still incredulous, Simmias, I would ask you whether you may not agree with me when you look at the matter in another way I mean, if you are still incredulous as to whether knowledge is recollection? Incredulous, I am not, said Simmias but I want to have this doctrine of recollection brought to my own recollection, and, from what Cebes has said, I am beginning to recollect and be convinced but I should still like to hear what more you have ;

;

to say.

We should agree, if This is what I would say, he replied not mistaken, that what a man recollects he must have known at some previous time. :

Very

true.

And what this, I

mean

the nature of this recollection

to ask whether,

when

And,

asking

a person has already seen or

heard or in any way perceived anything, and he knows not only that, but something else of which he has not the same, but another knowledge, we may not fairly say that he recollects that which comes into his mind. Are we agreed about that?

What do you mean ? I mean what I may illustrate by knowledge

of a lyre

the following instance not the same as the knowledge of a

The

man ?

True.

And yet what is the feeling of lovers when they recognize a lyre, or a garment, or anything else which the beloved has been in the habit of using? Do not they, from knowing the lyre,

form

in the

mind's eye an image of the youth to

And

whom

the

and in the same way any one who sees Simmias may remember Cebes and there are endless other things of the same nature. lyre belongs ?

this is recollection

;

PH^EDO

areâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;endless,

replied Simmias. he said, is recollection, and is most commonly a process of recovering that which has been forgotten through time and inattention. Very true, he said. Well; and may you not also from seeing tLe picture of a horse or a lyre remember a man ? and from the picture of Simmias, you may be led to remember Cebes ? True. may also be led to the recollection of Simmias himOr you '

Yes, indeed, there

And

this sort of thing,

self?

True, he said.

And

in all these cases, the recollection

things either like or unlike

That

the recollection

derived from like things, then

sure to be another question, which

derived from

true.

And when there

may be

likeness of that

which

recollected

is,

Whether the

any way defective or

not?

Very

true, he said.

And

shall

we proceed a step further, and affirm that there such a thing as equality, not of wood with wood, or of stone with stone, but that, over and above this, there is equality in

the abstract ?

Shall

affirm this

Affirm, yes, and swear to

replied Simmias, with

all

the

And do we know the nature of this abstract essence ? To be sure, he said. And whence did we obtain this knowledge? Did we

not

confidence in

it,

life.

see equalities of material things, such as pieces of stones,

wood and

and gather from them the idea of an equality which is from them? you will admit that? Or look at the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

different

matter again in this way Do not the same pieces of wood or stone appear at one time equal, and at another time unequal ? :

That is But are

certain. real equals ever

unequal? or

the idea of equality

ever inequality ?

That surely was never yet known, Socrates. Then these (so-called) equals are not the same with the idea of equality? I

should say, clearly not, Socrates.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

And

yet from these equals, although differing from the idea you conceived and attained that idea ?

of equality,

Very

true,

said.

Which might be

like,

or might be unlike them ?

Yes.

But that makes no difference; whenever from seeing one thing you conceived another, whether like or unlike, there must surely have been an act of recollection ?

Very true. But what would you say of equal portions of wood and stone, or other material equals ? and what is the impression produced by them ? Are they equals in the same sense as absolute equalshort of this in a measure ? a very great measure, too. And must we not allow that when I or any one look at any object, and perceive that the object aims at being some other thing, but falls short of, and cannot attain to it he who makes this observation must have had a previous knowledge of that to ity ?

or do they

Yes, he

fall

said, in

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

which, as he says, the other, although similar, was inferior ? Certainly.

And

has not this been our case in the matter of equals and of

absolute equality? Precisely.

Then we must have known absolute equality previously to the time when we first saw the material equals, and reflected that fall

all

these apparent equals aim at this absolute equality, but

short of it?

That

true.

And we

recognize also that this absolute equality has only been known, and can only be known, through the medium of

some other sense. such conceptions.

sight or touch, or of affirm of

all

And

this I

would

Yes, Socrates, as far as the argument is concerned, one of is the same as the other. And from the senses, then, is derived the knowledge that all sensible things aim at an idea of equality of which they fall short is not that true? Yes. Then before we began to see or hear or perceive in any way, we must have had a knowledge of absolute equality, or we could not have referred to that the equals which are derived from the

them

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PHiEDO senses?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

for

to that they all aspire,

short? That, Socrates,

and of that they

certainly to be inferred

fall

from the previous

statements.

And did we not see and hear and acquire our other senses as soon as we were born ? Certainly.

Then we must have acquired the knowledge equal at some time previous to this ?

of the ideal

Yes.

That

to say, before

we were

born,

suppose ?

True.

And if we acquired this knowledge before we were born, and were born having it, then we also knew before we were born and at the instant of birth not only the equal or the greater or the less, but all other ideas for we are not speaking only of equality absolute, but of beauty, good, justice, holiness, and all which we stamp with the name of essence in the dialectical Of all this we process, when we ask and answer questions. may certainly affirm that we acquired the knowledge before ;

birth?

That is true. But if, after having acquired, we have not forgotten that which we acquired, then we must always have been born with knowledge, and shall always continue to know as long as life for knowing is the acquiring and retaining knowledge lasts and not forgetting. Is not forgetting, Simmias, just the losing of knowledge?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Quite true, Socrates.

But if the knowledge which we acquired before birth was by us at birth, and if afterwards by the use of the senses we recovered that which we previously knew, will not that which we call learning be a process of recovering our knowledge, and may not this be rightly termed recollection by us ? Very true. For this is clear, that when we perceived something, either by the help of sight, or hearing, or some other sense, there was no difficulty in receiving from this a conception of some other thing like or unlike which had been forgotten and which was associated with this and therefore, as I was saying, one of two alternatives follow either we had this knowledge at birth, and lost

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

know through

continued to

said to learn only

Yes, that

And which

life

;

or, after birth,

remember, and learning

those

who

are

recollection only.

quite true, Socrates. alternative,

Simmias, do you prefer?

Had we

the knowledge at our birth, or did we remember afterwards the things which we knew previously to our birth ?

cannot decide at the moment. At any rate you can decide whether he who has knowledge ought or ought not to be able to give a reason for what he I

knows. Certainly, he ought.

But do you think that every man is able to give a reason about these very matters of which we are speaking ? I wish that they could, Socrates, but I greatly fear that to-

morrow at this time there will be no one able to give a reason worth having. Then you are not of opinion, Simmias, that all men know these things

Certainly not.

Then they

are in process of recollecting that which they

learned before. Certainly.

But when did our souls we were born as men ?

—not since

acquire this knowledge ?

Certainly not.

And

therefore, previously ?

Yes.

Then, Simmias, our souls must have existed before they were form of man without bodies, and must have had intelligence ? Unless indeed you suppose, Socrates, that these notions were given us at the moment of birth for this is the only time that

—

in the

;

remains.

my friend, but when we did lose them ? for they are not when we are born that is admitted. Did we lose them the moment of receiving them, or at some other time ?

Yes,

—

in us at

No, Socrates,

I perceive that I

was unconsciously talking

nonsense.

Then may we not

say, Simmias, that if, as we are always an absolute beauty, and goodness, and essence in general, and to this, which is now discovered to be a

repeating, there

PHiEDO

we refer all our sensations, and assuming this to have a prior existthem compare with ence, then our souls must have had a prior existence, but if not, there would be no force in the argument. There can be no doubt that if these absolute ideas existed before we were born, then our souls must have existed before we were born, and if previous condition of our being,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

this

not the ideas, then not the souls. Yes, Socrates; I am convinced that there is precisely the same necessity for the existence of the soul before birth, and of the essence of which you are speaking and the argument ar:

which happily agrees with my own notion. For there is nothing which to my mind is so evident as that beauty, good, and other notions of which you were just now speaking have a most real and absolute existence; and I am satisfied

rives at a result

with the proof. Well, but is Cebes equally satisfied? for I must convince

him

too.

I think, said

Simmias, that Cebes

is satisfied

although he is is con-

the most incredulous of mortals, yet I believe that he

vinced of the existence of the soul before birth. But that after death the soul will continue to exist is not yet proven even to my own satisfaction. I cannot get rid of the feeling of the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

many to which Cebes was referring the feeling that when the man dies the soul may be scattered, and that this may be the end of her. For admitting that she may be generated and created in some other place, and may have existed before entering the human body, why after having entered in and gone out again may she not herself be destroyed and come to an end ? Very true, Simmias, we were born was the

said first

pears to have been proven

;

Cebes

;

that our soul existed before

half of the

argument, and

this ap-

that the soul will exist after death as

well as before birth is the other half of which the proof is still wanting, and has to be supplied. But that proof, Simmias and Cebes, has been already given, I mean said Socrates, if you put the two arguments together this and the former one, in which we admitted that everything living is born of the dead. For if the soul existed before birth, and in coming to life and being born can be born only from death and dying, must she not after death continue to exist, since she has to be born again ? surely the proof which your desire has been already furnished. Still I suspect that you

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

IOO

and Simmias would be glad to probe the argument further; like children, you are haunted with a fear that when the soul leaves the body, the wind may really blow her away and scatter her especially if a man should happen to die in stormy weather and not when the sky is calm. Cebes answered with a smile Then, Socrates, you must argue us out of our fears and yet, strictly speaking, they are not our ;

—

but there is a child within us to whom death is a sort of hobgoblin; him too we must persuade not to be afraid when he is alone with him in the dark. Socrates said Let the voice of the charmer be applied daily until you have charmed him away. And where shall we find a good charmer of our fears, Socrafears,

tes,

when you

are

gone ?

is a large place, Cebes, and has many good men, and there are barbarous races not a few: seek for him among them all, far and wide, sparing neither pains nor money for there is no better way of using your money. And you must not forget to seek for him among yourselves too for he is nowhere more likely to be found.

Hellas, he replied,

;

The search, replied Cebes, shall certainly be made. And now, if you please, let us return to the point of the argument at which we digressed. By all means, replied Socrates what else should I please ? ;

Very good, he said. Must we not, said Socrates, ask ourselves some question

—What

we imagine, is liable to be scattered away, and about which we fear? and what again is that about which we have no fear ? And then we may proceed this sort?

that which, as

to inquire whether that which suffers dispersion

the nature of soul

—our hopes and

fears as to

our

own

not of

souls will

turn upon that.

That

Now

true,

said.

compound or composite may be supposed to be naturally capable of being dissolved in like manner as of being compounded but that which is uncompounded, and that only, the

;

must be, if anything is, indissoluble. Yes that is what I should imagine, said Cebes. And the uncompounded may be assumed to be the same and unchanging, whereas the compound is always changing and never the same ? ;

PHJEDO That

I also think,

Then now

101

said.

us return to the previous discussion. Is that idea or essence, which in the dialectical process we define as essence of true existence whether essence of equality, beauty, or anything else: are these essences, I say, liable at times to let

—

some degree

change ? or are they each of them always what

they are, having the same simple self-existent and unchanging forms, and not admitting of variation at all, or in any way, or at any time ? They must be always the same, Socrates, replied Cebes. And what would you say of the many beautiful whether

—

may be they all unchanging and the same always, or quite the reverse? May they not rather be described as almost always changing and hardly ever the same, either with themselves or with one another? The latter, replied Cebes they are always in a state of change. And these you can touch and see and perceive with the senses, but the unchanging things you can only perceive with the mind they are invisible and are not seen ? men

or horses or garments or any other things which

called equal or beautiful

—are ;

—

That

very true, he said. Well, then, he added, let us suppose that there are two sorts of existences, one seen, the other unseen. is

Let us suppose them. is the changing, and the unseen is the unchanging. That may be also supposed. And, further, is not one part of us body, and the rest of us

The seen

soul?

To be sure. And to which

class

may we

say that the body

alike

and akin ? Clearly to the seen

And

no one can doubt

the soul seen or not seen

Not by man, Socrates. And by " seen " and " not seen " is

not visible to the eye of Yes, to the eye of man. is

And what do we Not seen. Unseen then? Yes.

that.

meant by us that which

man ?

say of the soul

? is

that seen or not seen ?

— ;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

102

Then

the soul

like to the unseen,

and the body to the

seen?

That

most

certain, Socrates.

not saying long ago that the soul when using of perception, that is to say, when instrument the body as an using the sense of sight or hearing or some other sense (for the meaning of perceiving through the body is perceiving through the senses) were we not saying that the soul too is then dragged by the body into the region of the changeable, and wanders and is confused the world spins round her, and she

And were we

—

;

like a

drunkard when under their influence ?

Very true. But when returning

into herself she reflects

soul

then she passes

eternity,

wisdom ?

called

That

and

;

and immortality, and unchangeableness, which are her kindred, and with them she ever lives, when she is by herself and is not let or hindered then she ceases from her erring ways, and being in communion with the unchanging is unchanging. And this state of the into the realm of purity,

well and truly said, Socrates, he replied.

And to which class is the may be inferred from

far as

soul this

more nearly alike and akin, as argument, as well as from the

preceding one? I think, Socrates, that, in the opinion of every one who fol* lows the argument, the soul will be infinitely more like the unchangeable even the most stupid person will not deny that.

—

And

the

body

like the

changing?

Yes.

Yet once more consider the matter in this light When the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve. Now which of these two functions is akin to the divine ? and which to the mortal ? Does not the divine appear to you to be that which naturally orders and rules, and the mortal that which is subject and servant ? :

soul and the

True.

And which The

there can be

Then ter this

does the soul resemble ?

soul resembles the divine,

no doubt

reflect,

Cebes

—that the soul

and the body the mortal

of that, Socrates. :

is is

not the conclusion of the whole matin the very likeness of the divine,

and

PILEDO

103

immortal, and intelligible, and uniform, and indissoluble, and unchangeable; and the body is in the very likeness of the human, and mortal, and unintelligible, and multiform, and disCan this, my dear Cebes, be denied ? soluble, and changeable.

No, indeed. But if this is true, then is not the body liable to speedy dissolution ? and is not the soul almost or altogether indissoluble ? Certainly.

And do you

further observe, that after a

man

dead, the

body, which is the visible part of man, and has a visible framework, which is called a corpse, and which would naturally be dissolved and decomposed and dissipated, is not dissolved or decomposed at once, but may remain for a good while, if the constitution be sound at the time of death, and the season of the year favorable? For the body when shrunk and embalmed, as is the custom in Egypt, may remain almost entire through infinite ages and even in decay, still there are some portions, such as the bones and ligaments, which are practically indestructible. You allow that ? Yes. And are we to suppose that the soul, which is invisible, in passing to the true Hades, which like her is invisible, and pure, and noble, and on her way to the good and wise God, whither, ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

that the soul, I repeat, will, my soul is also soon to go be her nature and origin, is blown away and perishes immediately on quitting the body, as the many say ? That can never be, my dear Simmias and Cebes. The truth rather is that the soul which is pure at departing draws after her no bodily taint, having never voluntarily had connection with the body, which she is ever avoiding, herself gathered into herself And what (for such abstraction has been the study of her life). does this mean but that she has been a true disciple of philosophy, and has practised how to die easily ? And is not philosophy the practice of death ? if

God

this

Certainly.

That world

soul, I say, herself invisible, departs to the invisible

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;to the divine and immortal and rational

ing, she lives in bliss

men,

their fears

and

and wild passions and

all

other

forever dwells, as they say of the initiated, in

gods.

Is not this true,

thither arriv-

released from the error and folly of

Cebes?

human

ills,

and

company with the

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

io4

Yes, said Cebes, beyond a doubt. But the soul which has been polluted, and

is impure at the companion and servant of the love with and fascinated by the body and

time of her departure, and

the

body always, and is in by the desires and pleasures

of the body, until she

believe that the truth only exists in a bodily form,

may touch and

see

and

taste

and use

led to

which a man

for the purposes of his

—

the soul, I mean, accustomed to hate and fear and avoid lusts the intellectual principle, which to the bodily eye is dark and

—

do you supinvisible, and can be attained only by philosophy pose that such a soul as this will depart pure and unalloyed ? That is impossible, he replied. She is engrossed by the corporeal, which the continual association and constant care of the body have made natural to her.

Very

true.

my friend, may be conceived to be that heavy, weighty, earthy element of sight by which such a soul is depressed and dragged down again into the visible world, because And

this,

—

is afraid of the invisible and of the world below prowling about tombs and sepulchres, in the neighborhood of which, as they tell us, are seen certain ghostly apparitions of souls which have not departed pure, but are cloyed with sight and therefore

she

visible.*

That is very likely, Socrates. Yes, that is very likely, Cebes and these must be the souls, not of the good, but of the evil, who are compelled to wander about such places in payment of the penalty of their former evil ;

way

of life and they continue to wander until the desire which haunts them is satisfied and they are imprisoned in another body. And they may be supposed to be fixed in the same natures which they had in their former life. *

;

Compare Milton, " Comus," 463

foil.

:—

" But

when

lust,

unchaste looks, loose gestures, and foul But most by lewd and lavish act of sin, Lets in defilement to the inward parts, The soul grows clotted by contagion, Embodies, and imbrutes, till she quite lose

The

divine property of her

first

talk,

Deing.

Such are those thick and gloomy shadows damp Oft seen in charnel vaults and sepulchres, Lingering, and sitting by a new-made grave, As loath to leave the body that it loved,

And linked itself by carnal sensuality To a degenerate and degraded state."

ph;edo What

iÂ°5

natures do you mean, Socrates ?

to say that men who have followed after gluttony, and wantonness, and drunkenness, and have had no thought of avoiding them, would pass into asses and animals of that sort. What do you think ? I

mean

think that exceedingly probable.

And

those

who have chosen

the portion of injustice, and

tyranny, and violence, will pass into wolves, or hawks, and

whither else can we suppose them to go ? Yes, said Cebes that is doubtless the place of natures such

kites

;

as theirs.

And there

difficulty,

said, in

assigning to

all

places answering to their several natures and propensities

There

them ?

not, he said.

Even among them some

are happier than others and the happiest both in themselves and their place of abode are those who have practised the civil and social virtues which are called ;

temperance and justice, and are acquired by habit and attention without philosophy and mind.

Why are

they the happiest ?

Because they may be expected to pass into some gentle, social nature which is like their own, such as that of bees or ants, or even back again into the form of man, and just and moderate men spring from them. That is not impossible. But he who is a philosopher or lover of learning, and is entirely pure at departing, is alone permitted to reach the gods. And this is the reason, Simmias and Cebes, why the true votaries of philosophy abstain from all fleshly lusts, and endure and not because they fear refuse to give themselves up to them poverty or the ruin of their families, like the lovers of money, and the world in general nor like the lovers of power and honor, because they dread the dishonor or disgrace of evil deeds. No, Socrates, that would not become them, said Cebes. No, indeed, he replied and therefore they who have a care of their souls, and do not merely live in the fashions of the body, say farewell to all this they will not walk in the ways of the blind: and when Philosophy offers them purification and release from evil, they feel that they ought not to resist her influence, and to her they incline, and whither she leads they follow

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

her.

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

lo6

What do you mean, I will tell you,

Socrates

The lovers of knowledge are conwhen philosophy receives them, are

said.

scious that their souls,

simply fastened and glued to their bodies

the soul

only able in her own nature she is wallowing in the mire of all ignorance and philosophy, seeing the terrible nature of her confinement, and that the captive through desire is led to conspire in her own :

to view existence through the bars of a prison, ;

and not

;

knowledge are aware that this was when she was in this philosophy received and gently counseled her, and wanted

captivity (for the lovers of

the original state of the soul, and that state

to release her, pointing out to her that the eye is full of deceit,

and also the ear and the other senses, and persuading her to from them in all but the necessary use of them and to be gathered up and collected into herself, and to trust only to herself and her own intuitions of absolute existence, and mistrust that which comes to her through others and is subject to vicisphilosophy shows her that this is visible and tangible, situde) but that what she sees in her own nature is intellectual and retire

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

invisible.

And

the soul of the true philosopher thinks that she

ought not to resist this deliverance, and therefore abstains from pleasures and desires and pains and fears, as far as she is able reflecting that when a man has great joys or sorrows or fears or desires he suffers from them, not the sort of evil which might be anticipated as, for example, the loss of his health or property, which he has sacrificed to his lusts but he has suffered an evil greater far, which is the greatest and worst of all evils, and one of which he never thinks. And what is that, Socrates ? said Cebes.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Why

this

most

intense, all of us naturally

When

the feeling of pleasure or pain in the soul

this intense feeling is

suppose that the object of then plainest and truest but this is not :

the case.

Very

true.

And

this is the state in

which the soul

most enthralled by

the body.

How is that ? Why, because

each pleasure and pain is a sort of nail which body, and engrosses her and makes her believe that to be true which the body affirms to be true and from agreeing with the body and having the same

and

nails

;

rivets the soul to the

;

PHiEDO

to?

is obliged to have the same habits and ways, and not likely ever to be pure at her departure to the world below, but is always saturated with the body so that she soon sinks into another body and there germinates and grows, and has therefore no part in the communion of the divine and pure and

delights she is

;

simple.

That

most

true, Socrates,

answered Cebes.

why the true lovers of knowledge are temperate and brave and not for the reason which the world gives.

And

this,

Cebes,

the reason ;

Certainly not. Certainly not! For not in that way does the soul of a philosopher reason she will not ask philosophy to release her in order that when released she may deliver herself up again to the thraldom of pleasures and pains, doing a work only to be undone again, weaving instead of unweaving her Penelope's web. But she will make herself a calm of passion, and follow Reason, and dwell in her, beholding the true and divine (which ;

not matter of opinion), and thence derive nourishment.

Thus

she seeks to live while she lives, and after death she hopes to go to her own kindred and to be freed from human ills. Never

Simmias and Cebes, that a soul which has been thus nurtured and has had these pursuits, will at her departure from the body be scattered and blown away by the winds and be nowhere fear,

and nothing.

When there

Socrates had done speaking, for a considerable time silence; he himself and most of us appeared to be

was

meditating on what had been said only Cebes and Simmias spoke a few words to one another. And Socrates observing this asked them what they thought of the argument, and whether there was anything wanting? For, said he, much is ;

open to suspicion and attack, if any one were disposed to If you are talking of something else I would rather not interrupt you, but if you are still doubtful about the argument do not hesitate to say exactly what you think, and let us have anything better which you can suggest and if I am likely to be of any use, allow me to help you. Simmias said I must confess, Socrates, that doubts did arise in our minds, and each of us was urging and inciting the other to put the question which he wanted to have answered and which neither of us liked to ask, fearing that our importunity might be troublesome under present circumstances. still

sift

the matter thoroughly.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

io 8

Socrates smiled and said O Simmias, how strange that is am not very likely to persuade other men that I do not regard my present situation as a misfortune, if I am unable to persuade you, and you will keep fancying that I am at all more troubled now than at any other time. Will you not allow that I have as much of the spirit of prophecy in me as the swans ? For they, :

perceive that they must die, having sung all their do then sing more than ever, rejoicing in the thought that they are about to go away to the god whose ministers they But men, because they are themselves afraid of death, are. slanderously affirm of the swans that they sing a lament at the last, not considering that no bird sings when cold, or hungry, or in pain, not even the nightingale, nor the swallow, nor yet the hoopoe which are said indeed to tune a lay of sorrow, although I do not believe this to be true of them any more than But because they are sacred to Apollo and have of the swans. the gift of prophecy and anticipate the good things of another world, therefore they sing and rejoice in that day more than

when they

life

long,

;

they ever did before. And I, too, believing myself to be the consecrated servant of the same God, and the fellow servant of the swans, and thinking that I have received from my master gifts of prophecy which are not inferior to theirs, would not go out of life less merrily than the swans. Cease to mind then about this, but speak and ask anything which you like, while the eleven magistrates of

Athens allow.

Well, Socrates, said Simmias, then I will tell you my diffiFor I dare say that you, culty, and Cebes will tell you his. Socrates, feel as I do, how very hard or almost impossible is the attainment of any certainty about questions Such as these in And yet I should deem him a coward who did life.

the present

not prove of what is said about them to the uttermost, or whose heart failed him before he had examined them on every side. For he should persevere until he has attained one of two things

them or, if would have him take the best and most human notions, and let this be the raft upon

either he should discover or learn the truth about

;

this is impossible, I

irrefragable of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

sails through life not without risk, as I admit, if he cannot find some word of God which will more surely and safely carry him. And now, as you bid me, I will venture to question you, as I should not like to reproach myself hereafter with not having said at the time what I think. For when I consider the

which he

PH^DO

109

matter either alone or with Cebes, the argument does certainly appear to me, Socrates, to be not sufficient. Socrates answered I dare say, my friend, that you may be right, but I should like to know in what respect the argument is not sufficient. In this respect, replied Simmias Might not a person use the same argument about harmony and the lyre might he not say that harmony is a thing invisible, incorporeal, fair, divine, abiding in the lyre which is harmonized, but that the lyre and the strings are matter and material, composite, earthy, and akin to mortality? And when some one breaks the lyre, or cuts and rends the strings, then he who takes this view would argue as you do, and on the same analogy, that the harmony survives and has not perished for you cannot imagine, as we would say, that the lyre without the strings, and the broken strings themselves, remain, and yet that the harmony, which is of heavenly and immortal nature and kindred, has perished and perished too before the mortal. The harmony, he would say, certainly exists somewhere, and the wood and strings will decay before that decays. For I suspect, Socrates, that the notion of the soul which we are all of us inclined to entertain, would also be yours, and that you too would conceive the body to be strung up, and held together, by the elements of hot and cold, wet and dry, and the like, and that the soul is the harmony or due proportionate admixture of them. And, if this is true, the infer:

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ence clearly is that when the strings of the body are unduly loosened or overstrained through disorder or other injury, then the soul, though most divine, like other harmonies of music or of the works of art, of course perishes at once, although the material remains of the body may last for a considerable time, until they are either

decayed or burnt.

tained that the soul, being the

harmony

Now

any one main-

of (he elements of the

body, first perishes in that which is called death, how shall we answer him ? Socrates looked round at us as his manner was, and said, with a smile Simmias has reason on his side and why does not some one of you who is abler than myself answer him? for But perhaps, before we there is force in his attack upon me. answer him, we had better also hear what Cebes has to say against the argument this will give us time for reflection, and when both of them have spoken, we may either assent to them, ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

IIO

words appear to be in consonance with the truth, we may take up the other side, and argue with them. Please to tell me then, Cebes, he said, what was the difficulty which troubled you ? Cebes said I will tell you. My feeling is that the argument is still in the same position, and open to the same objections which were urged before for I am ready to admit that the existence of the soul before entering into the bodily form has if

their

not,

;

been very ingeniously, and, as I may be allowed to say, quite sufficiently proven but the existence of the soul after death is Now my objection is not the still, in my judgment, unproven. same as that of Simmias for I am not disposed to deny that the soul is stronger and more lasting than the body, being of opinion that in all such respects the soul very far excels the body. Well, then, says the argument to me, why do you remain unconvinced ? When you see that the weaker is still in existence after the man is dead, will you not admit that the more lasting must also survive during the same period of time ? Now I, like Simmias, must employ a figure and I shall ask you to consider whether the figure is to the point. The parallel which I will suppose is that of an old weaver, who dies, and after his death somebody says He is not dead, he must be alive and he appeals to the coat which he himself wove and wore, and which is still whole and undecayed. And then he proceeds to ask of some one who is incredulous, whether a man lasts longer, or the coat which is in use and wear and when he is answered that a man lasts far longer, thinks that he has thus certainly demonstrated the survival of the man, who is the more lasting, because the less lasting remains. But that, Simmias, as I would beg you to observe, is not the truth every one sees that he who ;

;

talks thus

talking nonsense.

For the truth

that this

weaver, having worn and woven many such coats, though he outlived several of them, was himself outlived by the last but this is surely very far from proving that a man is slighter and weaker than a coat. Now the relation of the body to the soul may be expressed in a similar figure; for you may say with reason that the soul is lasting, and the body weak and short;

lived in comparison.

And

many

every soul

may be

said to

wear out For if and yet

bodies, especially in the course of a long life. while the man is alive the body deliquesces and decays, the soul always weaves her

garment anew and repairs the waste,

PtLEDO

III

when the soul perishes, she must have on her garment, and this only will survive her; but then again when the soul is dead the body will at last show its native weakness, and soon pass into decay. And therefore this is an argument on which I would rather not rely as proving that the soul exists after death. For suppose that we grant even more than you affirm as within the range of possibility, and besides acknowledging that the soul existed before birth admit also that after death the souls of some are existing still, and will exist, and will be born and die again and again, and that there is a natural strength in the soul which will hold out and be born many times for all this, we may be still inclined to think that she will weary in the labors of successive births, and may at last succumb in one of her deaths and utterly perish and this death and dissolution of the body which brings destruction to the soul may be unknown to any of us, for no one of us can have had any experience of it and if this be true, then I say that he who is confident in death has but a foolish confidence, unless he is able to prove that the soul is altogether immortal and imperishable. But if he is not able to prove this, he who is about to die will always have reason to fear that when the body then of course,

last

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

disunited, the soul also

may

utterly perish.

afterwards remarked to one another, had an unpleasant feeling at hearing them say this. When we had been so firmly convicted before, now to have our faith shaken All of us, as

seemed to introduce a confusion and uncertainty, not only into either we were not good judges, or there were no real grounds of belief. Ech. There I feel with you indeed I do, Phaedo, and when you were speaking, I was beginning to ask myself the same question What argument can I ever trust again ? For what could be more convincing than the argument of Socrates, which has now fallen into discredit ? That the soul is a harmony is a doctrine which has always had a wonderful attraction for me, and, when mentioned, came back to me at once, as my own And now I must begin again and find original conviction. another argument which will assure me that when the man is the previous argument, but into any future one

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

dead the soul dies not with him. Tell me, I beg, how did SocDid he appear to share the unpleasant feeling rates proceed ? which you mention ? or did he receive the interruption calmly and give a sufficient answer? Tell us, as exactly as you can,

what passed.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

1I3

Phad. Often, Echecrates, as I have admired Socrates, I never admired him more than at that moment. That he should be able to answer was nothing, but what astonished me was, first, the gentle and pleasant and approving manner in which he regarded the words of the young men, and then his quick sense of the wound which had been inflicted by the argument, and He might be comhis ready application of the healing art. pared to a general rallying his defeated and broken army, urging them to follow him and return to the field of argument. Ech. How was that ? Phced. You shall hear, for I was close to him on his right hand, seated on a sort of stool, and he on a couch which was a good deal higher. Now he had a way of playing with my hair, and then he smoothed my head, and pressed the hair upon my neck, and said To-morrow, Phaedo, I suppose that these fair locks of yours will be severed. Yes, Socrates, I suppose that they will, I replied. Not so if you will take my advice. What shall I do with them ? I said. To-day, he replied, and not to-morrow, if this argument dies and cannot be brought to life again by us, you and I will both shave our locks and if I were you, and could not maintain my ground against Simmias and Cebes, I would myself take an oath, like the Argives, not to wear hair any more until I had renewed the conflict and defeated them. Yes, I said, but Heracles himself is said not to be a match :

;

for two.

Summon me then,

said,

and

I will

be your Iolaus until the

sun goes down. I

summon you

rather, I said, not as Heracles

Iolaus, but as Iolaus

That that

will

we avoid

And what

all

might

summon

the same, he said.

summoning

Heracles.

But

first let

us take care

a danger.

The danger

that

I said.

becoming misologists, he replied, which is one of the very worst things that can happen to us. For as there are misanthropists or haters of men, there are also misologists or haters of ideas, and both spring from the same cause, which is ignorance of the world. Misanthropy arises from the too great confidence of inexperience you trust a man and think him altogether true and good and faithful, and then of

;

PH^EDO

113

in a little while he turns out to be false and knavish and then another and another, and when this has happened several times to a man, especially within the circle of his own most trusted friends, as he deems them, and he has often quarreled with them, he at last hates all men, and believes that no one has any good in him at all. I dare say that you must have observed ;

this.

Yes,

I said.

And

The reason is that a man, is not this discreditable? having to deal with other men, has no knowledge of them for if he had knowledge he would have known the true state of the case, that few are the good and few the evil, and that the great majority are in the interval between them. How do you mean ? I said. I mean, he replied, as you might say of the very large and very small, that nothing is more uncommon than a very large or a very small man and this applies generally to all extremes, whether of great and small, or swift and slow, or fair and foul, or black and white: and whether the instances you select be men or dogs or anything else, few are the extremes, but many Did you never observe this ? are in the mean between them. ;

;

Yes,

I said, I

And do you

have.

not imagine, he said, that

tition of evil, the first in evil

Yes, that Yes, that

very

there were a

would be found

compe-

to be very few

likely, I said.

is very likely, he replied not that in this respect arguments are like men there I was led on by you to say more than I had intended but the point of comparison was that when a simple man who has no skill in dialectics believes an argument to be true which he afterwards imagines to be false, whether really false or not, and then another and another, he has no longer any faith left, and great disputers, as you know, come to think at last that they have grown to be the wisest of mankind for they alone perceive the utter unsoundness and instability of all arguments, or, indeed, of all things, which, like the currents in the Euripus, are going up and down in never-ceasing ebb and flow. That is quite true, I said. Yes, Phaedo, he replied, and very melancholy too, if there be such a thing as truth or certainty or power of knowing at all, that a man should have lighted upon some argument or other ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

seemed true and then turned out to be false, and and his own want of wit, because he is annoyed, should at last be too glad to transfer the blame from himself to arguments in general and forever afterwards should hate and revile them, and lose the truth and knowledge which

at first

instead of blaming himself

;

of existence. is very melancholy. Let us, then, in the first place, he said, be careful of admitting into our souls the notion that there is no truth or health or soundness in any arguments at all but let us rather say that there is as yet no health in us, and that we must quit ourselves you and all other men like men and do our best to gain health with a view to the whole of your future life, and I myself with a view to death. For at this moment I am sensible that I have not the temper of a philosopher like the vulgar, I am only a For the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, partisan. cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is only that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what this he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself to conAnd do but vince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

Yes, indeed, I said that ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

see

how much

do well

gain by

this.

For

what

to be persuaded of the truth, but

say

true, then'

there be nothing after

during the short time that remains, I shall save my from lamentations, and my ignorance will not last, and therefore no harm will be done. This is the state of mind, Simmias and Cebes, in wEich I approach the argument. And I would ask you to be thinking of the truth and not of Socrates agree with me, if I seem to you to be speaking the truth or if not, withstand me might and main, that I may not deceive you death,

still,

friends

;

as well as myself in

sting in

you before

And now

enthusiasm, and, like the bee, leave

I die.

And first of all let me be were saying. Simmias, if I remember rightly, has fears and misgivings whether the soul, being in the form of harmony, although a fairer and diviner let

us proceed, he

sure that I have in

said.

my mind what you

thing than the body, may not perish first. On the other hand, Cebes appeared to grant that the soul was more lasting than the body, but he said that no one could know whether the soul, after having worn out many bodies, might not perish herself

PHMDO

body behind her and that this is death, which body but of the soul, for in the body the work of destruction is ever going on. Are not these, Simmias and Cebes, the points which we have to consider? and leave her is

last

;

the destruction not of the

They both agreed

to this statement of them.

He proceeded And did you :

deny the force of the whole pre-

ceding argument, or of a part only ? Of a part only, they replied. And what did you think, he said, of that part of the argument

which we said that knowledge was recollection only, and inmust have previously existed somewhere else before she was enclosed in the body? Cebes said that he had been wonderfully impressed by that part of the argument, and that his conviction remained unshaken. Simmias agreed, and added that he himself could hardly imagine in

ferred from this that the soul

the possibility of his ever thinking differently about that. But, rejoined Socrates, you will have to think differently,

Theban

maintain that harmony is a compound, and that the soul is a harmony which is made out of strings set in the frame of the body for you will surely never allow yourself to say that a harmony is prior to the elements friend,

you

still

;

which compose the harmony. No, Socrates, that is impossible. But do you not see that you are saying this when you say that the soul existed before she took the form and body of man, and was made up of elements which as yet had no existence ? For harmony is not a sort of thing like the soul, as you suppose but first the lyre, and the, strings, and the sounds exist in a state of discord, and then harmony is made last of all, and perishes first. And how can such a notion of the soul as this agree with the ;

other ?

Not

And

all,

yet,

harmony

replied Simmias.

said, there surely

ought to be harmony when

the theme of discourse.

There ought, replied Simmias. But there is no harmony, he said, in the two propositions that knowledge is recollection, and that the soul is a harmony. Which of them, then, will you retain ? I think, he replied, that I have a much stronger faith, Socrates, in the first of the two, which has been fully demonstrated to me, than in the latter, which has not been demonstrated at

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

but rests only on probable and plausible grounds; and 1 too well that these arguments from probabilities are impostors, and unless great caution is observed in the use of them they are apt to be deceptive in geometry, and in other things

all,

know

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

But the doctrine of knowledge and recollection has been proven to me on trustworthy grounds and the proof was that the soul must have existed before she came into the body, because to her belongs the essence of which the very name implies Having, as I am convinced, rightly accepted this existence. conclusion, and on sufficient grounds, I must, as I suppose, too.

;

cease to argue or allow others to argue that the soul

a har-

mony. Let me put the matter, Simmias, he said, in another point of view Do you imagine that a harmony or any other composition can be in a state other than that of the elements out of which :

compounded ?

it is

Certainly not.

Or do

or suffer anything other than they do or suffer ?

agreed.

Then a harmony does not lead the parts or elements which make up the harmony, but only follows them.

assented.

For harmony cannot possibly have any motion, or sound, or other quality which is opposed to the parts. That would be impossible, he replied. And does not every harmony depend upon the manner in which the elements are harmonized ? I do not understand you, he said.

mean

to say that a harmony admits of degrees, and is more harmony, and more completely a harmony, when more completely harmonized, if that be possible and less of a harmony, and less completely a harmony, when less harmonized. I

of a

;

True. But does the soul admit of degrees ? or is one soul in the very least degree more or less, or more or less completely, a soul than another? the least. Not

Yet surely one soul is said to have intelligence and virtue, and to be good, and another soul is said to have folly and vice, and to be an evil soul and this is said truly ? :

Yes, truly.

PPLEDO

117

But what will those who maintain the soul to be a harmony say of this presence of virtue and vice in the soul? will they

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

another harmony, and another discord, and that the virtuous soul is harmonized, and herself being harmony has another harmony within her, and that the vicious soul is inharmonical and has no harmony within her? I cannot say, replied Simmias but I suppose that something of that kind would be asserted by those who take this view. And the admission is already made that no soul is more a soul than another and this is equivalent to admitting that harmony is not more or less harmony, or more or less completely say that there

;

harmony? Quite true.

And less

that which harmonized ?

not more or less a

harmony

not more or

True.

And

which is not more or less harmonized cannot have harmony, but only an equal harmony ? Yes, an equal harmony. Then one soul not being more or less absolutely a soul than another, is not more or less harmonized ? that

more or

less of

Exactly.

And

therefore has neither

more nor

less of

harmony or of

discord? She has not.

And having neither more nor less of harmony or of discord, one soul has no more vice or virtue than another, if vice be discord and virtue harmony? Not at all more. Or speaking more correctly, Simmias, the soul, if she is a harmony, will never have any vice because a harmony, being absolutely a harmony, has no part in the inharmonical ? No. And therefore a soul which is absolutely a soul has no vice ? How can she have, consistently with the preceding argu;

ment? Then, according to this, and absolutely souls, they

all animals are equally be equally good ? I agree with you, Socrates, he said. And can all this be true, think you ? he said and are all these consequences admissible which nevertheless seem to follow from the assumption that the soul is a harmony? if

the souls of

will

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Certainly not, he said.

Once more, he

said,

what ruling principle

there of

human

things other than the soul, and especially the wise soul?

you know

any ? do not.

Indeed, I is the soul in agreement with the affections of the body ? or is she at variance with them ? For example, when the body is hot and thirsty, does not the soul incline us against drinking? and when the body is hungry, against eating? And this is only

And

one instance out of ten thousand of the opposition of the soul to the things of the body.

Very true. But we have already acknowledged that the soul, being a harmony, can never utter a note at variance with the tensions and relaxations and vibrations and other affections of the strings out of which she is composed she can only follow, she cannot lead them ? Yes, he said, we acknowledged that, certainly. And yet we do not now discover the soul to be doing the exact opposite leading the elements of which she is believed to be composed almost always opposing and coercing them in all sorts of ways throughout life, sometimes more violently with the pains of medicine and gymnastic then again more gently ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

threatening and also reprimanding the desires, passions, fears, as if talking to a thing which is not herself, as Homer in the " Odyssey " represents Odysseus doing in the words,

"He

beat his breast, and thus reproached his heart: my heart ; far worse hast thou endured "

Endure,

you think that Homer could have written

this

under the

a harmony capable of being led by the affections of the body, and not rather of a nature which leads and masters them and herself a far diviner thing than any haridea that the soul

;

mony? Yes, Socrates, is

I quite

agree to that.

Then, my friend, we can never be right in saying that the soul a harmony, for that would clearly contradict the divine

Homer

as well as ourselves.

True, he

said.

Thus much, dess, Cebes,

said Socrates, of

who has

Harmonia, your Theban god-

not been ungracious to us, I think

;

but

PH2ED0 what

shall I say to the

119

Theban Cadmus, and how

shall I pro-

him ?

pitiate

think that you will discover a way of propitiating him, said I am sure that you have answered the argument about harmony in a manner that I could never have expected. For I

Cebes

;

when Simmias mentioned his objection, I quite imagined that no answer could be given to him, and therefore I was surprised at rinding that his argument could not sustain the first onset of yours and not impossibly the other, whom you call Cadmus, ;

may

share a similar

Nay,

my good

fate.

friend, said Socrates, let us

not boast, lest eye should put to flight the word which I am about That, however, may be left in the hands of those to speak. above, while I draw near in Homeric fashion, and try the met-

some

tle

evil

of your words.

You want

Briefly, the

sum

to have proven to

your objection

you

as fol-

imperishable and immortal, and you think that the philosopher who is confident in death has but a vain and foolish confidence, if he thinks that he will fare better than one who has led another sort of life, in the world below, unless he can prove this and you say that the demonstration of the strength and divinity of the soul, and of her existence prior to our becoming men, does not necessarily imply her immortality. Granting that the soul is long-lived, and has known and done much in a former state, and her entrance into still she is not on that account immortal the human form may be a sort of disease which is the beginning

lows

that the soul

;

and may at last, after the toils of life are over, which is called death. And whether the soul enters into the body once only or many times, that, as you would say, makes no difference in the fears of individuals. For any man, who is not devoid of natural feeling, has reason to fear, if he has no knowledge or proof of the soul's immortality. That is what I suppose you to say, Cebes, which I designedly repeat, in order that nothing may escape us, and that you may, if you wish, add or subtract anything. But, said Cebes, as far as I can see at present, I have nothing to add or subtract you have expressed my meaning. Socrates paused awhile, and seemed to be absorbed in reflection. At length he said This is a very serious inquiry which you are raising, Cebes, involving the whole question of generation and corruption, about which I will, if you like, give you my of dissolution,

end

in that

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; DIALOGUES OF PLATO

120

own experience and you can apply this, if you think that anything which I say will avail towards the solution of your diffi;

culty. I

should very

much

Cebes, to hear what you have

like, said

to say. I will tell you, said Socrates. When I was young, Cebes, desire to know that department of philosophy prodigious I had a which is called Natural Science; this appeared to me to have lofty aims, as being the science which has to do with the causes of things, and which teaches why a thing is, and is created and

Then

was always agitating myself with the considIs the growth of animals the result of some decay which the hot and cold principle contract, Is the blood the element with which we as some have said? destroyed

;

and

eration of such questions as these

think, or the air, or the fire ? or perhaps nothing of this sort but the brain may be the originating power of the perceptions of hearing and sight and smell, and memory and opinion may come from them, and science may be based on memory and opinion when no longer in motion, but at rest. And then I went on to examine the decay of them, and then to the things

of heaven and earth, and at last I concluded that I was wholly incapable of these inquiries, as I will satisfactorily prove to you.

For I was fascinated by them to such a degree that my eyes grew blind to things that I had seemed to myself, and also to others, to know quite well; and I forgot what I had before thought to be self-evident, that the growth of man is the result of eating and drinking for when by the digestion of food flesh is added to flesh and bone to bone, and whenever there is an aggregation of congenial elements, the lesser bulk becomes larger and the small man greater. Was not that a reasonable ;

notion ? Yes, said Cebes, I think so. Well but let me tell you something more. There was a time when I thought that I understood the meaning of greater and ;

and when I saw a great man standing by a little one I fancied that one was taller than the other by a head, or one horse would appear to be greater than another horse and still more clearly did I seem to perceive that ten is two more than eight, and that two cubits are more than one, because two less pretty well

;

twice one.

And what

now your notion

of such matters ? said Cebes.

PH^DO

121

should be far enough from imagining, he replied, that I the cause of any of them, indeed I should, for I cannot satisfy myself that when one is added to one, the one to which the addition is made becomes two, or that the two units added together make two by reason of the addition. For I cannot understand how, when separated from the other, each of them was I

knew

one and not two, and now, when they are brought together, the mere juxtaposition of them can be the cause of their becoming two nor can I understand how the division of one is the way to make two for then a different cause would produce the same as in the former instance the addition and juxtaposition effect of one to one was the cause of two, in this the separation and subtraction of one from the other would be the cause. Nor am I any longer satisfied that I understand the reason why one or anything else either is generated or destroyed or is at all, but I have in my mind some confused notion of another method, and can never admit this. Then I heard some one who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place and I argued that if any one desired to :

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

find out the cause of the generation or destruction or existence

of anything, he

must

find out

what

state of

being or suffering

or doing was best for that thing, and therefore a man had only to consider the best for himself and others, and then he would also know the worse, for that the same science comprised both. And I rejoiced to think that I had found in Anaxagoras a teacher of the causes of existence such as I desired, and I imagtell me first whether the earth is flat or and then he would further explain the cause and the necessity of this, and would teach me the nature of the best and show that this was best and if he said that the earth was in the centre, he would explain that this position was the best, and I should be satisfied if this were shown to me, and not want any other sort of cause. And I thought that I would then go and ask him about the sun and moon and stars, and that he would explain to me their comparative swiftness, and their returnings and various states, and how their several affections, active and For I could not imagine that passive, were all for the best.

ined that he would

round

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

122

of mind as the disposer of them, he would give any other account of their being as they are, except that this was best and I thought that when he had explained to me in detail the cause of each and the cause of all, he would go on to explain to me what was best for each and what was best for all. I had hopes which I would not have sold for much, and I seized the books and read them as fast as I could in my eagerness to know the better and the worse. What hopes I had formed, and how grievously was I disapAs I proceeded, I found my philosopher altogether pointed forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavored to explain the causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my body is made up of bones and muscles and the bones,, as he would say, are hard and have ligaments which divide them, and the muscles are elastic, and they cover the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which contains them and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am sitting here in a curved posture that is what he would say, and he would have a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound, and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same sort, forgetting to mention the true cause, which is that the Athenians have thought fit to condemn me, and accordingly I have thought it better and more right to remain here and undergo my sentence for I am inclined to think that these muscles and bones of mine would have gone off to Megara or Bceotia by the dog of Egypt they would, if they had ben guided only by their own idea of what was best, and if I had not chosen as the better and nobler part, instead of playing truant and running away, to undergo any punishment which the State inflicts. There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot

when he spoke ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PHLEDO

123

distinguish the cause from the condition, which the

many,

feel-

ing about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. And thus one man makes a vortex all round and steadies the earth by the heaven ; another gives the air as a support to the Any power which in earth, which is a sort of broad trough. disposing them as they are disposes them for the best never en-

nor do they imagine that there is any they rather expect to find another Atlas of the world who is stronger and more everlasting and more containing than the good is, and are clearly of opinion that the obligatory and containing power of the good is as nothing and yet this is the principle which I would fain learn if any one would teach me. But as I have failed either to discover myself or to learn of anyone else, the nature of the best, I will exhibit to you, if you like, what I have found to be the second ters into their minds,

superhuman strength

in that

;

mode of inquiring into the cause. should very much like to hear that, he replied. Socrates proceeded I thought that as I had failed in the contemplation of true existence, I ought to be careful that I did not lose the eye of my soul as people may injure their bodily eye by observing and gazing on the sun during an eclipse, unless they take the precaution of only looking at the image reflected in the water, or in some similar medium. That occurred to me, and I was afraid that my soul might be blinded altogether if I looked at things with my eyes or tried by the help of the senses to apprehend them. And I thought that I had better have recourse to ideas, and seek in them the truth of existence. I dare say that the simile is not perfect for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existences through the medium of ideas, sees them only " through a glass darkly," any more than he who sees them in their working and effects. However, this was the method which I adopted I first assumed some principle which I judged to be the strongest, and then I affirmed as true whatever seemed to agree with this, whether relating to the cause or to anything else and that which disagreed I regarded as untrue. But I should like to explain my meaning clearly, as I do not think that you understand me. No, indeed, replied Cebes, not very well. There is nothing new, he said, in what I am about to tell you but only what I have been always and everywhere repeating in the previous discussion and on other occasions I want best I

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

124 to

show you

the nature of that cause which has occupied

have to go back to those familiar words which are in the mouth of every one, and first of all assume that there is an absolute beauty and goodness, and greatness, and the like grant me this, and I hope to be able to show you the nature of the cause, and to prove the immortality of the soul. Cebes said You may proceed at once with the proof, as I thoughts, and

I shall

;

readily grant

you

this.

Well, he said, then I should like to know whether you agree with me in the next step for I cannot help thinking that' if ;

there be anything beautiful other than absolute beauty, that

can only be beautiful in as far as it partakes of absolute beauty this I should say of everything. Do you agree in this notion of the cause ? Yes, he said, I agree. He proceeded I know nothing and can understand nothing of any other of those wise causes which are alleged and if a person says to me that the bloom of color, or form, or anything else of that sort is a source of beauty, I leave all that, which is only confusing to me, and simply and singly, and perhaps foolishly, hold and am assured in my own mind that nothing makes a thing beautiful but the presence and participation of beauty in whatever way or manner obtained for as to the manner I am uncertain, but I stoutly contend that by beauty all beautiful things become beautiful. That appears to me to be the only safe answer that I can give, either to myself or to any other, and to that I cling, in the persuasion that I shall never be overthrown, and that I may safely answer to myself or any other that by beauty beautiful things become beautiful. Do you not agree to that ? Yes, I agree. And that by greatness only great things become great and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;and

;

greater greater, and by smallness the less becomes

less.

True.

Then if a person remarks that A is taller by a head than B, and B less by a head than A, you would refuse to admit this, and would stoutly contend that what you mean is only that the greater is greater by, and by reason of, greatness, and the less is less only by, or by reason of, smallness and thus you would avoid the danger of saying that the greater is greater and the less less by the measure of the head, which is the same in both, ;

PH^DO

125

and would also avoid the monstrous absurdity of supposing that the greater man is greater by reason of the head, which is small. Would you not be afraid of that ? I should, said Cebes, laughing. In like manner you would be afraid to say that ten exceeded eight by, and by reason of, two; but would say by, and by reason of, number; or that two cubits exceed one cubit by a

Indeed,

—

that is what you would same danger in both cases. Very true, he said. Again, would you not be cautious of affirming

half, is

but by magnitude

say, for there

the

that the addi-

one to one, or the division of one, is the cause of two ? And you would loudly asseverate that you know of no way in which anything comes into existence except by participation in its own proper essence, and consequently, as far as you know, the only cause of two is the participation in duality that is, the way to make two, and the participation in one is the way to make one. You would say I will let alone puzzles of division and addition wiser heads than mine may answer them inexperienced as I am, and ready to start, as the proverb says, at my own shadow, I cannot afford to give up the sure ground of a principle. And if any one assails you there, you would not mind him, or answer him until you had seen whether the consequences which follow agree with one another or not, and when you are further required to give an explanation of this principle, you would go on to assume a higher principle, and the best of the higher ones until you found a resting-place but you would not confuse the principle and the consequences in your reasoning, like the Eristics at least if you wanted to discover real existence. Not that this confusion signifies to them who never care or think about the matter at all, for they have the wit to be well pleased with themselves, however great may be the turmoil of their ideas. But you, if you are a philosopher, will, I believe, do as I say. What you say is most true, said Simmias and Cebes, both speaking at once. Ech. Yes, Phaedo; and I don't wonder at their assenting. Anyone who has the least sense will acknowledge the wondertion of

;

—

;

—

ful clearness of Socrates's

reasoning.

Phced. Certainly, Echecrates

whole company

at the time.

;

and that was the feeling of the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; DIALOGUES OF PLATO

126

Ech. Yes, and equally of ourselves, who were not of the company, and are now listening to your recital. But what fol-

lowed ? Phad. After all this was admitted, and they had agreed about the existence of ideas and the participation in them of the other things which derive their names from them, Socrates,

remember

rightly, said

your way of speaking; and yet when you say that Simmias is greater than Socrates and less than Phsedo, do you not predicate of Simmias both greatness and smallness ? This

Yes,

I do.

you allow that Simmias does not really exceed Socwords may seem to imply, because he is Simmias, but by reason of the size which he has just as Simmias does not exceed Socrates because he is Simmias, any more than beBut

still

rates, as the

;

cause Socrates

Socrates, but because he has smallness

compared with the greatness

when

Simmias ?

True.

And if Phsedo is

exceeds him in size, that is not because Phsedo Phsedo, but because Phsedo has greatness relatively to Sim-

mias,

who

That

And

comparatively smaller ?

true.

Simmias is said to be great, and is also said to be small, because he is in a mean between them, exceeding the smallness of the one by his greatness, and allowing the greatnes of the other to exceed his smallness. He added, laughing, I am speaking like a book, but I believe that what I am saying therefore

is true.

Simmias assented to

The reason why

this.

say this is that I want you to agree with me in thinking, not only that absolute greatness will never be great and also small, but that greatness in us or in the concrete will never admit the small or admit of being exceeded instead of this, one of two things will happen either the greater will fly or retire before the opposite, which is the less, or at the advance of the less will cease to exist but will not, if allowing or admitting smallness, be changed by that ; even as I, having received and admitted smallness when compared with Simmias, remain just as I was, and am the same small person. And as the idea of greatness cannot condescend ever to be or become small, in like manner the smallness in us cannot be or become I

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

PH^EDO

127

great ; nor can any other opposite which remains the same ever be or become its own opposite, but either passes away or perishes in the change.

That, replied Cebes,

One

quite

notion.

company, though I do not exactly remember which of them, on hearing this, said By Heaven, is not this the direct contrary of what was admitted before that out of the greater came the less and out of the less the greater, and that opposites were simply generated from opposites whereas now this seems to be utterly denied. Socrates inclined his head to the speaker and listened. I like your courage, he said, in reminding us of this. But you do not observe that there is a difference in the two cases. For then we were speaking of opposites in the concrete, and now of the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

of the essential opposite which, as

is affirmed, neither in us nor can ever be at variance with itself then, my friend, we were speaking of things in which opposites are inherent and which are called after them, but now about the opposites which

in nature

are inherent in

them and which give

essential opposites will never, as

That was not that I

name

At the same

tion into or out of one another.

Cebes, he said: Were you at friend's objection?

their

all

feeling, said

them these ;

maintain, admit of generatime, turning to

disconcerted, Cebes, at our

Cebes and yet ;

cannot deny

apt to be disconcerted.

Then we

are agreed after all, said Socrates, that the opposite never in any case be opposed to itself? To that we are quite agreed, he replied. Yet once more let me ask you to consider the question from another point of view, and see whether you agree with me There is a thing which you term heat, and another thing which you term cold ? will

Certainly.

But are they the same as fire and snow? Most assuredly not. Heat is not the same as fire, nor is cold the same as snow ? No. And yet you will surely admit that when snow, as was before said,, is under the influence of heat, they will not remain snow and heat but at the advance of the heat the snow will either ;

retire

or perish ?

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I 28

Very

And

he replied.

true,

the

fire

too at the advance of the cold will either retire the fire is under the influence of the cold,

and when

or perish they will not remain, as before, ;

That

true,

fire

and

cold.

said.

in some cases the name of the idea is not confined to the but anything else which, not being the idea, exists only in I will try to make the form of the idea, may also lay claim to it. this clearer by an example The odd number is always called

And

idea

;

by the name of odd ? Very true. But is this the only thing which is called odd? Are there not other things which have their own name, and yet are called odd, because, although not the same as oddness, they are never without oddness ? that is what I mean to ask whether num-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

number

bers such as the

many

three are not of the class of odd.

And

would you not say, for example, that three may be called by its proper name, and also be called odd, which is not the same with three ? and this may be said not only of three but also of five, and every alternate number each of them without being oddness is odd, and in the same way two and four, and the whole series of alternate numthere are

other examples

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

number

bers, has every

even, without being evenness.

you admit that ? Yes, he said,

how

Then now mark

can

deny that ?

the point at which

aiming not only do :

opposites exclude one another, but also concrete

essential

things, which, although not in themselves opposed, contain

opposites

these, I say, also reject the idea

;

which

opposed

contained in them, and at the advance of that they either perish or withdraw. There is the number three will not that endure annihilation or anything for example

to that

;

sooner than be converted into an even number, remaining three

Very

And to the

true, said Cebes. yet,

said, the

number two

certainly not opposed

number three?

It is not.

Then not only do

opposite ideas repel the advance of one

another, but also there are other things which repel the ap-

proach of opposites.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; PHiEDO

129

That

is quite true, he said. Suppose, he said, that we endeavor,

what these

if possible,

to determine

are.

means.

all

not, Cebes, such as compel the things of which they have possession, not only to take their own form, but also the

Are they

form of some opposite ? What do you mean ? I mean, as I was just now saying, and have no need to repeat to you, that those things which are possessed by the number three must not only be three in number, but must also be odd. Quite true.

And on

this oddness, of

which the number three has the im-

press, the opposite idea will never intrude ?

No.

And

impress was given by the odd principle?

this

Yes.

And to the odd is opposed the even ? True.

Then

the idea of the even

number

will

never arrive at three?

No.

Then

three has

no part

in the

even?

None.

Then the triad or number Very true.

three

uneven?

my distinction of natures which are not and yet do not admit opposites as in this instance, three although not opposed to the even, does not any the more admit of the even, but always brings the opposite into play on the other side or as two does not receive the odd, or fire the cold from these examples (and there are many more of them) perhaps you may be able to arrive at the general conclusion that To

return then to

opposites,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

not only opposites will not receive opposites, but also that nothing which brings the opposite will admit the opposite of that

which

brings in that to which it is brought. And here let me for there is no harm in repetition. The number

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

recapitulate five will

which

not admit the nature of the even, any more than ten, the double of five, will admit the nature of the odd

the double, though not strictly opposed to the odd, rejects the

odd altogether. Nor again any fraction in which there 9

2, nor a half, nor again in which there

will parts in the ratio of 3 is

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

l 3o

a third, admit the notion of the whole, although they are not opposed to the whole. You will agree to that? Yes, he said, I entirely agree and go along with you in that And now, he said, I think that I may begin again and to the question which I am about to ask I will beg you to give not the old safe answer, but another, of which I will offer you an example and I hope that you will find in what has been just said another foundation which is as safe. I mean that if anyone asks you, " What that is, the inherence of which makes the body hot? " you will reply not heat (this is what I call the safe and stupid answer), but fire, a far better answer, which we are now in a condition to give. Or if anyone asks you, " Why a body is diseased," you will not say from disease, but from fever; and instead of saying that oddness is the cause of odd numbers, you will say that the monad is the cause of them: and so of things in general, as I dare say that you will understand sufficiently without my adducing any further examples. Yes, he said, I quite understand you. Tell me, then, what is that the inherence of which will render is

;

the body alive ?

The

soul,

And

he replied. always the case ?

this

Yes, he said, of course.

Then whatever

the soul possesses, to that she comes bearing

life?

Yes, certainly.

And is there any opposite to There is, he said. And what is that ?

life?

Death.

Then

the soul, as has been acknowledged, will never receive

the opposite of

what she brings. And now, he which repels the even ?

said,

what did

call that principle

The

odd.

And

that principle

which repels the musical, or the just ?

The unmusical, he said, and the unjust. And what do we call that principle which does not admit of death?

The

immortal, he said.

And

does the soul admit of death?

No.

PUJEDO Then

the soul

131

immortal ?

Yes, he said.

And may we say that this is proven? Yes, abundantly proven, Socrates, he replied. And

supposing that the odd were imperishable, must not

three be imperishable

course.

And

that

which

cold were imperishable,

came attacking

principle

the snow,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

when

the

warm

must not the snow have

whole and unmelted for it could never have perished, nor could it have remained and admitted the heat ? True, he said. Again, if the uncooling or warm principle were imperishable, the fire when assailed by cold would not have perished or have been extinguished, but would have gone away unaffected ? Certainly, he said. And the same may be said of the immortal if the immortal is also imperishable, the soul when attacked by death cannot perish for the preceding argument shows that the soul will not admit of death, or ever be dead, any more than three or the odd number will admit of the even, or fire, or the heat in the Yet a person may say " But although the fire, of the cold. odd will not become even at the approach of the even, why may not the odd perish and the even take the place of the odd ? " Now to him who makes this objection, we cannot answer that the odd principle is imperishable for this has not been acknowledged, but if this had been acknowledged, there would have been no difficulty in contending that at the approach of the even the odd principle and the number three took up their departure ; and the same argument would have held good of fire and heat and any other thing. retired

;

Very

And

true.

the

same may be

said of the immortal

the immortal

also imperishable, then the soul will be imperishable as well as immortal but if not, some other proof of her imperishableness

;

will

have to be given.

other proof

needed, he said

for if the immortal, being nothing is imperishable. Yes, replied Socrates, all men will agree that God, and the essential form of life, and the immortal in general will never is

eternal, is liable to perish, then

perish.

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I3 2

Yes,

all

men, he said

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;that

true

;

and what

more, gods,

not mistaken, as well as men. Seeing then that the immortal is indestructible, must not the soul, if she is immortal, be also imperishable ? if

Most certainly. Then when death

may be supposed of death

and

attacks a man, the mortal portion of

to die, but the immortal goes out of the

him way

preserved safe and sound ?

True.

Then, Cebes, beyond question the soul is immortal and imand our souls will truly exist in another world I am convinced, Socrates, said Cebes, and have nothing more to object; but if my friend Simmias, or anyone else, has any further objection, he had better speak out, and not keep silence, since I do not know how there can ever be a more fitting time to which he can defer the discussion, if there is anything which he wants to say or have said. But I have nothing more to say, replied Simmias nor do I see any room for uncertainty, except that which arises necesperishable,

;

sarily

out of the greatness of the subject and the feebleness of I cannot help feeling.

man, and which

Yes, Simmias, replied Socrates, that is well said and more than that, first principles, even if they appear certain, should be carefully considered; and when they are satisfactorily ascertained, then, with a sort of hesitating confidence in human reason, you may, I think, follow the course of the argument and if this is clear, there will be no need for any further inquiry. That, he said, is true. my friends, he said, if the soul is really immortal, But then, what care should be taken of her, not only in respect of the portion of time which is called life, but of eternity And the danger of neglecting her from this point of view does indeed appear to be awful. If death had only been the end of all, the wicked would have had a good bargain in dying, for they would have been happily quit not only of their body, but of their own evil together with their souls. But now, as the soul plainly appears to be immortal, there is no release or salvation from evil except the attainment of the highest virtue and wisdom. For the soul when on her progress to the world below takes nothing with her but nurture and education which are indeed said greatly to benefit or greatly to injure the departed, at the very beginning of its pilgrimage in the other world. :

;

PH/EDO For

133

after death, as they say, the

genius of each individual, to he belonged in life, leads him to a certain place in which the dead are gathered together for judgment, whence they go into the world below, following the guide who is appointed to conduct them from this world to the other and when they have there received their due and remained their time, another guide brings them back again after many revolutions of ages. Now this journey to the other world is not, as vEschylus says in the " Telephus," a single and straight path no guide would be wanted for that, and no one could miss a single path but there

whom

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

are

many

partings of the road, and windings, as I must infer

and sacrifices which are offered to the gods below where three ways meet on earth. The wise and orderly soul is conscious of her situation and follows in the path but the soul which desires the body, and which, as I was relating before, has long been fluttering about the lifeless frame and the world of sight, is after many struggles and many sufferings hardly and with violence carried away by her attendant genius, and when she arrives at the place where the other souls are gathered, if she be impure and have done impure deeds, or been concerned in foul murders or other crimes which are the brothfrom that ers of these, and the works of brothers in crime soul every one flees and turns away no one will be her companion, no one her guide, but alone she wanders in extremity of evil until certain times are fulfilled, and when they are fulfilled, she is borne irresistibly to her own fitting habitation as every pure and just soul which has passed through life in the company and under the guidance of the gods has also her own proper home. Now the earth has divers wonderful regions, and is indeed in nature and extent very unlike the notions of geographers, as I believe on the authority of one who shall be nameless. What do you mean, Socrates ? said Simmias. I have myself heard many descriptions of the earth, but I do not know in what you are putting your faith, and I should like to know. from the

rites

in places

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

Well, Simmias, replied Socrates, the recital of a tale does not, require the art of Glaucus and I know not that the art of Glaucus could prove the truth of my tale, which I myself I think,

;

if I could, I fear, Simwould come to an end before the argument T may describe to you, however, the form

should never be able to prove, and even mias, that

life

was completed. and regions of the earth according to

my conception

of them.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

i 34

That, said Simmias, will be enough. Well, then, he said, my conviction is that the earth is a round body in the center of the heavens, and therefore has no need of

any similar force as a support, but is kept there and hindered from falling or inclining any way by the equability of For that the surrounding heaven and by her own equipoise. which, being in equipoise, is in the center of that which is equably diffused, will not incline any way in any degree, but air or

will is

always remain in the same state and not deviate.

first

Which

And

this

notion.

surely a correct one, said Simmias.

is very vast, and that we who dwell in the region extending from the river Phasis to the Pillars of Heracles, along the borders of the sea, are just like ants or frogs about a marsh, and inhabit a small portion only, and that many others dwell in many like places. For I should say that

Also

believe that the earth

hollows of various forms and which the water and the mist and the air collect; and that the true earth is pure and in the pure heaven, in which that is the heaven which is commonly spoken also are the stars of as the ether, of which this is but the sediment collecting in the hollows of the earth. But we who live in these hollows are deceived into the notion that we are dwelling above on the surface of the earth which is just as if a creature who was at the bottom of the sea were to fancy that he was on the surface of the water, and that the sea was the heaven through which he saw the sun and the other stars he having never come to the surface by reason of his feebleness and sluggishness, and having never lifted up his head and seen, nor ever heard from one who had seen, this other region which is so much purer and fairer than his own. Now this is exactly our case: for we are dwelling in a hollow of the earth, and fancy that we are on the surface and the air we call the heaven, and in this we imagine that the stars move. But this is also owing to our feebleness and sluggishness, which prevent our reaching the surface of the air for if any man could arrive at the exterior limit, or take the wings of a bird and fly upward, like a fish who puts his head out and sees this world, he would see a world beyond and, if the nature of man could sustain the sight, he would acknowledge that this was the place of the true heaven and the true light and the true stars. For this earth, and the stones, and the entire in all parts of the earth there are sizes, into

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

PH^DO

135

region which surrounds us are spoilt and corroded, like the things in the sea which are corroded by the brine for in the sea too there is hardly any noble or perfect growth, but clefts only, ;

and sand, and an endless slough of mud and even the shore is not to be compared to the fairer sights of this world. And greater far is the superiority of the other. Now of that upper earth which is under the heaven, I can tell you a charming tale, Simmias, which is well worth hearing. And we, Socrates, replied Simmias, shall be charmed to listen. :

The

tale,

the earth,

friend,

when looked

In the

said, is as follows.

from above,

first

place,

one of those balls which have leather coverings in twelve pieces, and is of divers colors, of which the colors which painters use on earth are only a sample. But there the whole earth is made up of them, and they are brighter far and clearer than ours there is a purple of wonderful luster, also the radiance of gold, and the white which is in the earth is whiter than any chalk or snow. Of these and other colors the earth is made up, and they are more in number and fairer than the eye of man has ever seen and the very hollows (of which I was speaking) filled with air and water are seen like light flashing amid the other colors, and have a color of their own, which gives a sort of unity to the variety of earth. And in this fair region everything that grows trees, and flowers, and fruits is in a like degree fairer than any here and there are hills, and stones in them in a like degree smoother, and more transparent, and fairer in color than our highly valued emeralds and sardonyxes and jaspers, and other gems, which are but minute fragments of them for there all the stones are like our precious stones, and fairer still. The reason of this is that they are pure, and not, like our precious stones, infected or corroded by the corrupt briny elements which coagulate among us, and which breed foulness and disease both in earth and They are the jewels stones, as well as in animals and plants. of the upper earth, which also shines with gold and silver and the like, and they are visible to sight and large and abundant and found in every region of the earth, and blessed is he who sees them. And upon the earth are animals and men, some in a middle region, others dwelling about the air as we dwell about the sea others in islands which the air flows round, near the continent: and in a word, the air is used by them as the water and the sea are by us, and the ether is to them what the at

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 136

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

Moreover, the temperament of their seasons is such no disease, and live much longer than we do, and have sight and hearing and smell, and all the other senses, in far greater perfection, in the same degree that air is purer than water or the ether than air. Also they have temples and sacred places in which the gods really dwell, and they hear their voices and receive their answers, and are conscious of them and hold converse with them, and they see the sun, moon, and stars as they really are, and their other blessedness is of a piece with this. Such is the nature of the whole earth, and of the things which are around the earth and there are divers regions in the hollows on the face of the globe everywhere, some of them deeper and also wider than that which we inhabit, others deeper and with a narrower opening than ours, and some are shallower and wider all have numerous perforations, and passages broad and narrow in the interior of the earth, conecting them with one another and there flows into and out of them, as into basins, a vast tide of water, and huge subterranean streams of perennial rivers, and springs hot and cold, and a great fire, and great rivers of fire, and streams of liquid mud, thin or thick (like the rivers of mud in Sicily, and the lava-streams which follow them), and the regions about which they happen to flow are filled up with them. And there is a sort of swing in the interior of the Now the swing is in earth which moves all this up and down. this wise There is a chasm which is the vastest of them all, and pierces right through the whole earth this is that which Homer describes in the words air to us.

that they have

;

" Far

off,

where

the inmost depth beneath the earth "

and many other poets, have called caused by the streams flowing into and out of this chasm, and they each have the nature of the soil through which they flow. And the reason why the streams are always flowing in and out is that the watery element has no bed or bottom, and is surging and swinging up and down, and the surrounding wind and air do the same they follow the water up and down, hither and thither, over the earth just as in respiring the air is always in process of inhalation and exhalation and the wind swinging with the water in and out produces fearful and irresistible blasts when the waters retire with a rush into the lower parts of the earth, as they are called, they flow

and which he Tartarus.

in other places,

And the swing is

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

PHyEDO

137

through the earth into those regions, and fill them up as with pump, and then when they leave those regions and rush back hither, they again fill the hollows here, and when these are filled, flow through subterranean channels and find their way to their several places, forming seas, and Thence they again enter the lakes, and rivers, and springs. earth, some of them making a long circuit into many lands, others going to few places and those not distant, and again fall

the alternate motion of a

some at a point a good deal lower than that at which they rose, and others not much lower, but all in some degree lower than the point of issue. And some burst forth again on the opposite side, and some on the same side, and some wind round the earth with one or many folds, like the coils of a serpent, and descend as far as they can, but always return and fall The rivers on either side can descend only to into the lake. the center and no further, for to the rivers on both sides the into Tartarus,

opposite side

Now

a precipice.

these rivers are many, and mighty, and diverse, and

there are four principal ones, of which the greatest and outerthat called Oceanus, which flows round the earth in a and in the opposite direction flows Acheron, which passes under the earth through desert places, into the Acherusian Lake this is the lake to the shores of which the souls of the many go when they are dead, and after waiting an appointed time, which is to some a longer and to some a shorter time, they are sent back again to be born as animals. The third river rises between the two, and near the place of rising pours into a vast region of fire, and forms a lake larger than the Mediterranean Sea, boiling with water and mud; and proceeding muddy and turbid, and winding about the earth, comes, among other places, to the extremities of the Acherusian Lake, but mingles not with the waters of the lake, and after making many

most

circle;

coils about the earth plunges into Tartarus at a deeper level. This is that Pyriphlegethon, as the stream is called, which throws up jets of fire in all sorts of places. The fourth river goes out on the oposite side, and falls first of all into a wild and savage region, which is all of a dark-blue color, like lapis lazuli and this is that river which is called the Stygian River, and falls into and forms the Lake Styx, and after falling into the lake and receiving strange powers in the waters, passes under the earth, winding round in the opposite direction to Pyriphlege-

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

138

thon, and meeting in the Acherusian side.

And

Lake from the opposite no other,

the water of this river too mingles with

but flows round in a circle and falls into Tartarus over against Pyriphlegethon , and the name of this river, as the poet says, is Cocytus. Such is the nature of the other world; and when the dead arrive at the place to which the genius of each severally conveys them, first of all they have sentence passed upon them, as they have lived well and piously or not. And those who appear to have lived neither well nor ill, go to the river Acheron, and mount such conveyances as they can get, and are carried in them to the lake, and there they dwell and are purified of their evil deeds, and suffer the penalty of the wrongs which they have done to others, and are absolved, and receive the rewards But those who of their good deeds according to their desserts. appear to be incurable by reason of the greatness of their crimes who have committed many and terrible deeds of sacrisuch are hurled into lege, murders foul and violent, or the like

—

and they never come Those again who have committed crimes, which, although great, are not unpardonable who in a moment of anger, for example, have done violence to a father or a mother, and have repented for the remainder of their lives, or who have taken the life of another under the like extenuating circumstances these are plunged into Tartarus, the pains of which they are compelled to undergo for a year, but at the end of the year the wave casts them forth mere homicides by way of Cocytus, parricides and matricides by Pyriphlegethon and they are borne to the Acherusian Lake, and there they lift up their voices and call upon the victims whom they have slain or wronged, to have pity on them, and to receive them, and to let them come out of the river into the lake. And if they prevail, then they come forth and cease from their troubles but if not, they are carried back again into Tartarus and from thence into the rivers unceasingly, until they obtain mercy from those whom they have wronged for that is the sentence inflicted upon them by their judges. Those also who are remarkable for having led holy lives are released from this earthly prison, and go to their pure home which is above, and dwell in the purer earth and those who have duly purified themselves with philosophy live henceforth altogether without the body, in mansions fairer Tartarus, which

their suitable destiny,

out.

—

;

PH^DO

139

far than these, which may not be described, and of which the time would fail me to tell. Wherefore, Simmias, seeing all these things, what ought not we to do in order to obtain virtue and wisdom in this life ? Fair is

the prize, and the hope great. I do not mean to affirm that the description which I have

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

given of the soul and her mansions is exactly true a man of But I do say that, inasmuch sense ought hardly to say that. zs the soul is shown to be immortal, he may venture to think, not improperly or unworthily, that something of the kind is The venture is a glorious one, and he ought to comtrue. fort himself with words like these, which is the reason why I lengthen out the tale. Wherefore, I say, let a man be of good cheer about his soul, who has cast away the pleasures and ornaments of the body as alien to him, and rather hurtful in their effects, and has followed after the pleasures of knowledge in this life; who has adorned the soul in her own proper jewels, which are temperance, and justice, and courage, and nobility, and truth in these arrayed she is ready to go on her journey You, Simmias and to the world below, when her time comes. Cebes, and all other men, will depart at some time or other. Me already, as the tragic poet would say, the voice of fate calls. Soon I must drink the poison and I think that I had better repair to the bath first, in order that the women may not have

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

the trouble of washing my body after I am dead. When he had done speaking, Crito said And have you any :

commands

for us, Socrates

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;anything to say about your

dren, or any other matter in which

we can

serve

chil-

you ?

Nothing particular, he said only, as I have always told you, would have you to look to yourselves that is a service which you may always be doing to me and mine as well as to yourAnd you need not make professions for if you take no selves. thought for yourselves, and walk not according to the precepts which I have given you, not now for the first time, the warmth of your professions will be of no avail. We will do our best, said Crito. But in what way would you have us bury you ? In any way that you like only you must get hold of me, and take care that I do not walk away from you. Then he turned to us, and added with a smile I cannot make Crito believe that I am the same Socrates who have been talking and conducting :

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

i 4o

the argument; he fancies that I

—

the other Socrates

whom

soon see, a dead body and he asks, How shall he bury me ? And though I have spoken many words in the endeavor to show that when I have drunk the poison I shall leave you and go to the joys of the blessed these words of mine, with which I comforted you and myself, have had, as I perceive, no And therefore I want you to be surety for effect upon Crito. me now, as he was surety for me at the trial but let the promise be of another sort for he was my surety to the judges that I would remain, but you must be my surety to him that I shall not remain, but go away and depart; and then he will suffer less at my death, and not be grieved when he sees my body being burned or buried. I would not have him sorrow at my hard lot, or say at the burial, Thus we lay out Socrates, or, Thus we follow him to the grave or bury him for false words are not he

will

—

;

evil. Be good cheer, then, my dear Crito, and say that you are burying my body only, and do with that as is usual, and as you think

only

evil in

themselves, but they infect the soul with

best.

When

he had spoken these words, he arose and went into who bade us wait and we waited, talking and thinking of the subject of discourse, and also of the greatness of our sorrow he was like a father of whom we were being bereaved, and we were about to pass the rest of our lives When he had taken the bath his children were as orphans. brought to him (he had two young sons and an elder one) and the women of his family also came, and he talked to them and gave them a few directions in the presence of Crito ; and he then dismissed them and returned to us. Now the hour of sunset was near, for a good deal of time had passed while he was within. When he came out, he sat down with us again after his bath, but not much was said. Soon the jailer, who was the servant of the Eleven, entered and stood by him, saying To you, Socrates, whom I know to be the noblest and gentlest and best of all who ever came to this place, I will not impute the angry feelings of other men, who rage and swear at me when, in obedience to the authorities, I bid them drink the poison indeed I am sure that you will not be angry with me ; for others, as you are aware, and not I, are the guilty cause. And so fare you well, and try to bear lightly what must needs be you know my errand. Then bursting into tears he turned away and went out. the bath chamber with Crito,

;

—

;

PH^DO

141

Socrates looked at him and said I return your good wishes, and will do as you bid. Then^ turning to us, he said, How charming the man is since I have been in prison he has always been coming to see me, and at times he would talk to me, and was as good as could be to me, and now see how generously he sorrows for me. But we must do as he says, Crito let the cup :

;

be brought, if the poison is prepared if not, let the attendant prepare some. Yet, said Crito, the sun is still upon the hilltops, and many a one has taken the draught late, and after the announcement has been made to him, he has eaten and drunk, and indulged in sensual delights do not hasten, then, there is still time. Socrates said Yes, Crito, and they of whom you speak are right in doing thus, for they think that they will gain by the delay but I am right in not doing thus, for I do not think that I should gain anything by drinking the poison a little later I should be sparing and saving a life which is already gone: I could only laugh at myself for this. Please then to do as I say, and not to refuse me. Crito, when he heard this, made a sign to the servant and the servant went in, and remained for some time, and then returned with the jailer carrying the cup of poison. Socrates said You, my good friend, who are experienced in these mat:

;

ters, shall

give

directions

how

to proceed.

The man

answered: You have only to walk about until your legs are heavy, and then to lie down, and the poison will act. At the same time he handed the cup to Socrates, who in the easiest and gentlest manner, without the least fear or change of color or feature, looking at the man with all his eyes, Echecrates, as What do you say about his maner was, took the cup and said making a libation out of this cup to any god ? May I, or not ? The man answered We only prepare, Socrates, just so much I understand, he said: yet I may and as we deem enough. must pray to the gods to prosper my journey from this to that other world may this, then, which is my prayer, be granted Then holding the cup to his lips, quite readily and to me. cheerfully he drank off the poison. And hitherto most of us had been able to control our sorrow; but now when we saw him drinking, and saw too that he had finished the draught, we could no longer forbear, and in spite of myself my own tears were flowing fast so that I covered my face and wept over my:

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

;;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I4 2

was not weeping over him, but at the calamity in having lost such a companion. for Crito, when he found himself unable to

for certainly I

self,

thought of

Nor was

my own

I the first,

had got up and moved away, and I followed moment, Apollodorus, who had been weeping all broke out into a loud cry which made cowards of us

restrain his tears,

and

at that

the time,

Socrates alone retained his calmness What is this strange outcry ? he said. I sent away the women mainly in order that they might not offend in this way, for I have heard that a man should die in peace. Be quiet, then, and have patience. When we heard that, we were ashamed, and refrained our

all.

and he walked about until, as he said, his legs began to and then he lay on his back, according to the directions, and the man who gave him the poison now and then looked at his feet and legs; and after a while he pressed his foot hard and asked him if he could feel and he said, no and then his leg, and so upwards and upwards, and showed us that he was cold and stiff. And he felt them himself, and said When the poison reaches the heart, that will be the end. He was beginning to grow cold about the groin, when he uncovered his face, for he had covered himself up, and said (they were his last words) he said: Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt ? The debt shall be paid, said Crito There was no answer to this question is there anything else ? but in a minute or two a movement was heard, and the attendants uncovered him; his eyes were set, and Crito closed his eyes and mouth. Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend, whom I may truly call the wisest, and justest, and best of all the men whom I have ever known. tears

;

fail,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

CHOICE EXAMPLES OF CLASSIC ARCHITECTURE.

THE PARTHENON AT ATHENS. Photogravure from a photograph.

The Parthenon, the temple of Minerva, at Athens, is usually regarded as the Many of the sculptures have been most perfect specimen of Greek architecture. transported to England, and are now in the British Museum, where they form, with some other relics of antiquity, the collection known as the Elgin Marbles.

INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

THE

" Protagoras," like several of the dialogues of Plato, put into the mouth of Socrates, who describes a conversation which had taken place between himself and the great Sophist at the house of Callias " the man who had spent more upon the Sophists than all the rest of the world," and in which the learned Hippias and the grammarian Prodicus had also shared, as well as Alcibiades and Critias, both of whom said a few words in the presence of a distinguished company consisting of disciples of Protagoras and of leading Athenians belonging to the Socratic circle. The dialogue commences with a request on the part of Hippocrates that Socrates would introduce him to the celebrated teacher. He has come before the dawn had risen to testify his zeal. Socrates moderates his excitement and advises him to find out " what Protagoras will make of him," before he becomes his pupil. They go together to the house of Callias and Socrates, after explaining the purpose of their visit to Protagoras, asks the question " What he will make of Hippocrates ? " Protagoras answers, " That he will make him a better and a wiser man." " But in what will he be better ? " Socrates desires to have a more precise answer. Protagoras replies, " That he will teach him prudence in affairs private and public in short, the science or knowledge of human life." This, as Socrates admits, is a noble profession: but he is doubtful— or rather would have been, if Protagoras had not assured him of it whether such knowledge can be taught. And this for two reasons: (i) Because the Athenian people, who recognize in their assemblies the distinction between the skilled and the unskilled, do not recognize any distinction between the trained politician and the untrained (2) Because the wisest and best Athenian citizens do not teach their sons political virtue. is

—

;

—

;

—

;

Will Protagoras explain this anomaly to him ? Protagoras explains his views in the form of an apologue, in i43

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; I 44

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

which, after Prometheus had given men the arts, Zeus is represented as sending Hermes to them, bearing with him Justice and Reverence. These are not, like the arts, to be imparted to a few only, but all men are to be partakers of them. Therefore the Athenian people are right in distinguishing between the skilled and unskilled in the arts, and not between skilled and unskilled politicians, (i) For all men have the political virtues to a certain degree, and whether they have them or not are obliged man would be thought a madto say that they have them. man who professed an art which he did not know; and he would be equally thought a madman if he did not profess a virtue which he had not. (2) And that the political virtues can be taught and acquired, in the opinion of the Athenians, is proved by the fact that they punish evil-doers, with a view to prevention, of course mere retribution is for beasts, and not for men. (3) Another proof of this is the education of youth, which begins almost as soon as they can speak, and is continued by the State when they pass out of the control of their parents. (4) Nor is there any inconsistency in wise and good fathers having foolish and worthless sons for (a) in the first place the young do not learn of their fathers only, but of all the citizens and (b) this is partly a matter of chance and of natural gifts the sons of a great statesman are not necessarily great statesmen any more than the sons of a good artist are necessarily good artists. (5) The error of Socrates lies in supposing that there

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

no teachers, when all men are teachers. Only a few, like Protagoras himself, are somewhat better than others. Socrates is highly delighted, and quite satisfied with this explanation of Protagoras. But he has still a doubt lingering in his mind. Protagoras has spoken of the virtues are they many, or one ? are they parts of a whole, or different names of the same thing ? Protagoras replies that they are parts, like the parts of a face, which have their several functions, and no one part is like any other part. This admission, which has been somewhat hastily made, is now taken up and cross-examined by Socraare

tes:-â&#x20AC;&#x201D; " Is justice just, and

is holiness holy ? And are justice and holiness opposed to one another ? " " Then justice is unholy."'

Protagoras would rather say that justice is different from holiness, and yet in a certain point of view nearly the same. He does not, however, escape in this way from the cunning of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

145

who entangles him into an admission that everything has but one opposite. Folly, for example, is opposed to wisSocrates,

dom and folly is also opposed to temperance and therefore temperance and wisdom are the same. And holiness has been already admitted to be nearly the same as justice. Temperance, therefore, has now to be compared with justice. Protagoras, whose temper begins to get a little ruffled at the process to which he has been subjected, is. aware that he will soon be compelled by the dialectics of Socrates to admit that the temperate is the just. He therefore defends himself with his favorite weapon that is to say, he makes a long speech not much to the point, which elicits the applause of the audience. Here occurs a sort of interlude, which commences with a declaration on the part of Socrates that he cannot follow a long speech, and therefore he must beg Protagoras to speak shorter. As Protagoras declines to accommodate him, he rises to depart, but is detained by Callias, who thinks him unreasonable in not allowing Protagoras the liberty which he takes himself of speaking as he likes. But Alcibiades answers that the two cases are not parallel. For Socrates admits his inability to speak long will Protagoras in like manner acknowledge his inability to speak short? Counsels of moderation are urged, first in a few words by Critias, and then by Prodicus in balanced and sententious language and Hippias proposes an umpire. But who is to be the umpire? rejoins Socrates; he would rather suggest as a compromise that Protagoras shall ask, and he will answer. To this Protagoras yields a reluctant assent. Protagoras selects as the thesis of his questions a poem of Simonides of Ceos, in which he professes to find a contradiction. First the poet says ;

;

" Hard

it is

become good,"

for having said, * Hard is it to be be reconciled ? Socrates, who is familiar with the poem, is embarrassed at first, and invokes the aid of Prodicus the Cean, who must come to the help of his countryman, but apparently only with the intention of flattering him

and then reproaches Pittacus

How

good."

this to

First a distinction is drawn between (elvai) " to be," and (yeveaOai) " to become " to become good is difficult to be good is easy. Then the word " difficult " or

into absurdities.

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

14 6

hard " is' explained to mean " evil " in the Cean dialect. To but when Protagoras reclaims, Socraall this Prodicus assents tes slyly withdraws Prodicus from the fray, under the pretence "

;

that his assent

versary.

was only intended

He then proceeds

explanation of the whole passage.

lows

to test the wits of his ad-

and more The explanation

to give another

elaborate is

as fol-

The Lacedaemonians are great philosophers (although this is and the soul of their a fact which is not generally known) philosophy is brevity, which was also the style of primitive anNow Pittacus had a saying, tiquity and of the seven sages. " Hard is it to be good " Simonides was jealous of the fame of this saying, and wrote a poem which was designed to contro;

vert it. No, says he, Pittacus ; not " hard to be good," but " hard to become good." Socrates proceeds to argue in a

highly impressive manner that the whole composition is intended as an attack upon Pittacus. This, though manifestly absurd, is accepted by the company, and meets with the special approval of Hippias, who has however a favorite interpretation of his

own, which he

The argument

requested by Alcibiades to defer. not without some disdainful

now resumed,

remarks of Socrates on the practice of introducing the poets,

who ought not to be allowed, any more than flute girls, to come into good society. Men's own thoughts should supply them

with the materials for discussion. few soothing flatteries are addressed to Protagoras by Callias and Socrates, and then the old question is repeated, " Whether the virtues are one or many ? " To which Protagoras is now disposed to reply that four out of the five virtues are in some degree similar but he still contends that the fifth, courage, is wholly dissimilar. Socrates proceeds to undermine the last stronghold of the adversary, first obtaining from him the admission that all virtue is in the highest degree good ;

The courageous are the confident; and the confident are those who know their business or profession those who have no such knowledge and are still confident are madmen. This is :

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Then, says Socrates, courage is knowledge an inby drawing a futile distinction between the courageous and the confident in a fluent speech. Socrates renews the attack from another side he would like to know whether pleasure is not the only good, and pain the

admitted.

ference which Protagoras evades

INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

147

only evil ? Protagoras seems to doubt the morality or propriety of assenting to this ; he would rather say that " some pleasures are good, some pains are evil," which is also the opinion of the generality of mankind.

does he agree with the

What does he think of knowledge? common opinion about this also, that

knowledge is overpowered by passion? or does he hold that knwledge is power ? Protagoras agrees that knowledge is certainly a governing power. This, however, is not the doctrine of men in general, who maintain that many who know what is best, act contrary to their knowledge under the influence of pleasure. But this opposition of good and evil is really the opposition of a greater or lesser amount of pleasure. Pleasures are evils because they end in pain, and pains are good because they end in pleasures. Thus pleasure is seen to be the only good and the only evil is the preference of the lesser pleasure to the greater. But then comes Some art of mensuration is rein the illusion of distance. quired in order to show us pleasures and pains in their true proportion. This art of mensuration is a kind of knowledge, and knowledge is thus proved once more to be the governing principle of human life, and ignorance the origin of all evil for ;

no one prefers the

less pleasure to the greater,

or the greater

pain to the less, except from ignorance. The argument is drawn out in an imaginary " dialogue within a dialogue," conducted by Socrates and Protagoras on the one part, and the rest of the world on the other. Hippias and Prodicus, as well as Protagoras, admit the soundness of the conclusion.

Socrates then applies this

new conclusion

to the case of courholds out against the assaults of the Socratic dialectic. No one chooses the evil or refuses the good except through ignorance. This explains why cowards refuse to go to war because they form a wrong estimate of good,

age

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the only virtue which

still

and honor, and pleasure. And why are the courageous willing because they form a right estimate of pleasures to go to war ? and pains, of things terrible and not terrible. Courage then is knowledge, and cowardice is ignorance. And the five virtues, which were originally maintained to have five different natures, after having been easily reduced to two only, are at last resolved

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

in one.

The

assent of Protagoras to this last position

ex-

tracted with great difficulty.

Socrates concludes by professing his disinterested love of the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; i

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

truth,

and remarks on the singular manner

which he and

his

adversary had changed sides. Protagoras began by asserting, and Socrates by denying, the teachableness of virtue, and now the latter ends by affirming that virtue is knowledge, which is the most teachable of all things, while Protagoras has been striving to show that virtue is not knowledge, and this is almost equivalent to saying that virtue cannot be taught. He is not satisfied with the result, and would like to renew the inquiry with the help of Protagoras in a different order, asking (i) What virtue is, and (2) Whether virtue can be taught. Protagoras declines this offer, but commends Socrates's earnestness and

mode of discussion. The " Protagoras

" is often supposed to be full of difficulties. These are partly imaginary and partly real. The imaginary ones are (1) Chronological which were pointed out in ancient times by Athenaeus, and are noticed by Schleiermacher and others, and relate to the impossibility of all the persons in the dialogue meeting at any one time, whether in the year 425 B.C. or in any other. But Plato, like other writers of fiction, aims only at the probable, and has shown in other dialogues an extreme disregard of the historical accuracy which is sometimes

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

demanded

of him.

among the been much

(2)

" place of the " Protagoras

The exact

and the date of composition, have also But there are no criteria which afford any real grounds for determining the date of composition and the affinities of the dialogues, when they are not indicated by Plato himself, must always to some extent remain uncertain. (3) There is another class of difficulties, which may be ascribed to preconceived notions of commentators, who imagine that Protagoras the Sophist ought always to be in the wrong, and dialogues, disputed.

;

his adversary Socrates in the right

sage

e.g.

in the explanation of

;

or that in this or that pasPlato is as pleasure

good

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

inconsistent with himself: or that the dialogue fails in unity, and has not a proper " beginning, middle, and ending." They to forget that Plato is a dramatic writer who throws his thoughts into both sides of the argument, and certainly does not aim at any unity which is inconsistent with freedom, and with a natural or even wild manner of treating his subject also that his mode of revealing the truth is by lights and shadows, and far off and opposing points of view, and not by dogmatic

seem

;

statements or definite results.

INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

149

The real difficulties arise out of the extreme subtlety of the work, which, as Socrates says of the poem of Simonides, is a most perfect piece of art. There are dramatic contrasts and interests, threads of philosophy broken and resumed, satirical reflections on mankind, veils thrown over truths which are lightly suggested, and all woven together and moving towards one end.

in a single design,

In the introductory scene Plato raises the expectation that a personage " is about to appear on the stage (perhaps

" great

with a further view of showing that he is destined to be overthrown by a greater still, who makes no pretensions). Before introducing Hippocrates to him, Socrates thinks proper to warn the youth of the dangers of " influence," of the invidious nature Hippocrates readily of which Protagoras is also sensible. adopts the suggestion of Socrates that he shall learn the accomplishments which befit an Athenian gentleman of ProtagoThere is nothing however ras, and let alone his " sophistry." in the introduction which leads to the inference that Plato intended to blacken the character of the Sophists he only makes a little merry at their expense. The " great personage " is somewhat ostentatious, but frank and honest. He is introduced on a stage which is worthy of him at the house of the rich Callias, in which are congregated the noblest and wisest of the Athenians. He considers openness to be the best policy, and particularly mentions his own liberal mode of dealing with his pupils, as if in answer to the favorite ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

accusation of the Sophists that they received pay.

re-

good temper which he exhibits throughout the discussion under the trying and often sophistical cross-examination of Socrates. Although once or twice ruffled, and reluctant to continue the discussion, he parts company on perfectly good terms, and appears to be, as he says of himself, the " least markable

for the

jealous of mankind."

Nor is there anything in the sentiments of Protagoras which impairs this pleasing impression of the grave and weighty old man. His real defect is that he is inferior to Socrates in dialectics. The opposition between him and Socrates is not the opgood and bad, true and false, but of the old art of and the new science of interrogation and argument; also of the irony of Socrates and the self-assertion of the Sophists. There is quite as much truth on the side of Protagoras as position of

rhetoric

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

of Socrates

;

but the truth of Protagoras

based on

common-

common maxims of morality, while that of Socrates is

sense and

paradoxical or transcendental, and though full of meaning and insight, hardly intelligible to the rest of mankind. For example (i) one of the noblest statements to be found in antiquity about the preventive nature of punishment is put into the mouth of Protagoras (2) he is clearly right also in maintaining that virtue can be taught (which Socrates himself, :

;

at the

end of the dialogue,

in his explanation of the

bad sons

;

(4)

disposed to concede)

phenomenon

;

good

that

and also

(3)

fathers have

right also in observing that the virtues are

not, like the arts, gifts, or attainments of special individuals, but

common property of all this, which in all ages has been the strength and weakness of ethics and politics, is deeply seated in human nature (5) there is a sort of half truth in the notion

the

;

that

all civilized

men

are teachers of virtue

;

and

(6) the relig-

ious allegory should be noticed, in which the arts are said to be

given by Prometheus (who stole them), whereas justice and reverence and the political virtues could only be imparted by Zeus. It is observable also (7) in the latter part of the dialogue, when Socrates is arguing that " pleasure is the only good,"

Protagoras deems it more in accordance with his character to maintain that " some pleasures only are good.". There is no reason to suppose that in all this Plato is depicting an imaginary Protagoras at any rate, he is showing us the teaching of the Sophists under the milder aspect under which he once regarded them. Nor is there any reason to doubt that Socrates is equally a historical character, paradoxical, ironical, tiresome, but seeking for the unity of virtue and knowledge as willing to rest this even on a calculafor a precious treasure ;

;

tion of pleasure,

and

irresistible here, as

everywhere

in Plato, in

his intellectual superiority.

The aim

of Socrates, and of the dialogue, is to show the unity In the determination of this question the identity of virtue and knowledge is found to be involved. But if virtue and knowledge are one, then virtue can be taught the end of the dialogue returns to the beginning. Had Protagoras been allowed by Plato to make the Aristotelian distinction, and say that virtue is not knowledge, but is accompanied with knowledge ; or to point out with Aristotle that the same quality may have more than one opposite; or with Plato himself in the

of virtue.

;

INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

I5i

" Phaedo " to deny that good is a mere exchange of a greater pleasure for a less the unity of virtue and the identity of virtue and knowledge would have required to be proved by other arguments. The victory of Socrates over Protagoras is in every way complete when their minds are fairly brought together. Protagoras falls before him after two or three blows. Socrates partly gains his object in the first part, and completely in the second. Nor does he appear at any disadvantage when subjected to " the question " by Protagoras. He succeeds in making his two " friends," Prodicus and Hippias, ludicrous by the way he also makes a long speech in defence of the poem of Simonides, after the manner of the Sophists, showing, as Alcibiades says, that he is only pretending to have a bad memory. Not having the whole of this poem before us, it is impossible for us to answer certainly the question of Protagoras, how the two passages of Simonides are to be reconciled. We can only follow the indications given by Plato himself. But it seems likely that the reconcilement offered by Socrates is only a cari-

—

;

cature of the methods of interpretation which were practised by the Sophists for the following reasons (1) The transparent irony of the previous interpretations given by Socrates. (2) The ludicrous opening of the speech in which the Lacedaemonians are described as the true philosophers, and Laconic brevity as the true form of philosophy, evidently with an allusion to Protagoras's long speeches. (3) The manifest futility and absurdity of the explanation of ifAwv iTralvrjfii a\a#co)?, which

—

hardly consistent with the rational interpretation of the rest poem. The opposition of ehai and yeveaOai seems also

of the

intended to express the rival doctrines of Socrates and Prois a sort of facetious commentary on their differences. (4) The general treatment in Plato both of the poets and tagoras, and

the Sophists,

who

are their interpreters,

and

whom

he delights

The

depreciating spirit in which Socrates speaks of the introduction of the poets as a substitute for

to identify with them.

(5^

which

intended to contrast with Prothem this again is hardly consistent with the serious defence of Simonides. (6) The marked approval of Hippias, who is supposed at once to catch the familiar sound, just as in the previous conversation Prodicus is represented as ready to accept any distinctions of language

original conversation,

tagoras's exaltation of the study of

—

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I52

At the same time Hippias is desirous of subnew interpretation of his own as if the words might be made to mean anything, and were only to be regarded

however absurd. stituting a really

;

as affording a field for the ingenuity of the interpreter. This curious passage is, therefore, to be regarded as Plato's satire

on the tedious and

hypercritical arts of interpretation

which prevailed in his own day, and may be compared with his condemnation of the same arts when applied to mythology in the " Phaedrus," and with his other parodies, e.g. with the second speech in the " Phaedrus " and with the " Menexenus." Several lesser touches of satire appear in it, e.g. the claim of philosophy advanced for the Lacedaemonians, which is a parody the misof the claims advanced for the poets by Protagoras take of the Laconizing set in supposing that the Lacedaemo;

nians are a great nation because they bruise their ears the faris " really too bad," that Simonides uses the Lesbian ( ?) word eiraivrjfn, because he is addressing a Les;

fetched notion, which bian.

who

The whole may also be considered as pompous theories out of nothing.

a satire on those

spin

All the interests and contrasts of character in a great dramatic like the " Protagoras " are not easily exhausted. The im-

work

upon us, or the gradual substitution of Socrates in the second part for Protagoras in the first. There is Alcibiades, who is compelled by the necessity of his nature to be a partisan, lending effectual aid to Socrates there is Critias assuming the tone of impartiality Callias there as always inclining to the Sophist, but eager for any intellectual repast Prodicus, who finds an opportunity for displaying his distinctions of language ; Hippias for exhibiting his vanity and superficial knowledge of natural philosophy. Both of these have been previously a good deal damaged by the mock sublime description of them in the introduction. It pressiveness of the scene should not be lost

;

may

be remarked that Protagoras is consistently presented to us throughout as the teacher of moral and political virtue there is no allusion to the theories of sensation which are attributed to him elsewhere, or to his denial of the existence of the gods ; he ;

the religious rather than the irreligious teacher in this dia-

logue.

Also

much

respect as

Thus

after

characters of

may be

observed that Socrates shows him as

own ironical character. many preparations and oppositions, both of the men and aspects of the truth, especially of the is

consistent with his

INTRODUCTION TO PROTAGORAS

153

popular and philosophical aspect ; and after many interruptions and detentions by the way, which, as Theodorus says in the " Theaetetus," are quite as agreeable as the argument, we arrive at the great Socratic thesis that virtue is knowledge. This is an aspect of the truth which was lost almost as soon as it was found, and yet has to be recovered by everyone for himself who would pass the limits of proverbial and popular philosophy. It is not to be regarded only as a passing stage in the history of the human mind, but as an anticipation of the reconcilement of the moral and intellectual elements of human nature.

—

PROTAGORAS PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE Socrates, who is the narrator of the dialogue to his Companion

Protagoras \ Sophists Hippias ) Prodicus Callias, a wealthy Athenian j-

Hippocrates Alcibiades Critias

Scene:

— The House of Callias

Companion.

WHERE

do you come from, Socrates ? And yet I need hardly ask the question, as I know that you have been in chase of the fair Alcibiades. I saw him the day before yesterday and he had got a beard like a man and he is a man, as I may tell you in your ear. But I thought that

—

;

he was

still

Socrates. opinion,

very charming. What of his beard?

who

" Youth

Are you not of Homer's

says that* is

most charming when the beard

first

appears " ?

And

that is now the charm of Alcibiades. Com. Well, and how do matters proceed? Have you been visiting him, and was he gracious to you ? Soc. Yes, I thought that he was very gracious and especially to-day, for I have just come from him, and he has been helping me in an argument. But shall I tell you a strange thing ? Although he was present, I never attended to him, and several ;

times he quite passed out of

Com. What

mind.

meaning of this? Has anything happened between you and him ? For surely you cannot have disis

the

covered a fairer love than he Athens. Soc. Yes, much fairer. *

II.

is; certainly

xxiv. 348.

154

not in this city of

— PROTAGORAS

—a

Com. What do you mean Soc.

155

citizen or a foreigner?

A foreigner.

Com. Of what country? Soc.

Of Abdera.

Com. And

is this

stranger really, in your opinion, fairer than

the son of Cleinias ?

Soc.

And

not the wiser always the fairer, sweet friend ? really met, Socrates, with some wise

Com. But have you one?

Yes I would say, rather, with the wisest of all living you are willing to accord that title to Protagoras. Com. What! Do you mean to say that Protagoras is in Athens ? Soc. Yes he has been here two days. Com. And do you just come from an interview with him? Soc. Yes and I have heard and said many things. Com. Then, if you have no engagement, suppose that you sit down and tell me what passed, and my attendant shall give up his place to you. Soc. To be sure and I shall be grateful to you for listening. Com. Thank you, too, for telling us. Soc. That is thank you twice over. Listen then Soc.

men,

;

Last night, or rather very early this morning, Hippocrates, the son of Apollodorus and the brother of Phason, gave a tremendous thump with his staff at my door someone opened Socrates, to him, and he came rushing in and bawled out: are you awake or asleep ? Hippocrates, is that you? and I knew his voice, and said: do you bring any news ? Good news, he said nothing but good. Very good, I said but what news ? and why have you come here at this unearthly hour? He drew nearer to me and said Protagoras is come. Yes, I said he came two days ago have you only just heard of his arrival ? Yes, indeed, he said I heard yesterday evening. At the same time he felt for the truckle-bed, and sat down at my feet, and then he said I heard yesterday quite late in the evening, on my return from CEnoe whither I had gone in pursuit of my runaway slave Satyrus as I was going to have told you if some other matter had not come in the way; on ;

;

—

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

return,

to rest,

when we had done supper and were about brother said to me: Protagoras is come.

to retire

And

was going to you at once, if I had not considered that the night was far spent. But when sleep relaxed her hold on me after my toil, I got up and came hither direct. I, who knew the very courageous madness of the man, said What is the matter? has Protagoras robbed you of anything?

replied,

laughing

Yes, indeed he has, Socrates, of the

wisdom which he keeps to himself. But, surely, I said, if you give him money, and make with him, he will make you as wise as he is himself.

Would

friends

Heaven, he replied, that he would! He might and all that my friends have, if he would. And that is why I have come to you now, in order that you may speak to him on my behalf for I am young, and also I have never seen nor heard him (when he visited Athens before I was but a child) and all men praise him, Socrates, as being the most accomplished of speakers. There is no reason why we should not go to him at once, and then we shall find him at home. He lodges, as I hear, with Callias, the son of Hiptake

all

that I have,

;

Let us

ponicus.

start.

yet, my good friend ; the hour is too early. us rise and take a turn in the court and wait there until daybreak, and when the day breaks, then we will go; for

I replied

But

Not

let

generally at home, and

Protagoras

him; never

fear.

Upon

shall

be sure to find

got up and walked about in the court, and I would make trial of the strength of his resolution. So I examined him and put questions to him. Tell me, Hippocrates, I said, as you are going to Protagoras, and will be paying your money to him, what is he to whom you are going? and what will he make of you? If you were going to Hippocrates, the Coan, the Asclepiad, and were about to give him money, and some one said to you As being what, do you give money to your namesake Hippocrates, O Hippocrates? what would you answer? I should say, he replied, that I give money to him as a this

thought that

physician.

And what

will

he make of you ?

physician, he said.

And

you went

to Polycleitus the Argive, or Pheidias the

;

PROTAGORAS

157

Athenian, and intended to give them money, and someone were to ask you As being what, do you give this money to Polycleitus and Pheidias ? what would you answer ? I should answer, as being statuaries. And what will they make of you ? :

statuary, of course. Well, now, I said, you and I are going to Protagoras, and we are ready to pay him money for you. If our own means are sufficient, and we can gain him with these, we shall be too glad not, then we are to spend your friend's money as well. suppose that while we are in this intense state of exciteTell me, Socrates, and you, ment, someone were to say to us Hippocrates, as being what, are you going to pay money to Protagoras ? how should we answer him ? I know that Pheidias is a sculptor, and Homer is a poet; but what appellation is given to Protagoras ? how is he designated ? They call him a Sophist, Socrates, he replied. Then we are going to pay our money to him in the character Df a Sophist ?

but

Now

Certainly

But suppose a person were to ask this further question And how about yourself ? what will Protagoras make you, if you go to see him? He answered, with a blush upon his face (for the day was just beginning to dawn, so that I could see him) Unless this differs in some way from the former instances, I suppose that :

he will make a Sophist of me. And are you not in sober earnest ashamed, I said, at having to appear before the Hellenes in the character of a Sophist ? Indeed, Socrates, if I am to confess the truth, I am. But why do you assume, Hippocrates, that the instruction of Protagoras is of this nature? and why may you not learn of

him

in the

same way

marian or musician or

that

you learned the

trainer, not with the

arts of the

gram-

view of making any

of them a profession, but only as a part of education, and because a private gentleman and freeman ought to know them ?

Just so, he said and that, in my opinion, count of the teaching of Protagoras. ;

I said

a far truer ac-

wonder whether you know what you are doing?

And what am I doing? You are going to commit your

soul to the care of a

man

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

158

a Sophist. And yet I hardly think that you Sophist is ; and if not, then you do not even know whether you are committing your soul to good or evil. I certainly think that I do know, he replied.

whom you

call

know what a

Then I

his

tell

take

me, what do you imagine that he is ? to be one who is wise and knowing, he replied, as

him

name

implies.

And might you

not, I said, affirm this of the painter

and the

carpenter also; are not they, too, wise and knowing? But suppose a person were to ask us In what are the painters wise ? :

We should answer

In what relates to the making of likenesses, and similarly of other things. And if he were further to ask

What

the

wisdom of

the Sophist,

and what

the

manu-

should we answer him ? How should we answer him, Socrates ? What other answer could there be but that he presides over the art which makes men eloquent? Yes, I replied, that is very likely a true, but not a sufficient, answer for a further question is involved : About what does facture over which he presides

how

;

make a man eloquent ? The player on the lyre may be supposed to make a man eloquent about that which he makes him understand, that is about playing the lyre. Is not that true? the Sophist

Yes.

Then about what does the Sophist make him eloquent ? must make him eloquent in that which he understands ?

not he

may be assumed. And what is that which the Yes, that disciple

Indeed, he said, that I cannot

Then

Sophist knows and makes his

know? tell.

proceeded to say Well, but are you aware of the danger which you are incurring? If you were going to commit the body to someone, and there was a risk of your getting good or harm from him, would you not carefully consider and ask the opinion of your friends and kindred, and deliberate I

many days

as to whether you should give him the care of your But when the soul is in question, which you hold to be of far more value than the body, and upon the well or ill being of which depends your all about this you never consulted either with your father or with your brother, or with anyone of us who are your companions. But no sooner does this for-

body ?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PROTAGORAS

159

eigner appear, than you instantly commit your soul to his In the evening, as you say, you hear of him, and in

keeping.

the morning you go to him, never deliberating, or taking the opinion of anyone as to whether you ought to intrust yourself to

him or not you have quite made up your mind ;

that

you

will

be a pupil of Protagoras, and are prepared to expend all the property of yourself and of your friends in carrying out at any price this determination, although, as you admit, you do not know him, and have never spoken with him and you call him a Sophist, but are manifestly ignorant of what a Sophist is ; and :

you are going

commit yourself

to his keeping. say this he replied: That I suppose, Socrates, is the conclusion which I must draw from your words. Is not a Sophist, Hippocrates, one who deals I proceeded wholesale or retail in the food of the soul ? To me that appears

yet

When

he heard

to be the sort of

And

man.

what, Socrates,

the food of the soul ?

Surely, I said, knowledge

must take

when he

care,

praises

who

retail

sell

the food of the soul; and

friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us

what he

sells,

like the dealers

the food of the body

inately all their goods, without

;

wholesale or

for they praise indiscrim-

knowing what are

really bene-

or hurtful; neither do their customers know, with the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy ficial

In like manner those who carry about the wares of knowledge, and make the round of the cities, and sell or retail them to any customer who is in want of them, praise them all alike and I should not wonder, O my friend, if many of them were really ignorant of their effect upon the soul; and their customers equally ignorant, unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul. If therefore you have understanding of what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of anyone but if not, then, O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink the one you purchase of of them.

;

the wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them

away

in other

and before you receive them into the body as food you may deposit them at home and call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or drunken, and what not, and how much and when and hence the danger of purchasing

vessels,

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

160

them is not so great. But when you buy the wares of knowledge you cannot carry them away in another vessel ; they have been sold to you, and you must take them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited by the lesson: and therefore we should think about this and take council with our elders for we are still young too young to determine such a matter. And now let us go, as we were intending, and hear Protagoras; and when we have heard what he has to say, we may take counsel of others for not only is Protagoras at the house of Callias, but there is Hippias of Efis, and, if I am not mistaken, Prodicus of Ceos, and several other wise men. To this we agreed, and proceeded on our way until we reached the vestibule of the house; and there we stopped in order to finish a dispute which had arisen as we were going along and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

stood talking in the vestibule until we had finished and come And I think that the doorkeeper, who to an understanding. was a eunuch, and who was probably annoyed at the great in-

road of the Sophists, must have heard us talking. At any rate, when we knocked at the door, and he opened and saw us, he grumbled: They are Sophists he is not at home; and instantly gave the door a hearty bang with both his hands. Again we knocked, and he answered without opening: Did you not hear me say that he is not at home, fellows ? But, my friend, I said, we are not Sophists, and we are not come to see Callias fear not, for we want to see Protagoras; and I must request you to announce us. At last, after a good deal of difficulty, the man was persuaded to open the door. When we entered, we found Protagoras taking a walk in the portico and next to him, on one side, were walking Callias the son of Hipponicus, and Paralus the son of Pericles, who, by the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

mother's side, is his half-brother, and Charmides the son of Glaucon. On the other side of him were Xanthippus the other son of Pericles, Philippides the son of Philomelus; also Antimoerus of Mende, w ho of all the disciples of Protagoras is the most famous, and intends to make sophistry his profession. train of listeners followed him, of whom the greater part apr

peared to be foreigners,

who accompanied

Protagoras out of

the various cities through which he journeyed.

Now

he, like

Orpheus, attracted them by his voice, and they followed the I should mention also that there were some Atheattraction.

;;

PROTAGORAS

161

Nothing delighted me more than the movements: they never got into his way at all, but when he and those who were with him turned back, then the band of listeners divided into two parts on either side he was always in front, and they wheeled round and took their places behind him in perfect order. " After him, as Homer says,* " I lifted up my eyes and saw Hippias the Elean sitting in the opposite portico on a chair of state, and around him were seated on benches Eryximachus the son of Acumenus, and Phaedrus the Myrrhinusian, and Andron the son of Androtion, and there were strangers whom he had brought with him from his native city of Elis, and some others they appeared to be asking Hippias certain physical and astronomical questions, and he, ex cathedra, was determining their several questions to them and discoursing of them. Also, " my eyes beheld Tantalus " f for Prodicus the Cean was at Athens he had been put into a room which, in the days of Hipponicus, was a storehouse; but as the house was full, Callias had cleared this out and made the room into a guestchamber. Now Prodicus was still in bed, wrapped up in sheepskins and bedclothes, of which there seemed to be a great heap and there were sitting by him, on the couches near, Pausanias of the deme of Cerameis, and with Pausanias was a youth quite young, who is certainly remarkable for his good looks, and, if I am not mistaken, is also of a fair and gentle nature. I think that I heard him called Agathon, and my suspicion is that he There was this youth and also is the beloved of Pausanias. there were the two Adeimantuses, one the son of Cepis, and the other of Leucolophides, and some others. I was very anxious to hear what Prodicus was saying, for he seemed to me to be an extraordinarily wise and divine man but I was not able to get into the inner circle, and his fine deep voice made an echo in the room which rendered his words inaudible. No sooner had we entered than there followed us Alcibiades the beautiful, as you say, and I believe you and also Critias the nians in the company. precision of their

;

son of Callaeschrus. On entering we stopped a little, in order to look about us, and then walked up to Protagoras, and I said Protagoras, my friend Hippocrates and I have come to see you. :

* Od. it

xi.

601

foil.

t Ibid. 582.

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

162

Do you wish, he said, to speak with presence of others ?

alone, or in the

That is as you please, I said you shall determine when you have heard the object of our visit. And what is that? he said. I must explain, I said, that my friend Hippocrates is a native Athenian; he is the son of Apollodorus, and of a great and prosperous house, and he is himself in natural ability quite a match for those of his own age. I believe that he aspires to political eminence; and this he thinks that conversation with you is most likely to procure for him: now it is for you to decide whether you would wish to speak to him of these matters alone or in company. Thank you, Socrates, for your consideration of me. For certainly a stranger finding his way into great cities, and persuading the flower of the youth in them to leave the company of their other kinsmen or acquaintance and live with him, under the idea that they will be improved by his conversation, ought to be very cautious; great jealousies are occasioned by his proceedings, and he is the subject of many enmities and conspiracies. I maintain the art of the Sophist to be of ancient date :

but that in ancient times the professors of the

art,

fearing this

odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names: some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides some as hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus; and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the envy of the multitude. But that is not my way, for I do not believe that they effected

which was to deceive the government, who were not blinded by them and as to the people, they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell their purpose,

;

them.

Now

to run away,

and to be caught

running away,

the very height of folly, and also greatly increases the exasperation of mankind for they regard him who runs away as a is

;

rogue, in addition to any other objections which they have to

;

PROTAGORAS

163

him and therefore I take an entirely opposite course, and acknowledge myself to be a Sophist and instructor of mankind such an open acknowledgment appears to me to be a better ;

Nor do I neglect other preand therefore I hope, as I may say, by the favor of heaven that no harm will come of the acknowledgment that I am a Sophist. And I have been now many years in the profession for all my years when added up are many and there is no one here present of whom I might not be the father. Wherefore I should much prefer conversing with you, if you do not object, in the presence of the company. As I suspected that he would like to have a little display and glory in the presence of Prodicus and Hippias, and would But gladly show us to them in the light of his admirers, I said why should we not summon Prodicus and Hippias and their sort of caution than concealment.

cautions,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

friends to hear us?

Very good, he

said.

Suppose, said Callias, that we hold a council in which you may sit and discuss. This was determined, and great delight was felt at the prospect of hearing wise men talk we ourselves all took the chairs and benches, and arranged them by Hippias, where the other benches had been already placed. Meanwhile Callias and Alcibiades got up Prodicus and brought in him and his companions. When we were all seated, Protagoras said: Now that the company are assembled, Socrates, tell me about the young man ;

whom you were just now

speaking.

same point, Protagoras, you once more the purport of my visit: this is my friend Hippocrates, who is desirous of making your acquaintance; he wants to know what will happen to him if he asThat is all I have to say. sociates with you. Protagoras answered: Young man, if you associate with me, on the very first day you will return home a better man than you came, and better on the second day than on the first, and better every day than you were on the day before. When I heard this, I said Protagoras, I do not at all wonder at hearing you say this; even at your age, and with all your wisdom, if anyone were to teach you what you did not know before, you would become better no doubt but please to answer in a different way; I will explain how by an example. I replied

and

I will begin again at the

tell

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

x6 4

me suppose that Hippocrates, instead of desiring your acquaintance, wished to become acquainted with the young man Zeuxippus of Heraclea, who has newly come to Athens, Let

and he were to go to him as he has gone to you, and were to hear him say, as he has heard you say, that every day he would grow and become better if he associated with him: and then suppose that he were to ask him, " In what would he be better, and in what would he grow? " Zeuxippus would answer, " In painting."

And

suppose that he went to Orthagoras the The-

him say the same, and asked him, " In what would he become better day by day ? " he would reply, " In fluteplaying." Now I want you to make the same sort of answer to this young man and to me, who am asking questions on his When you say that on the first day on which he account. associates with you he will return home a better man, and on every day will grow in like manner in what, Protagoras, will he be better? and about what? ban, and heard

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

When

Protagoras heard

say

this,

You

he replied:

ask

questions fairly, and I like to answer a question which is fairly If Hippocrates comes to me he will not experience the put. sort of drudgery with which other Sophists are in the habit of insulting their pupils who, when they have just escaped from the arts, are taken and driven back into them by these teachers, and made to learn calculation, and astronomy, and geometry, ;

and music (he gave a look at Hippias as he said this) but if he comes to me, he will learn that which he comes to learn. And this is prudence in affairs private as well as public; he will learn to order his own house in the best manner, and he will be best able to speak and act in the affairs of the State. Do I understand you, I said and is your meaning that you teach the art of politics, and that you promise to make men good citizens? That, Socrates, is exactly the profession which I make. Then, I said, you do indeed possess a noble art, if there is no mistake about this for I will freely confess to you, Protagoras, that I have a doubt whether this art is capable of being taught, and yet I know not how to disbelieve your assertion. And I ought to tell you why I am of opinion that this art cannot be taught or communicated by man to man. I say that the Athenians are an understanding people, as indeed they Now I observe that when are esteemed by the other Hellenes. ;

;

PROTAGORAS we

are

met together

in the assembly,

relates to building, the builders are

165

and the matter

summoned

hand

as advisers;

when

the question is one of shipbuilding, then the shipbuilders and the like of other arts which they think capable of being taught and learned. And if some person offers to give them advice who is not supposed by them to have any skill in the art, even though he be good-looking, and rich, and noble, they don't listen to him, but laugh at him, and hoot him, until either he is clamored down and retires of himself or if he persist, he is dragged away or put out by the constables at the command of the Prytanes. This is their way of behaving about the arts which have professors. When, however, the question is an affair of state, then everybody is free to have a say carpenter, tinker, cobbler, sailor, passenger rich and poor, high and low anyone who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him, as in the former case, with not having learned, and having no teacher, and yet giving advice; evidently because they are under the impression that this sort of knowledge cannot be taught. And ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

not only is this true of the State, but of individuals the best and wisest of our citizens are unable to impart their political wisdom to others as, for example, Pericles, the father of these ;

young men, who gave them

excellent instruction in

all

that

could be learned from masters, in his own department of politics taught them nothing; nor did he give them teachers, but they were allowed to wander at their own freewill, in a sort of hope that they would light upon virtue of their own accord.

take another example: there was Cleinias, the younger brother of our friend Alcibiades, of whom this very same Pericles was the guardian and he being in fact under the apprehension that Cleinias would be corrupted by Alcibiades, took him away, and placed him in the house of Ariphron to be educated but before six months had elapsed, Ariphron sent him back, not knowing what to do with him. And I could mention numberless other instances of persons who were good themselves, and never yet made anyone else good, whether friend or stranger. Now I, Protagoras, when I reflect on all this, am inclined to think that virtue cannot be taught. But then again, when I listen to your words, I am disposed to waver and I believe that there must be something in what you say, because I ;

;

know tion.

that

you have great experience, and learning, and invenI wish that you would, if possible, show me a little

And

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

166

more clearly that virtue can be taught. Will you be so good? That I will, Socrates, and gladly. But what would you like ? Shall I, as an elder, speak to you as younger men in an apologue or myth, or shall

argue the question ? company answered that he should

this several of the

choose for himself. Well, then, he said, I think that the myth will be more interesting.

Once upon a time But when

there were gods only, and no mortal

the time came that these also should be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth and fire and various mixtures of both elements in the inward parts of the earth and when they were about to bring them into the light of day, they ordered Prometheus and Epimetheus to equip them, and to distribute to them severally their proper qualities. creatures.

;

" Let me distribute, and Epimetheus said to Prometheus do you inspect." This was agreed, and Epimetheus made the distribution. There were some to whom he gave strength without swiftness, or again swiftness without strength; some he armed, and others he left unarmed; and devised for the latter some other means of preservation, making some large, and having their size as a protection, and others small, whose nature was to fly in the air or burrow in the ground this was to be their way of escape. Thus did he compensate them with the view of preventing any race from becoming extinct. And when he had provided against their destruction by one another, he contrived also a means of protecting them against the seasons of heaven clothing them with close hair and thick skins sufficient to defend them against the winter cold and summer heat, and for a natural bed of their own when they wanted to rest also he furnished them with hoofs and hair and hard and callous Then he gave them varieties of food skins under their feet. to some herbs of the soil, to others fruits of trees, and to others roots, and to some again he gave other animals as food. And some he made to have few young ones, while those who were their prey were very prolific; and in this way the race was preserved. Thus did Epimetheus, who, not being very wise, forgot that he had distributed among the brute animals all the qualities that he had to give and when he came to man, who was still unprovided, he was terribly perplexed. Now :

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PROTAGORAS

167

while he was in this perplexity, Prometheus came to inspect the distribution, and he found that the other animals were suit-

ably furnished, but that man alone was naked and shoeless, and had neither bed nor arms of defence. The appointed hour was approaching in which man was to go forth into the light of day; and Prometheus, not knowing how he could devise his salvation, stole the mechanical arts of Hephaestus and Athene, and fire with them (they could neither have been acquired nor used without fire), and gave them to man. Thus man had the

wisdom necessary

to the support of life, but political

wisdom

keeping of Zeus, and the power of Prometheus did not extend to entering into the castle of heaven, in which Zeus dwelt, who moreover had terrible sentinels but he did enter by stealth into the common workshop of Athene and Hephaestus, in which they used to pursue their favorite arts, and took away Hephaestus's art of working by fire, and also the art of Athene, and gave them to man. And in this way man was supplied with the means of life. But Prometheus is said to have been afterwards prosecuted for theft, owing to the blunder of Epimetheus. Now man, having a share of the divine attributes, was at first the only one of the animals who had any gods, because he alone was of their kindred; and he would raise altars and images of them. He was not long in inventing language and names and he also constructed houses and clothes and shoes and beds, and drew sustenance from the earth. Thus prohe had not

;

was

for that

in the

;

mankind at first lived dispersed, and there were no But the consequence was that they were destroyed by the wild beasts, for they were utterly weak in comparison of them, and their art was only sufficient to provide them with the means of life, and would not enable them to carry on war against the animals food they had, but not as yet any art of government, of which the art of war is a part. After a while the desire of self-preservation gathered them into cities; but when they were gathered together, having no art of government, they evil entreated one another, and were again in process of dispersion and destruction. Zeus feared that the race would be exterminated, and so he sent Hermes to them, bearing reverence and justice to be the ordering principles of cities and the bonds of friendship and conciliation. Hermes asked Zeus how he should impart justice and reverence among men: vided,

cities.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

1 68

should he distribute them as the arts are distributed that is to for one skilled individual has say, to a favored few only enough of medicine, or of any other art, for many unskilled ones? Shall this be the manner in which I distribute justice and reverence among men, or shall I give them to all? To all, said Zeus ; I should like them all to have a share ; for cities ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

a few only share in the virtues, as in the arts. order, that he who has no part in reverence and justice shall be put to death as a plague of the cannot exist,

And

make a law by my

further,

State.

And this is the reason, Socrates, why the Athenians and mankind in general, when the question relates to carpentering or any other mechanical art, allow but a few to share in their deliberations; and when anyone else interferes, then, as you say, they object, if he be not of the favored few, and that, as I But when they come to deliberate about say, is very natural. political virtue, which proceeds only by way of justice and wisdom, they are patient enough of any man who speaks of them, as

also natural, because they think that every

man

ought to share in this sort of virtue, and that States could not I have explained to you, Socexist if this were otherwise. phenomenon. this reason of the rates, And that you may not suppose yourself to be deceived in thinking that all men regard every man as having a share of justice and every other political virtue, let me give you a furIn other cases, as you are aware, ther proof, which is this. if a man says that he is a good flute-player, or skilful in any other art in which he has no skill, people either laugh at him or are angry with him, and his relations think that he is mad and go and admonish him but when honesty is in question, or some other political virtue, even if they know that he is dishonest, yet, if the man comes publicly forward and tells the truth about his dishonesty, in this case they deem that to be madness which in the other case was held by them to be good They say that men ought to profess honesty whether sense. they are honest or not, and that a man is mad who does not make such a profession. Their notion is, that a man must have some degree of honesty and that if he has none at all he ought not to be in the world. I have been showing that they are right in admitting every ;

;

man

as a counsellor about this sort of virtue, as they are of

PROTAGORAS

169

opinion that every man is a partaker of it. And I will now endeavor further to show that they regard this virtue, not as given by nature, or growing spontaneously, but as capable of being learned and acquired by study. For injustice is punished, whereas no one would instruct, or rebuke, or be angry at those whose calamities they suppose to come to them either by nature or chance; they do not try to alter them, they do but pity them. Who would be so foolish as to chastise or instruct the ugly, or the diminutive, or the feeble?

And

for

they know, I imagine, that this sort of good and evil comes to them by nature and chance whereas if a man is this reason

;

wanting in those good qualities which come to men from study and exercise and teaching, and has only the contrary evil qualities, men are angry with him, and punish him and reprove him. And one of those evil qualities is impiety and injustice, and they may be described generally as the opposite of political When this is the case, any man will be angry with virtue. another, and reprimand him clearly under the impression that by study and learning the virtue in which he is deficient may be acquired. For if you will think, Socrates, of the effect which punishment has on evil-doers, you will see at once that in the opinion of mankind virtue may be acquired for no one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, only the unreasonable fury of a beast that he has done wrong But he who desires to inflict rational punacts in that way. ishment does not retaliate for a past wrong, for that which is done cannot be undone, but he has regard to the future, and is desirous that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be deterred from doing wrong again. And he implies that virtue is capable of being taught as he undoubtedly punishes for the sake of prevention. This is the notion of all who retaliate upon others either privately or And the Athenians, too, like other men, retaliate on publicly. those whom they regard as evil-doers; and this argues them

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

to be of the number of those who think that virtue may be acquired and taught. Thus far, Socrates, I have shown you clearly enough, if I am not mistaken, that your countrymen are right in admitting the tinker and the cobbler to advise

about politics, and also that they deem virtue to be capable of being taught and acquired. There yet remains one difficulty which has been raised by

i 7

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

you about the sons of good men. What is the reason why good men teach their sons the knowledge which is gained from teachers, and make them wise in that, but do nothing towards improving them in the virtues which distinguish themselves? And here, Socrates, I will leave the apologue and take up the argument. Please to consider: Is there or is there not some one quality in which all the citizens must be partakers, if there In the answer to this question is conis to be a city at all? tained the only solution of your difficulty; there is no other. For if there be any such quality, and this quality or unity is not the art of the carpenter, or the smith, or the potter, but justice and temperance and holiness, and, in a word,

—

manly virtue if this is the quality of which all men must be and which is the very condition of their learning or doing anything else, and if he who is wanting, in this, whether he be a child only or a grown-up man or woman, must be taught and punished, until by punishment he becomes better, and he who rebels against instruction and punishment is either exiled or condemned to death under the idea that he is incuraif, I say, this be true, and nevertheless good men have ble their sons taught other things and not this, do consider how extraordinary would be their conduct. For we have shown that they think virtue capable of being taught and inculcated both in private and public and yet, notwithstanding this, they teach their sons lesser matters, ignorance of which does not involve the punishment of death: but those things, the ignorance of which may cause death and exile to those who have no knowledge or training aye, and confiscation as well as partakers,

—

;

—

death, and, in a word,

may be

the ruin of families

the

utmost

care

they

should

—

them not That is not

things, I say, they are supposed not to teach learn.

—those

to take likely,

Socrates.

Education and admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do anything without their setting forth to that this is just and that is unjust this is honorable, that is dishonorable; this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that. And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by threats and blows, like a piece of warped

him

;

PROTAGORAS

171

wood. At a later stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his manners even more than to his reading and music; and the teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned his letters and is beginning to understand what is written, as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school; in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or emulate them and desire to become Then, again, the teachers of the lyre take similar like them. care that their young disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they have taught him the use of the lyre,

who

they introduce him to the poems of other excellent poets, and these they set to music, and make

are the lyric poets

;

harmonies and rhythms quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more fitted for speech and action; for the life of man in every part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the means, and those who have the means are the rich: their children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When they have done with masters, the State again compels them to learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish, and not after their own fancies and just as in learning to write, the writing-master first draws lines with a their

;

young beginner, and gives him the and makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which were the invention of good lawgivers who were of old time; these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to account, which is a term used not only in your country, style for the use of the

tablet

but also in

many

others.

Now when

there

is all

this care

about

and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder and doubt whether virtue can be taught? Cease to wonder, for the opposite would be far more surprising. But why then do the sons of good fathers often turn out virtue private

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

172 ill?

Let

ful, if,

explain that

—which

far

from being wonder-

as I have been saying, the very existence of the State

implies that virtue this be true

not any man's private possession. If I will ask you to

—and nothing can be truer—then

imagine, as an illustration, some other pursuit or branch of knowledge which may be assumed equally to be the condition Suppose that there could be no of the existence of a State. State unless we were all flute-players, as far as each had the capacity, and everybody was freely teaching everybody the art, both in private and public, and reproving the bad player as freely and openly as every man now teaches justice and the laws, not concealing them as he would conceal the other arts, but imparting them for all of us have a mutual interest in the justice and virtue of one another, and this is the reason why everyone is ready to teach justice and the laws; suppose, I say, that there were the same readiness and liberality among us in teaching one another flute-playing, do you imagine, Socrates, that the sons of good flute-players would be more likely I think not. Would to be good than the sons of bad ones? not their sons grow up to be distinguished or undistinguished according to their own natural capacities as flute-players, and the son of a good player would often turn out to be a bad one, and the son of a bad player to be a good one, and all fluteplayers would be good enough in comparison of those who were ignorant and unacquainted with the art of flute-playing? In like manner I would have you consider that he who appears to you to be the worst of those who have been brought up in laws and humanities, would appear to be a just man and a master of justice if he were to be compared with men who had no education, or courts of justice, or laws, or any restraints upon them which compelled them to practise virtue with the savages, for example, whom the poet Pherecrates exhibited on the stage at the last year's Lenaean festival. If you were living among men such as the man-haters in his Chorus, you would be only too glad to meet with Eurybates and Phrynondas, and you would sorrowfully desire the rascality of this part of the world. And you, Socrates, are discontented, and why ? Because all men are teachers of virtue, each one according to his ability, and you say that there is no teacher. You might as well ask, Who teaches Greek ? For of that, too, there will not be any teachers found. Or you might ask, Who is to teach

—

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; PROTAGORAS

173

same art which they have learned fellow-workmen have taught them to the best of their ability but who will carry them further in their arts? And you would certainly have a difficulty, Socrates, in finding a teacher of them but there would be no difficulty in finding a teacher of those who are wholly And this is true of virtue or of anything; and if ignorant. able than we are to promote virtue ever so is better a man

the sons of our artisans this

He and

of their fathers?

his

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

that

little,

much

we can

expect.

teacher of this

and above all other men to have the knowledge which makes a man noble and good; and I give my pupils their money's worth, and even more, as they themselves confess. And therefore I have introduced the folWhen a man has been my pupil, if lowing mode of payment he likes he pays my price, but there is no compulsion; and if he does not like, he has only to go into a temple and take an oath of the value of the instructions, and he pays no more than sort I believe myself to be,

he declares to be their value.

Such is my apologue, Socrates, and such is the argument by which I endeavor to show that virtue may be taught, and that this is the opinion of the Athenians. And I have also attempted to show that you are not to wonder at good fathers having bad sons, or at good sons having bad fathers, as may be seen in the sons of Polycleitus, who are of the same age as our friends Paralus and Xanthippus, and who are very inferior to their father; and this is true of many other artists. But I ought not to say the same as yet of Paralus and Xanthippus themselves, for they are young and there is still hope of them. Protagoras ended, and in " So charming

Thought him

length,

when

ear

left his voice, that I still

speaking

saw

still

;

had really and looking

that he

ually recovered consciousness,

the while stood fixed to hear."

finished, I gradat Hippocrates, I

him: O son of Apollodorus, how deeply grateful I you for having brought me hither; I would not have missed the speech of Protagoras for a great deal. For I used to imagine that no human care could make men good; but I know better now. Yet I have still one very small difficulty which I am sure that Protagoras will easily explain, as he has said to

; :

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

i 74

already explained so much.

For

man were

go and

consult Pericles or any of our great speakers about these matters, he might perhaps hear as fine a discourse; but then if anyone has a question to ask of any of them, like books, they can neither answer nor ask and if anyone challenges the least particular of their speech, they go ringing on in a long harangue, like brazen pots, which when they are struck continue to sound unless some one puts his hand upon them whereas our friend Protagoras cannot only make a good speech, as he has already shown, but when he is asked a question he can answer briefly and when he asks he will wait and hear the answer; and this is a very rare gift. Now I, Protagoras, have a little question that I want to ask of you, and if you will only answer me that, You were saying that virtue can I shall be quite satisfied. be taught; that I will take upon your authority, and there is no one to whom I am more ready to trust. But I marvel at one thing about which I should like to have my mind set at rest. You were speaking of Zeus sending justice and reverence to men; and several times while you were speaking, justice and temperance and holiness, and all these qualities, were described by you as if together they made up virtue. Now I want you to tell me truly whether virtue is one whole, of which justice and temperance and holiness are parts; or whether all these are only the names of one and the same thing that is the doubt which still lingers in my mind. There is no difficulty, Socrates, in answering that the qualities of which you are speaking are the parts of virtue, which is ;

;

one.

And

same sense in which mouth, and ears are the parts of a face; or are they the parts of gold, which differ from the whole and from

nose, like

are they parts, I said, in the

and

eyes,

one another only in being larger or smaller? I should say that they differed, Socrates, in the first way; as the parts of a face are related to the whole face. And do men have some one part and some another part of virtue? Or if a man has one part, must he also have all the others ?

By no means, he

said

;

for

many a man

brave and not

just,

or just and not wise.

Why virtue ?

then, I said, courage

and wisdom are

also parts of

;

PROTAGORAS Most undoubtedly, he

said;

175

and wisdom

the noblest of

the parts.

And

they are

all

different

from one another ?

asked.

Yes.

And

each of them has a distinct function like the parts of the eye, for example, is not like the ear, and has not the same functions and the other parts are none of them like one another, either in their functions, or in any other way? Now I want to know whether the parts of virtue do not also

the face

;

and in their functions as that is clearly would imply. Yes, Socrates, you are right in that. Then, I said, no part of virtue* is like knowledge, or like

differ in themselves

what the

;

simile

justice, or like

courage, or like temperance, or like holiness.

No, he answered. Well then, I said, suppose that you and I inquire into their And first, you would agree with me that justice is natures. of the nature of a thing, would you not ? That is my opinion would not that be yours also ? Yes, he said, that is mine also. And suppose that someone were to ask us, saying, O Protagoras, and you, Socrates, what about this thing which you just now called justice, is it just or unjust? And I were to answer just: and you would you vote for me or against me? With you, he said. Thereupon I should answer to him who asked me, that justice is of the nature of the just, would not you?

—

Yes, he said.

And suppose that he went on to say : Well now, a thing as holiness ? we should answer, Yes, if I taken ?

—

Yes, he said.

And

that

you acknowledge to be a thing

there such

not mis-

—should we admit

that?

He assented. And is this a

which is of the nature of the unholy? I should be angry at his putting such a question, and should say, Peace, man; nothing can be holy if holiness is not holy. What do you say to that ? Would you not answer in the same way ? Certainly, he said. sort of thing

holy, or of the nature of the

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I7 6

suppose that he came and asked us, just now? Perhaps I may not have heard you rightly, but you seemed to me to be saying that I should the parts of virtue were not the same as one another. reply, You certainly heard that said, but you did not, as you think, hear me say that for Protagoras gave the answer, and I did but ask the question. And suppose that he turned to you and said, Is this true, Protagoras ? and do you maintain that one part of virtue is unlike another, and is this your posi-

And then after this What were you saying

;

tion? I

how would you answer him?

could not help acknowledging the truth of what he said,

Socrates.

Well then, Protagoras, assuming this, and supposing that he proceeded to say further, Then holiness is not of the nature of justice, nor justice of the nature of holiness, but of the nature of unholiness and holiness is of the nature of the not just, and therefore of the unjust, and the unjust is unholy; how shall we answer him? I should certainly answer him on ;

my own

behalf that justice is holy, and that holiness is just; and I would say in like manner on your behalf also, if you would allow me, that justice is either the same with holiness, or very nearly the same; and I would most assuredly say that justice is like holiness and holiness is like justice; and I wish that you would tell me whether I may be permitted to give this answer on your behalf, and whether you would agree with me.

replied, I cannot simply agree, Socrates, to the proposi-

is holy and that holiness is just, for there appears to me to be a difference between them. But what matter? if you please I please; and let us assume, if you will,

tion that justice

is holy, and that holiness is just. Pardon me, I said I do not want this " if you wish " or " if you will " sort of argument to be proved, but I want you and me to be proved and I mean by this that the argument will be best proved if there be no " if."

that justice

;

Well, he said, I admit that justice bears a resemblance to is always some point of view in which everything is like every other thing white is in a certain way like black, and hard is like soft, and the most extreme opposites

holiness, for there

;

have some qualities in common; even the parts of the face, which, as we were saying before, are distinct and have different

PROTAGORAS functions, are

177

view similar, and one

in a certain point of

still

another of them. And you may prove that they are like one another on the same principle that all things are like one another and yet things which are alike in some particular ought not to be called alike, nor things which are unlike of them

;

some

particular,

And do you

however

slight, unlike.

think, I said in a tone of surprise, that justice

and holiness have but a small degree of likeness ? Certainly not, he said but I do not agree with what

; I understand to be your view. Well, I said, as you appear to have a difficulty about this, let us take another of the examples which you have mentioned, Do you admit the existence of folly? instead.

I do.

And

not

That

true,

wisdom he

And when men to

you

the very opposite of folly?

said.

and advantageously they seem moderate ?

act rightly

to be temperate or

Yes, he said.

And

moderation makes them moderate?

Certainly.

And

who do

they

not act rightly act foolishly, and in thus

acting are not moderate? I

agree to that, he said.

Then

to act foolishly

He assented. And foolish actions

the opposite of acting moderately ?

are done by folly,

and moderate or tem-

perate actions by moderation?

agreed.

And

that

weakly which

done strongly which done by weakness?

done by strength, ard

He assented. And that which

is done with swiftness is done swiftly, ?nd which is done with slowness, slowly? He acknowledged that. And if anything is done in the same way, that is done by the same and if anything is done in an opposite way, by the

that

;

opposite ?

agreed.

Once more, Yes. 12

I said, is there

anything beautiful ?

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

178

To which the only opposite is the ugly? There is no other. And is there anything good? There is. To which the only opposite is the evil? There is no other. And there is the acute in sound? True.

To which There

the only opposite

the grave?

other, he said, but that.

Then every

opposite has one opposite only and no

more?

He assented. Then now, I said, let us recapitulate our admissions. First all we admitted that everything has one opposite and not more than one? To that we assented. And we admitted also that what was done in opposite ways was done by opposites ? of

Yes.

And done

that

which was done

way

in the opposite

foolishly, as

to that

also admitted,

was

which was done moderately ?

Yes.

And

that

which was done moderately was done by moderaand that which was done foolishly by folly ?

tion or temperance,

He agreed. And that which was done

in opposite

ways

done by oppo-

sites ?

Yes.

And

one thing

done by moderation or temperance, and by folly?

quite another thing

Yes.

And

those are opposite

ways?

Certainly.

And

therefore done

by opposites. Then

of moderation or temperance

That

folly is the opposite

evident.

And do you remember

that folly has already been acknowl-

edged by us to be the opposite of wisdom ?

assented.

And we Yes.

said that everything has only one opposite?

PROTAGORAS

179

Then, Protagoras, which of the two assertions shall we renounce ? One says that everything has but one opposite the other that wisdom is distinct from temperance or moderation, and that both of them are parts of virtue and that they are not only distinct, but unlike, both in themselves and in their funcWhich of these two assertions tions, like the parts of a face. For both of them together are certainly shall we renounce? not in harmony; they do not accord or agree: for how can they be said to agree if everything is assumed to have only one opposite and not more than one, and yet folly, which is one, has clearly the two opposites wisdom and temperance? Is not that true, Protagoras ? I said. What else would you say ? ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

He assented, but with great reluctance. Then temperance and wisdom

are the same, as before justice and holiness appeared to us to be nearly the same. And now, Protagoras, I said, do not let us be faint-hearted, but let us complete what remains. Do you think that an unjust man can be

temperate in his injustice ? I should be ashamed, Socrates, he said, to acknowledge this, which nevertheless many may be found to assert. And shall I argue with them or with you ? I replied. I would rather, he said, that you should argue with the many

you will. Whichever you please, if you will only answer me and say whether you are of their opinion or not. My object is to test the validity of the argument and yet the result may be that I and you who ask and answer may also be put on our trial. Protagoras at first made a show of refusing, as he said that the argument was not encouraging; at length, however, he first, if

;

consented to answer.

Now You

unjust

and answer me. some men are moderate or temperate, and yet

then, I said, begin at the beginning

think that ?

Yes, he said let that be admitted. And moderation is good sense? Yes. And good sense is good counsel in doing injustice? Granted. If they succeed, I said, or if they don't succeed? If they succeed. And you would admit the existence of goods ? ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; l

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

8o Yes.

is the good that which is expedient for man ? Yes, indeed, he said ; and there are some things which may be inexpedient, and yet I call them good. I thought that Protagoras was getting ruffled and excited he seemed to be setting himself in an attitude of war. Seeing this, I minded my business and gently said When you say, Protagoras, that things inexpedient are good,

And

do you mean inexpedient

for

man

only, or inexpedient alto-

gether ? and do you call the latter good ? Certainly not the last, he replied for I know of many things, meats, drinks, medicines, and ten thousand other things, which ;

are partly expedient for man, and partly inexpedient;

and

some which are expedient for horses, and not for men; and some for oxen only, and some for dogs and some for no animals, but only for trees; and some for the roots of trees ;

and not for their branches, as for example, manure, which is a good thing when laid about the roots, but utterly destructive if thrown upon the shoots and young branches; or I may instance olive-oil, which is mischievous to all plants, and generally most injurious to the hair of every animal with the exception of man, but beneficial to human hair and to the human body genand even in this application (so various and changeable erally is the nature of the benefit) that which is the greatest good to the outward parts of a man is a very great evil to his inward and for this reason physicians always forbid their paparts ;

tients the use of oil in their food, except in very small quantities,

just sufficient to take

away the disagreeable sensation

of smell

and sauces. When he had given

in meats

this answer, the company cheered him. Protagoras, I have a wretched memory, and when any one makes a long speech to me I never remember what he As then, if I had been deaf, and you were is talking about.

And

I said

going to converse with me, you would have had to raise your voice so now, having such a bad memory, I will ask you to cut your answers shorter, if you would take me with you. What do you mean ? he said how am I to shorten my an;

swers ? shall

make them

too short ?

Certainly not, I said.

But short enough ? he Yes, I

said.

PROTAGORAS

181

Shall I answer what appears to me to be short enough, or what appears to you to be short enough ? I have heard, I said, that you can speak and teach others to speak about the same things at such length that words never seemed to fail, or with such brevity that no one could use fewer of them. Please therefore, if you talk with me, to adopt the latter or more compendious method. Socrates, he replied, many a battle of words have I fought, and if I had followed the method of disputation which my adversaries desired, as you want me to do, I should have been no better than another, and the name of Protagoras would have been nowhere. I saw that he was not satisfied with his previous answers, and that he would not play the part of answerer any more if he could help and I considered that there was no call upon me ;

to continue the conversation

;

I said

Protagoras,

I don't

wish to force the conversation upon you if you had rather not, but when you are willing to argue with me in such a way that I can follow you, then I will argue with you. Now you, as is said of you by others and as you say of yourself, are able to have discussions in shorter forms of speech as well as in longer, for you are a master of wisdom but I cannot manage these long speeches I only wish that I could. You, on the other hand, who are capable of either, ought to speak shorter, as I beg you, and then we might converse. But I see that you are disinclined, and as I have an engagement which will prevent my staying to hear you at length (for I have to be in another place), I will depart, although I should have liked to hear you. Thus I spoke, and was rising from my seat, when Callias seized me by the hand, and in his left hand caught hold of this old cloak of mine. He said We cannot let you go, Socrates, I for if you leave us there will be an end of our discussions must therefore beg you to remain, as there is nothing in the world that I should like better than to hear you and Protagoras discourse. Do not deny the company this pleasure. Now I had got up, and was in the act of departure. Son of Hipponicus, I replied, I have always admired, and do now heartily applaud and love your philosophical spirit, and I would gladly comply with your request, if I could. But the truth is that I cannot. And what you ask is as great an impossibility to me as if you bade me run a race with Crison of Himera, when ;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

i8 2

in his prime, or with ners.

some one

day course run-

of the long or

that I should reply, that I

humbly make the same

re-

and they can't comply. And therefore if you want to see Crison and me in the same stadium, you must bid him slacken his speed to mine, for I cannot run quickly, and he can run slowly. And in like manner if you want to hear me and Protagoras discoursing, you must ask him to shorten his answers, and keep to the point, as he did at first if not, how can there be any discussion ? For discussion is one thing, and making an oration is quite another, according to my way of quest to

my own legs

;

thinking.

But you

see, Socrates, said Callias, that

claim to speak in his in yours. fairly

own way,

just as

Protagoras may to speak

you claim

Here Alcibiades

interposed, and said: That, Callias, is not statement of the case. For our friend Socrates admits in this he yields the palm to that he cannot make a speech Protagoras but I should be greatly surprised if he yielded to any living man in the power of holding and apprehending an argument. Now if Protagoras will make a similar admission,

fair

—

;

and confess that he is inferior to Socrates in argumentative that is enough for Socrates but if he claims a superiority not, when a quesin argument as well, let him ask and answer tion is asked, having recourse to shifts and evasions, and, instead of answering, making a speech at such length that most skill,

—

of his hearers forget the question at issue (not that Socrates likely to forget

—

I will

be bound for

that,

although he

may

pre-

tend in fun that he has a bad memory). And Socrates appears to me more in the right than Protagoras that is my opinion, and every man ought to say what he thinks. When Alcibiades had done speaking, some one Critias, I ;

believe

—went on to say

pears to

—

Prodicus and Hippias, Callias apto be a partisan of Protagoras. And this led Alci:

who

loves opposition, to take the other side. But we should not be partisans either of Socrates or Protagoras let us rather unite in entreating both of them not to break up the disbiades,

;

cussion.

Prodicus added for those

who

That, Critias, seems to

to be well said,

are present at such discussions ought to be im-

partial hearers of

that impartiality

both the speakers remembering, however, not the same as equality, for both sides ;

PROTAGORAS

i&$

should be impartially heard, and yet an equal meed should not be assigned to both of them ; but to the wiser a higher meed should be given, and a lower to the less wise. And I as well as Critias would beg you, Protagoras and Socrates, to grant our request, which is that you will argue with one another and not wrangle for friends argue with friends out of good-will, but only adversaries and enemies wrangle. And then our meeting will be delightful ; for in this way you, who are the speakers, will be most likely to win esteem, and not praise only, among us who are your audience for esteem is a sincere conviction of the hearers' souls, but praise is often an insincere expression of men uttering words contrary to their conviction. And thus we who are the hearers will be gratified and not pleased for gratification is of the mind when receiving wisdom and knowledge, but pleasure is of the body when eating or experiencing some other bodily delight. Thus spoke Prodicus, and many of the company applauded his words. Hippias the sage spoke next. He said All of you who are here present I reckon to be kinsmen and friends and fellow citizens, by nature and not by law ; for by nature like is akin to like, whereas law is the tyrant of mankind, and often compels us to do many things which are against nature. How great would be the disgrace then, if we, who know the nature of things, and are the wisest of the Hellenes, and as such are met together in this city, which is the metropolis of wisdom, and in the greatest and most glorious house of this city, should have nothing to show worthy of this height of dignity, but should only quarrel with one another like the meanest of mankind. I do pray and advise you, Protagoras, and you, Socrates, to agree upon a compromise. Let us be your peace-makers. And do not you, Socrates, aim at this precise and extreme brevity in discourse, if Protagoras objects, but loosen and let go the reins of speech, that your words may be grander and become you * better. Neither do you, Protagoras, go forth on the gale with every sail set out of sight of land into an ocean of words, but let there be a mean observed by both of you. Do as I say. And let me also suggest and suppose further that you choose an arhe will keep watch over your biter or overseer or president words and reduce them to their proper length. This proposal was received by the company with universal ;

;

* Reading

v/i?v>

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

approval and Callias said that he would not let me off, and that I was to choose an arbiter. But I said that to choose an umpire for if the person chosen was of discourse would be unseemly inferior, then the inferior or worse ought not to preside over the better ; or if he was equal, neither would that be well for he who is our equal will do as we do, and what will be the use of choosing him ? And if you say " Let us have a better then," to that I answer that you cannot have any one who is wiser than Protagoras. And if you choose another who is not really better, and whom you only say is better, to put another over him as though he were an inferior person would be an unworthy not that, as far as I am concerned, any rereflection on him flection is of much consequence to me. Let me tell you then what I will do in order that the conversation and discussion may go on as you desire. If Protagoras is not disposed to answer, and I will endeavor to show at let him ask and I will answer the same time how, as I maintain, he ought to answer: and when I have answered as many questions as he likes to ask, let him in like manner answer; and if he seems to be not very ready at answering the exact questions, you and I will unite in entreating him, as you entreated me, not to spoil the discussion. And this will require no special arbiter you shall all of you be ;

;

arbiters.

This was generally approved, and Protagoras, though very against his will, was obliged to agree that he would ask questions and when he had put a sufficient number of them, that he would answer in his turn those which he was asked, in short replies. He began to put his questions as follows I am of opinion, Socrates, he said, that skill in poetry is the principal part of education and this I conceive to be the power of knowing what composition of the poets are correct, and what

much

;

how they are to be distinguished, and of explaining them when asked. And I propose to transfer the question which you and I have been discussing to the domain of poetry, are not, and

speaking as before of virtue, but in reference to a passage of a poet. Now Simonides says to Scopas the son of Creon the Thessalian :

" Hardly on the one hand can a man become truly good built foursquare in hands and feet and mind, a work without a flaw." ;

Do you know the poem ?

or shall I repeat the whole ?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; PROTAGORAS

185

There is no need, I said ; for I am perfectly well acquainted with the ode, of which I have made a careful study. Very good, he said. And do you think that the ode is a good composition, and true? Yes, I said, both good and true. But if there is a contradiction, can the composition be good or true ? No, not in that case, I replied. And is there not a contradiction ? he asked. Reflect. Well, my friend, I have reflected. And does not the poet proceed to say, " I do not agree with the word of Pittacus, albeit the utterance of a wise man; hardly," says he, " can a man be good." Now you will observe that this

said

by the same poet.

know that, I said. And do you think, he I

said, that the

two sayings are

consist-

ent? Yes, I said, I think they are (at the same time I could not help fearing that there might be something in what he said). And you think otherwise ? I said. Why, he said, how can he be consistent in saying both? First of all, premising as his own thought, " Hardly can a man

good " and then a little further on in the poem, and blaming Pittacus and refusing to agree with him, when he says, " Hardly can a man be good," which is the very same thing. And yet when he blames him who says the same with himself, he blames himself; so that he must be wrong either in his first or his second assertion. Many of the audience cheered and applauded this. And I felt at first giddy and faint, as if I had received a blow from the expert hand of a boxer, when I heard his words and the sound of the cheering and to confess the truth, I wanted to get time to think what the meaning of the poet really was. So I turned to Prodicus and called him. Prodicus, I said, Simonides is a countryman of yours, and you ought to come to his rescue. I think that I must summon you to my aid, like the river Scamander in Homer, who, when beleaguered by Achilles, asks Simois to aid him, saying

become

truly

;

forgetting,

;

" Brother dear,

let

us both together stay the force of the hero."* *I1. xxi. 308.

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

I Summon you, for I am afraid that Protagoras will make an end of Simonides. Now is the time to rehabilitate Simonides, by the application of your charming philosophy of synonyms, which distinguishes " will " and " wish," and many similar words which you mentioned in your admirable speech. And I should like to know whether you would agree with me for I am of opinion that there is no contradiction in the words of Simonides. And first of all I wish that you would say whether, in your opinion, Prodicus, " being " is the same as " becoming." Not the same, certainly, replied Prodicus. Did not Simonides first set forth, as his own view, that " Hardly can a man become truly good " ? Quite right, said Prodicus. And then he blames Pittacus, I said, not for saying the same as himself, as Protagoras imagines, but for saying something different; for Pittacus does not say, as Simonides says, that hardly can a man become good, but hardly can a man be good and our friend Prodicus says that being, Protagoras, is not the same as becoming and if they are not the same, then Simonides is not inconsistent with himself. I dare say that Prodicus and many others would say, as Hesiod says, " Hardly can a man become good, for the gods have placed toil in front of virtue but when you have reached the goal, then the acquisi-

And

;

tion of virtue,

however

difficult, is

easy." *

Prodicus heard and approved but Protagoras said Your correction, Socrates, involves a greater error than is contained in the sentence which you are correcting. Alas I said, Protagoras then I am a sorry physician, and do but aggravate a disorder which I am seeking to cure. The fact, he said, is as I have stated. How is that? Tasked. The poet, he replied, could never have made such a mistake as to say that virtue, which in the opinion of all men is the hardest of all things, can be easily acquired. Well, I said, and how fortunate this is that Prodicus should be of the company, for he has a wisdom, Protagoras, which, as I imagine, is more than human and of very ancient date, and may be as old as Simonides, or even older. Learned as you are in many things, you appear to know nothing of this but I know, for I am a disciple of his. And now, if I am not mistaken, ;

;

* "

Works and Days,"

264

foil.

PROTAGORAS

187

you do not understand the word " hard " ( ^;a\â&#x201A;Ź7roi/) in the and I must correct you, as sense which Simonides intended Prodicus corrects me when I use the word " dreadful " (&ew6<;) ;

as a term of praise. If I say that Protagoras is a dreadfully wise man, he asks me if I am not ashamed of calling that which and then he explains to me that the term is good dreadful; " dreadful " is always taken in a bad sense, and that no one speaks of being dreadfully healthy or wealthy or wise, but of

dreadful war, dreadful poverty, dreadful disease, meaning by the term " dreadful," evil. And I think that Simonides and his countrymen the Ceans, when they spoke of " hard," meant " evil," or

something which you do not understand. Let us ask Prodicus, for he ought to be able to answer questions about the dialect of Simonides. What did he mean, Prodicus, by the term "hard"? Evil, said Prodicus.

And ing, "

therefore, I said, Prodicus,

Hard

the good," just as

he blames Pittacus for saythat were equivalent to say-

is the good. Yes, he said, that was certainly his meaning; and he is twitting Pittacus with ignorance of the use of terms, which in a Lesbian, who has been accustomed to speak a barbarous language, is natural. Do you hear, Protagoras, I asked, what our friend Prodicus And have you an answer for him ? is saying ? You are all wrong, Prodicus, said Protagoras ; and I know very well that Simonides in using the word " hard " meant what all of us mean, not evil, but that which is not easy that which

ing, Evil

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

takes a great deal of trouble.

Of this

positive.

to think, Protagoras, that this was the and that our friend Prodicus was quite aware of this, but he thought that he would make fun, and try for that Simonides could if you could maintain your thesis never have meant the other is clearly proved by the context, in which he says that God only has this gift. Now he cannot surely mean to say that to be good is evil, when he afterward proceeds to say that God only has this gift, and that this is the attribute of him and of no other. For if this be his meaning, Prodicus would impute to Simonides a character of recklessness which is very unlike his countrymen. And I should like to tell you, I said, what I imagine to be the real meaning of SiI said

meaning

I also incline

of Simonides,

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

!88

poem, if you will be called my skill would speaking, monides

in this

what, in your way of poetry or if you would

test

;

rather, I will be the listener.

As you please Protagoras, hearing me offer this, replied and Hippias, Prodicus, and the others told me by all means to do as I proposed. Then now, I said, I will endeavor to explain to you my opinion about this poem. There is a very ancient philosophy which is more cultivated in Crete and Lacedaemon than in any other part of Hellas, and there are more philosophers in those counThis, however, is a tries than anywhere else in the world. secret which the Lacedaemonians deny and they pretend to be ignorant, just because they do not wish to have it thought that they rule the world by wisdom, like the Sophists of whom Protagoras was speaking, and not by valor of arms considering that if the reason of their superiority were disclosed, all men would be practising their wisdom. And this secret of theirs has never been discovered by the imitators of Lacedaemonian fashions in other cities, who go about with their ears bruised in imitation of them, and have the cestus bound on their arms, and for they imare always in training, and wear short cloaks agine that these are the practises which have enabled the Lacedaemonians to conquer the other Hellenes. Now when the Lacedaemonians want to unbend and hold free conversation with their wise men, and are no longer satisfied with mere secret intercourse, they drive out all these Laconizers, and any other foreigners who may happen to be in their country, and they and hold a philosophical seance unknown to the strangers they themselves forbid their young men to go out into other :

;

cities (in this they are like the Cretans), in order that they may not unlearn the lessons which they have taught them. And in these cities not only men but also women have a pride in their high cultivation. And you may know that I am only speaking the truth in attributing this excellence in philosophy to the Lacedaemonians, by this token If a man converses with the most ordinary Lacedaemonian, he will find him seldom good for much in general conversation, but at any point in the discourse he will be darting out some notable saying, terse and full and the person with whom he of meaning, with unerring aim Any many of is talking seems to be like a child in his hands. our own age and of former ages have noted that the true Lace:

;

PROTAGORAS

189

daemonian type of character has the love of philosophy even stronger than the love of gymnastics they are conscious that only a perfectly educated man is capable of uttering such expressions. Such were Thales of Miletus, and Pittacus of Myti;

lene,

and our own Solon, and Cleobulus Myson the Chenian and seventh in the catamen was the Lacedaemonian Chilo. All these were

and Bias

of Priene,

the Lindian, and

;

logue of wise lovers and emulators and disciples of the culture of the Lacedaemonians, and anyone may perceive that their wisdom was of this character, consisting of short,

memorable sentences, which

And

they met together and dedicated in the temple of Apollo at Delphi, as the first-fruits of their wisdom, the far-famed inscriptions, which are in all men's mouths, individuals uttered.

Know thyself " and " Nothing too much/' Why do I say all this ? I am explaining

that this Lacedae-

monian brevity was the style of primitive philosophy. Now there was a saying of Pittacus which was privately circulated and received the approbation of the wise, " Hard to be good." And Simonides, who was ambitious of the fame of wisdom, was aware that if he could overthrow this saying, then, as if he had won a victory over some famous athlete, he would carry off the palm among his contemporaries. And if I am not mistaken, he composed the entire poem with the secret intention of damaging that saying. Let us all unite in examining his words, and see whether I am speaking the truth. Simonides must have been a lunatic, if, in the very first words of the poem, wanting to say only that to be good is hard, he inserted fUv, " on the one hand " (on the one hand to become good is hard) there would be no possible ;

reason for the introduction of fiiv, unless you suppose him to speak with a hostile reference to the words of Pittacus. Pittacus is saying " Hard to be good," and he says, controverting this, " No, the truly hard thing, Pittacus, is to become good," not joining " truly " with " good," but with " hard." Not the is to be truly good, as though there were some truly good men, and there were others who were good but not truly good (that would be a very simple observation, and quite unworthy of Simonides) but you must suppose him to make a trajection of the word (aXadecos), construing the saying of Pittacus thus (and let us imagine Pittacus to be speaking and

hard thing

;

Simonides answering him)

O my

friends," says Pittacus,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; DIALOGUES OF PLATO

190

"hard to be good," and Simonides answers, " In that, Pittacus, you are mistaken the difficulty is not to be good, but on the one hand to become good, four-square in hands and feet and ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

mind, without a flaw that is hard truly." This way of reading the passage accounts for the insertion of (pw) " on the one hand," and for the use of the word " truly," which is rightly placed at the end and all that follows tends to prove that this great deal might be said in praise of the deis the meaning. ;

tails of

the

poem, which

a charming piece of workmanship,

would be tedious. I should like, however, to point out the general intention of the poem, which is certainly designed in every part to be a refutation of the saying of Pittacus. For he speaks in what follows a little further on as if he meant to argue that although there is a difficulty in becoming good, yet this is possible for a time, and only for a time. But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, as you, Pittacus, affirm, that is not possible, and is not granted to man God only has this blessing " but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him." Now whom does the force of circumstances overpower not the private individual, for he in the command of a vessel ? and as one who is already prostrate is always overpowered cannot be overthrown, but only he who is standing upright and not he who is prostrate can be laid prostrate, so the force of circumstances can only be said to overpower him who has resources, and not him who is at all times helpless. The descent of a great storm may make the pilot helpless, or the severity of the season the husbandman or the physician for the good may become bad, as another poet witnesses and very

finished, but that

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

"The good

are sometimes good and sometimes bad."

But the bad does not become bad

when

;

always bad.

the force of circumstances overpowers the

man

that

of re-

sources and

And you,

skill and virtue, then he cannot help being bad. Pittacus, are saying, " Hard to be good." there

a difficulty in becoming

Now

good

and yet this is possible, but " for he who does well is the to be good is an impossibility good man, and he who does ill is the bad." But what sort of doing is good in letters ? and what sort of doing makes a man good in letters ? Clearly the knowing of them. And what sort of well-doing makes a man a good physician? Clearly the is

;

PROTAGORAS

191

" But he who does ill is the bad." Now who becomes a bad physician ? Clearly he who is in the first place a physician, and in the second place a

knowing

of the art of healing the sick.

may become

a bad one also but none can by any amount of doing ill become physicians, any more than we can become carpenters or anything of that sort and he who by doing ill cannot become a physician at all, clearly cannot become a bad physician. In like manner the good may become deteriorated by time, or toil, or disease, or other accident (the only real ill-doing is the deprivation of knowledge), but the bad man will never become bad, for he is always bad and if he were to become bad, he must previously have been good. Thus the words of the poem tend to show mat on the one hand a man cannot be continuously good, but that he may become good and may also become bad and again that " they are the best for the longest time whom the gods love." All this relates to Pittacus, as is further proved by the sequel. For he adds " Therefore I will not throw away my life in searching after the impossible, hoping in vain to find a perfectly faultless man among those who partake of the fruit of the broadbosomed earth and when I have found him to tell you of him " (this is the vehement way in which he pursues his attack upon Pittacus throughout the whole poem) " but him who does no evil voluntarily I praise and love not even the gods war against necessity." All this has a similar drift, for Simonides was not so ignorant as to say that he praised those who did no evil

good physician ;

for

of us unskilled individuals

;

though there were some who did evil voluntarily. For no wise man, as I believe, will allow that any human being errs voluntarily, or voluntarily does evil and dishonorable acbut they are very well aware that all who do evil and tions dishonorable things do them against their will. And Simonides never says that he praises him who does no evil voluntarily; the word " voluntarily " applies to himself. For he was under the impression that a good man might often compel himself to love and praise another, and that there might be an involuntary love, such as a man might feel to an ungainly father or mother, or to his country or something of that sort. Now bad men, when their parents or country have any defects, rejoice at the sight of them, and expose them to others, and find fault with them and denounce them, under the idea that the rest of man-

voluntarily, as

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

192

take them to task and reproach them and this makes them exaggerate their defects, in order that the odium which is necessarily incurred by them may be increased but the good man dissembles his feeland if they have ings, and constrains himself to praise them wronged him and he is angry, he pacifies his anger and is reconciled, and compels himself to love and praise his own flesh and blood. And Simonides, as is probable, considered that he himself nad often had to praise and magnify a tyrant or the like, much against his will, and he also wishes to imply to Pittacus that he is not censorious and does not censure him. " For I am satisfied," he says, " when a man is neither bad nor very stupid, and when he knows justice (which is the health of States), and is of sound mind, I will find no fault with him, for I am not given

kind will be

when they

less likely to

neglect

them

;

to finding fault, for there are innumerable fools " (implying that

he delighted in censure he might have abundant opportunity " All things are good with which evil is unmingled." In these latter words he does not mean to say that all things are good which have no evil in them, as you might say " all things are white which have no black in them," for that wouid be ridiculous but he means to say that he accepts and finds no fault with the moderate or intermediate state. " I do not hope," he says, " to find a perfectly blameless man among those who partake of the fruits of the broad-bosomed earth, and when 1 xave found him to tell you of him in this sense I praise no man. But he who is moderately good, and does no " evil, is good enough for me, who love and approve everyone (and here observe that he uses a Lesbian word, iiraivtj/ii, because he is addressing Pittacus " who love and approve everyone voluntarily," he says, " who does no evil " and that the stop should be put after " voluntarily ") " but there are some if

of finding fault).

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

whom I involuntarily praise and love. And you, Pittacus, I would never have blamed, if you had spoken what was moderately good and true but I do blame you because, wearing the appearance of truth, you are speaking falsely about the greatest matters." And this, I said, Prodicus and Protagoras, I take to be the true meaning of Simonides in this poem. Hippias said I think, Socrates, that you have given a very good explanation of this poem but I have also an excellent interpretation of my own which I will expound to you, if you ;

;

will allow

me.

PROTAGORAS Nay, Hippias, said Alcibiades

193

not now, but another time.

;

At present we must abide by the compact which was made between Socrates and Protagoras, to the effect that as long as Protagoras is willing to ask, Socrates should answer; or that he would rather answer, then that Socrates should ask. I said I wish Protagoras either to ask or answer as he is inclined but I would rather have done with poems and odes, if you do not object, and come back to the question about which I was asking you at first, Protagoras, and by your help make an end of that. The talk about the poets seems to me like a commonplace entertainment to which a vulgar company have recourse who, because they are not able to converse or amuse one another, while they are drinking, with the sound of their own voices and conversation by reason of their stupidity, raise the price of flute girls in the market, hiring for a great sum the voice of a flute instead of their own breath, to be the medium of intercourse among them but where the company are real gentlemen and men of education, you will see no flute girls, nor dancing-girls, nor harp girls and they have no nonsense or games, but are contented with one another's conversation, of which their own voices are the medium, and which they carry on by turns and in an orderly manner, even though they are very liberal in their potations. And a company like this of ours, and men such as we profess to be, do not require the help of another's voice, or of the poets whom you cannot interrogate about the meaning of what they are saying people who cite them declaring, some that the poet has one meaning, and others that he has another and there arises a dispute which can never be put to the proof. This sort of entertainment they decline, and prefer to talk with one another, and try one another's metif

;

tle in

conversation.

you and

And

these are the sort of models which I

should imitate. Leaving the poets, and keeping to ourselves, let us try the mettle of one another and of the truth in conversation. And if you have a mind to ask I am ready to answer or if you would rather, do you answer, and give me the opportunity of taking up and completing our unfinished argument. I made these and some similar observations ; but Protagoras would not distinctly say which he would do. Thereupon Alcibiades turned to Callias, and said Do you think, Callias, that Protagoras is fair in refusing to say whether he will or will not desire that

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

answer? for I certainly think that he is unfair he ought either to proceed with the argument, or distinctly to refuse to proceed, that we may know his intention and then Socrates will be able to discourse with someone else, and the rest of the company will be free to talk with one another. I think that Protagoras was really made ashamed by these words of Alcibiades, and when the prayers of Callias and the company were superadded, he was at last induced to argue, and said that I might ask and he would answer. So I said: Do not imagine, Protagoras, that I have any other interest in asking questions of you but that of clearing up my own difficulties. For I think that Homer was very right in saying that " When two go together, one sees before the other," * for all men who have a companion are readier in deed, word, or thought but if a man " sees a thing when he is alone," he goes about straightway seeking until he finds someone to whom he may show his discoveries, and who may confirm him in them. And I would rather hold discourse with you than with anyone, because I think that no man has a better understanding of most things which a good man may be expected to understand, and in particular of virtue. For who is there, but you ? who not only claim to be a good man and a gentleman, for many are this, and yet have not the power of making others good. Whereas you are not only good yourself, but also the cause of goodness in others. Moreover such confidence have you in yourself, that although other Sophists conceal their pro;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

you proclaim in the face of Hellas that you are a Sophist or teacher of virtue and education, and are the first who demanded pay in return. How then can I do otherwise than invite you to the examination of these subjects, and ask questions and take advice of you ? Indeed, I must. And I should like once more to have my memory refreshed by you about the questions which I was asking you at first, and also to have your help in considering them. If I am not mistaken the question was this fession,

Are wisdom and temperance and courage and justice and holiness five names of the same thing? or has each of the names a separate underlying essence and corresponding thing having a proper function, no one of them being like any other of them ?

And you same

said that the five

names were not the names of the them had a separate object, and

thing, but that each of *

II.

x. 224.

PROTAGORAS

195

same way that and the whole of which they are parts, but as the parts of the face are unlike the whole of which they are parts and one another, and have each of them a distinct function. I should like to know whether this is still your opinion or if not, I will ask you to define your meaning, as I shall not take you to task if you now make a different statement. For I dare say that you may have said what you did only in order to make trial of me. I answer, Socrates, he said, that all these qualities are parts of virtue, and that four out of the five are to some extent similar, and that the fifth of them, which is courage, is very different from the other four, as I prove in this way You may observe that

all

them were

parts of virtue, not in the

the parts of gold are like each other

;

many men are utterly unrighteous, unholy, intemperate, ignorant, who are nevertheless remarkable for their courage. that

that requires consideration. When you speak men, do you mean the confident, or another sort of

Stop, I said of brave

;

nature ?

Yes, he said which others are

;

mean

the impetuous, ready to

at that

afraid to approach.

In the next place, you would affirm virtue to be a good thing, which good thing you assert yourself to be a teacher. Yes, he said ; I should say the best of all things, as I am a sane man. And is it partly good and partly bad, I said, or wholly good? Wholly good, and that in the highest degree. Tell me then; who are they who have confidence in diving into a well ? I should say, the divers. And the reason of this is that they have knowledge ? Yes, that is the reason. And who have confidence in fighting on horseback the skilled horsemen or the unskilled ? of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

The

skilled.

And who

in fighting with light shields

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the

peltasts or the

non-peltasts ?

The that

peltasts.

And

your point

dent than those

that

those

true of

all

other things, he said,

who have knowledge

who have no knowledge, and

confident after they have learned than before.

are

confi-

they are more

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

i 96

And have you

not seen persons utterly ignorant, I said, of

these things, and yet confident about them ? Yes, he said, I have seen persons very confident.

And are

not these confident persons always courageous ? In that case, he replied, courage would be a base thing, for the men of whom we are speaking are surely madmen. Then who are the courageous ? Are they not the confident ? Yes, he said and I still maintain that. And those, I said, who are thus confident without knowledge are really not courageous, but mad and in that case the wisest are also the most confident, and being the most confident are also the bravest, and upon that view again wisdom will be courage. Nay, Socrates, he replied, you are mistaken in your remembrance of what was said by me. When you asked me, I certainly did say that the courageous are the confident but I was not asked whether the confident are the courageous for if you had asked me that, I should have answered " Not all of them " and what I did answer you have not disproved, although you proceed to show that those who have knowledge are more courageous than they were before they had knowledge, and more courageous than others who have no knowledge; and this makes you think that courage is the same as wisdom. But in this way of arguing you might come to imagine that strength is wisdom. You might begin by asking whether the strong are able, and I should say " Yes " and then whether those who know how to wrestle are not more able to wrestle than those who do not know how to wrestle, and more able after than before they had learned, and I should assent. And when I had admitted this, you might use my admissions in such a way as to prove that upon my view wisdom is strength whereas in that case I should not have admitted, any more than in the other, that the able are strong, although I have admitted that the strong are able. For there is a difference between ability and strength the former is given by knowledge as well as by madness or rage, but strength comes from nature and a healthy state of the body. And in like manner I say of confidence and courage that they are not the same and I argue that the courageous are confident, but not all the confident courageous. For confidence may be given to men by art, and also, like ability, by ;

;

PROTAGORAS

197

anger and madness but courage comes to them from nature and the healthy state of the soul. I said: You would admit, Protagoras, that some men live well and others ill ? ;

agreed to

And do you

this.

think that a

man

lives well

who

lives in

pain and

grief ?

does not. if he lives pleasantly to the end of his that in that case he will have lived well ?

But

don't

life,

you think

I do.

Then an

to live pleasantly

a good, and to live unpleasantly

evil.

Yes, he said, if the pleasure be good and honorable. And do you, Protagoras, like the rest of the world, call some

some

pleasant things evil and

painful things

good

rather disposed to say that things are pleasant,

good?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

for I

in as far as

they are

they have no consequences of another sort, and in

as far as they are painful they are bad. I

do not know, Socrates, he

assert in that unqualified

and the painful the

evil.

said,

whether

can venture to

manner that the pleasant is the good Having regard not only to my present

answer, but also to the rest of my life, I shall be safer, if I am not mistaken, in saying that there are some pleasant things which are not good, and that there are some painful things which are

good, and some which are not good, and that there are some which are neither good nor evil. And you would call pleasant, I said, the things which participate in pleasure or create pleasure?

Certainly, he said.

Then my meaning is, that in as far as they are pleasant they are good and my question would imply that pleasure is a good ;

in itself.

According to your

favorite

inquire about this, he said

show

that pleasure

agree

;

but

mode

and

and good are

not, then

And would you

;

of speech, Socrates, let us

the result of the inquiry really the same, then

will

will argue.

wish to begin the inquiry ?

begin ? You ought to take the lead, he said

of the discussion.

;

for

I said

;

or shall

you are the author

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

198

May who

use this as an illustration

inquiring into the health or

I said.

Suppose some one

some other bodily

quality of

another he looks at his face and at the tips of his fingers, and then he says, Uncover your chest and back to me, that I may have a better view that is the sort of thing which I desire in this speculation. Having seen what your opinion is about good and pleasure, I am minded to say to you Uncover your mind to me, Protagoras, and reveal your opinion about knowledge, that I may know whether you agree with the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world are of opinion that knowledge is a principle not of strength, or of rule, or of command their notion is that a man may have knowledge, and yet that the knowledge which is in him may be overmastered by anger, or pleasure, or pain, or love, or perhaps fear just as if knowledge were a slave, and might be dragged about anyhow. Now is that your view ? or do you think that knowledge is a noble and commanding thing, which cannot be overcome, and will not allow a man, if he only knows the difference of good and evil, to do anything which is contrary to knowledge, but that wisdom will have strength to help him ? I agree with you, Socrates, said Protagoras; and not only that, but I above all other men am bound to say that wisdom :

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and knowledge are the highest of human things. Good, I said, and true. But are you aware that the majority of the world are of another mind and that men are commonly supposed to know the things which are best, and not to do them when they might? And most persons of whom I have asked the reason of this have said that those who did thus were overcome by pain, or pleasure, or some of those affections which I was just now mentioning. Yes, Socrates, he replied; and that is not the only point about which mankind are in error. Suppose, then, that you and I endeavor to instruct and inform them what is the nature of this affection, which is called by them being overcome by pleasure, and which, as they declare, is the reason why they know the better and choose the worse. When we say to them: Friends, you are mistaken, and are saying what is not true, they would reply Socrates and Protag;

oras,

this affection of the soul is

overcome by pleasure, what us that.

is it,

not to be described as being

and how do you

call

it ?

Tell

PROTAGORAS

1 99

But why, Socrates, should we trouble ourselves about the who just say anything that happens to

opinion of the many, occur to them ?

I think, I replied, that their

opinion

may

help us to discover

the nature and relation of courage to the other parts of virtue. If you are disposed to abide by our recent agreement, that I should lead in the way in which I think that we shall find the truth best, do you follow but if you are disinclined, never mind. You are quite right, he said and I would have you proceed as you have begun. Well then, I said, let me suppose that they repeat their question, What account do you give of that which, in our language, is termed being overcome by pleasure ? I should answer them thus Listen, and Protagoras and I will endeavor to show you. When men are overcome by eating and drinking and other sensual desires which are pleasant, and they, knowing them to be evil, nevertheless indulge in them, is not that what you would call being overcome by pleasure ? That they will admit. And suppose that you and I were to go on and ask them again In what way do you say that they are evil in that they are pleasant and give pleasure at the moment, or because they cause disease and poverty and other like evils in the future ? Would they still be evil, if they had no attendant evil consequences, simply because they give the consciousness of pleasure of whatever nature ? Would they not answer that they are not evil on account of the pleasure which is immediately given by them, but on account of the after consequences diseases and the like ? I believe, said Protagoras, that the world in general would give that answer. And in causing diseases do they not cause pain ? and in causing poverty do they not cause pain they would agree to that also, if I am not mistaken ? Protagoras assented. Then I should say to them, in my name and yours Do you think them evil for any other reason, except that they end in pain and rob us of other pleasures? that again they would ;

;

—

;

—

admit ? We both of us thought that they would: And that I should take the question from the opposite point of view, and say Friends, when you speak of goods being painful, do you mean remedial goods, such as gymnastic exercises :

: ;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

io6

services, and the physician's use of burning, cutdrugging, and starving? Are these the things which are good but painful ? they would assent to that ?

and military ting,

—

He agreed. And do you

call them good because they occasion the greatimmediate suffering and pain or because, afterwards, they bring health and improvement of the bodily condition and the salvation of States and empires.and wealth ? they would agree to that, if I am not mistaken ?

est

;

—

assented.

these things good for any other reason except that they end in pleasure, and get rid of and avert pain ? Are you looking to any other standard but pleasure and pain when you call them good ? they would acknowledge that they were not ? I think that they would, said Protagoras. And do you not pursue after pleasure as a good, and avoid pain as an evil ?

Are

—

assented.

Then you think

that pain

and even pleasure you deem an pleasures than

evil

evil,

and pleasure is a good it robs you of greater

when

gives, or causes greater pain than the pleas-

If, however, you call pleasure an evil in relasome other end or standard, you will be able to show us standard. But you have none to show.

ures which

has.

tion to that I

do not think that they have, said Protagoras.

And have you not a similar way of speaking about pain? You call pain a good when it takes away greater pains than those which

has, or gives pleasures greater than the pains

you have some standard other than pleasure and pain to which you refer when you call actual pain a good, you can show what that is. But you cannot. That is true, said Protagoras. Suppose again, I said, that the world says to me Why do you spend many words and speak in many ways on this subject ? Excuse me, friends, I should reply but in the first place there is a difficulty in explaining the meaning of the expression " overcome by pleasure " and the whole argument turns upon this. And even now, if you see any possible way in which evil can be explained as other than pain, or good as other than pleasure, you may still retract. But I suppose that you are satisfied at having a life of pleasure which is without pain. And for I say that

;

PROTAGORAS

201

you are satisfied, and if you are unable to show any good or which does not end in pleasure and pain, hear the consequences If this is true, then I say that the argument is absurd which affirms that a man often does evil knowingly, when he might abstain, because he is seduced and amazed by pleasure or again, when you say that a man knowingly refuses to do what is good because he is overcome at the moment by pleasure. Now that this is ridiculous will be evident if only we give up the use of various names, such as pleasant and painful, and good and evil. As there are two things, let us call them by two names first, good and evil, and then pleasant and painful. Assuming this, let us go on to say that a man does evil knowing that he does evil. But someone will ask, Why ? Because he is overcome, is the first answer. And by what is he overcome ? the if

evil

—

inquirer will proceed to ask. "

pleasure," for the

name

And we

shall not

be able to reply

of pleasure has been

exchanged

for that of good. In our answer, then, we shall only say that he " By what ? " he will reiterate. By the good, we is overcome.

we shall. Nay, but our questioner he be one of the swaggering sort, That is too ridiculous, that a man should do what he knows to be evil when he ought not, because he is overcome by good. Is that, he will ask, because the good was worthy or not worthy of conquering the evil ? And in answer to that we shall clearly reply, Because it was not worthy for if it had been worthy, then he who, as we say, was overcome by pleasure, would not have been wrong. But how, he will reply, can the good be unworthy of the evil, or the evil of the good ? Is not the real explanation that they are out of proportion to one another, either as greater and smaller, or more and fewer? This we cannot deny. And when you speak of being overcome what do you mean, he will say, but that you choose the greater evil in exchange for the lesser good ? This being the case, let us now substitute the names of pleasure and pain, and say, not as before, that a man does what is evil knowingly, but that he does what is painful knowingly, and because he is overcome by pleasure, which is unworthy to overcome. And what measure is there of the relations of pleasure to pain other than excess and defect, which means that they become greater and smaller, and more and fewer, and different in degree ? For if anyone says, " Yes, Socrates, but immediate pleasure differs widely from future pleasshall

have to reply

;

indeed

will rejoin with a laugh,

;

—

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

202

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ure and pain " to that I should reply And do they differ in any other way except by reason of pleasure and pain? There can be no other measure of them. And do you, like a skilful weigher, put into the balance the pleasures and the pains near and distant, and weigh them, and then say which outweighs the other. If you weigh pleasures against pleasures, you of course :

more and greater; or if you weigh pains against you take the fewer and the less or if pleasures against pains, then you choose that course of action in which the painful is exceeded by the pleasant, whether the distant by the near or the near by the distant and you avoid that course of action in which the pleasant is exceeded by the painful. Would you take the

pains,

;

not admit, my friends, that this they cannot deny this.

true?

confident that

agreed with me.

Well then, I shall say, if you admit that, be so good as to answer me a question: Do not the same magnitudes appear larger to your sight when near, and smaller when at a distance ? They will acknowledge that. And the same holds of thickness and number also sounds, which are in themselves equal, are greater when near, and lesser when at a distance. They will grant that also. Now supposing that happiness consisted in making and taking large things, what would be the saving principle of human life ? Would the art of measuring be the saving principle, or would the power of appearance ? Is not the latter that deceiving art which makes us wander up and down and take the things at one time of which we repent at another, both in our actions and in our choice of things great and small ? But the art of measurement is that which would do away with the effect of appearances, and, showing the truth, would fain teach the soul at last to find rest in the truth, and would thus save our life. Would not mankind generally acknowledge that the art which accomplishes this is the art of measurement ? Yes, he said, the art of measurement. Suppose, again, the salvation of human life to depend on the choice of odd and even, and on the knowledge of when men ought to choose the greater or less, either in reference to themselves or to each other, whether near or at a distance what would be the saving principle of our lives ? Would not knowledge? a knowledge of measuring, when the question is one of excess and defect, and a knowledge of number, when the ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

PROTAGORAS question will

203

odd and even ? The world

will

acknowledge

that,

they not ?

Protagoras admitted that they would. Well then, I say to them, my friends, seeing that the salvation of human life has been found to consist in the right choice in the choice of the more and the fewer of pleasures and pains

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and the greater and the less, and the nearer and remoter, must not this measuring be a consideration of excess and defect and equality in relation to each other ?

That

And

this, as

art

undeniably true. possessing measure, must undeniably also be

and science ?

They will agree to The nature of that

that.

be a matter of future consideration; the demonstration of the existence of such a science of

art or science will

a sufficient answer to the question which

you asked

me and

tion,

Protagoras. At the time when you asked the quesyou remember, both of us were agreeing that there was

nothing mightier than knowledge, and that knowledgt, in whatever existing, must have the advantage over pleasure and and then you said that pleasure often got the all other things advantage even over a man who has knowledge and we refused to allow this, and you said O Protagoras and Socrates, if this state is not to be called being overcome by pleasure, tell us what it is what would you call it ? If we had immediately and at the time answered " Ignorance," you would have laughed at us. But now, in laughing at us, you will be laughing at yourselves for you also admitted that men err in their ;

;

choice of pleasures and pains

;

that

is,

in their choice of

good

from defect of knowledge and you admitted further that they err, not only from defect of knowledge in general, but of that particular knowledge which is called measuring. And you are also aware that the erring act which is done without knowledge is done in ignorance. This, therefore, is the meaning of being overcome by pleasure ignorance, and that the greatest. And our friends Protagoras and Prodicus and Hip-

and

evil,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

pias declare that they are the physicians of ignorance

who

;

but you, is not

are under the mistaken impression that ignorance

the cause, neither

go yourselves, nor send your

children, to the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

who are the teachers of these things you take care and the result is that you of your money and give them none Sophists,

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

204

are the worse off both in public and private

life let us suppose be our answer to the world in general. But I would like now to ask you, Hippias, and you, Prodicus, as well as Protagoras (for the argument is to be yours as well as ours), whether you think that I am speaking the truth or not ? They all thought that what I said was entirely true. Then you agree, I said, that the pleasant is the good, and the painful evil. And here I would beg my friend Prodicus not to introduce his distinction of names, whether he is disposed to say pleasurable, delightful, joyful. However and in whatever way he rejoices to name them, I will ask you, most excellent :

this to

Prodicus, to answer this in

sense.

Prodicus laughed and assented, as did the others. Then, my friends, I said, what do you say to this ? Are not all actions, the tendency of which is to make life painless and pleasant, honorable and useful? The honorable work is also useful

and good ?

This was admitted. Then, I said, if the pleasant is the good, nobody does anything under the idea or conviction that some other thing would be better and is also attainable, when he might do the better. And this inferiority of a man to himself is merely ignorance, as the superiority of a

They

all

man

to himself

wisdom.

assented.

And is not ignorance the having a false opinion and being deceived about important matters ?

that they also unanimously assented. Then, I said, no man voluntarily pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature and when a man is compelled to choose one of two evils, no one will choose the greater when he might have the less. All of us agreed to every word of this. ;

Well,

I said,

there

a certain thing called fear or terror, and

here, Prodicus, I should particularly like to

would agree with me

know whether you

in defining this fear or terror as expecta-

tion of evil.

Protagoras and Hippias agreed, but Prodicus said that this was fear and not terror. Never mind about that, Prodicus, I said; but let me ask if our former assertions are true, a man will pursue which he fears when he need not ? Would not this be in

whether, that

;

PROTAGORAS

205

contradiction to the admission which has been already made, that he thinks the things which he fears to be evil will

;

and no one

pursue or voluntarily accept that which he thinks to be

evil.

That also was universally admitted. Then, I said, these, Hippias and Prodicus, are our premises and I would beg Protagoras to explain to us how he can be right in what he said at first. I do not mean in what he said quite at first, for his first statement, as you may remember, was that whereas there were five parts of virtue none of them was each of them had a separate function. like any other of them To this, however, I am not referring, but to the assertion which he afterwards made that of the five virtues four were nearly akin to each other, but that the fifth, which was courage, differed greatly from the others. And of this he gave me the following proof. He said You will find, Socrates, that some of the most impious, and unrighteous, and intemperate, and ignorant of men are among the most courageous and that is a proof that courage is very different from the other parts of virtue. I was surprised at his saying this at the time, and I am still more surprised now that I have discussed the matter with you. So I asked him whether by the brave he meant the conYes, he replied, and the impetuous or goers. (You fident. may remember, Protagoras, that this was your answer.) He acknowledged the truth of this. Well then, I said, tell us against what are the courageous ready to go against the same as the cowards ? No, he answered. Then against something different ? Yes, he said. Then do cowards go where there is safety, and the courageous where there is danger ? Yes, Socrates, that is what men say. That is true, I said. But I want to know against what the courageous are ready to go against dangers, believing them to be dangers, or not against dangers ? No, said he that has been proved by you in the previous argument to be impossible. That, again, I replied, is quite true. And if this had been rightly proven, then no one goes to meet what he thinks to be dangers, since the want of self-control, which makes men rush into dangers, has been shown to be ignorance. ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

206

assented.

yet the courageous man and the coward alike go to meet that about which they are confident so that, in this point of view, the cowardly and the courageous go to meet the same things. And yet, Socrates, said Protagoras, that to which the coward goes is the opposite of that to which the courageous goes the one, for example, are ready to go to battle, and the others are

And

;

not ready.

And

is going to battle honorable or disgraceful? I said. Honorable, he replied. And if honorable, then already admitted by us to be good; for all honorable actions we have admitted to be good. is true and to that opinion I shall aways adhere. True, I said. But which of the two are they who, as you say, are unwilling to go to war, which is a good and honorable thing?

That

;

The cowards, he

And

replied.

yet, I said, that

which

good and honorable

also

pleasant ?

That, he said, was certainly admitted.

And do the cowards knowingly refuse to go to the nobler, and pleasanter, and better? The admission of that, he replied, would belie our former admissions.

But does not the courageous man also go to meet the better, and pleasanter, and nobler? That must be admitted. And the courageous man has no base fear or base confidence ? True, he replied. And if not base, then honorable ? He admitted this. And if honorable, then good ? Yes.

But the fear and confidence of the coward or foolhardy or

madman, on

the contrary, are base?

assented.

And

these base fears and confidences originate in ignorance

and uninstructedness ? True, he said.

PROTAGORAS Then

as to the motive

207

from which the cowards

act,

do you

cowardice or courage? I should say cowardice, he replied. And have they not been shown to be cowards through their ignorance of dangers? Assuredly, he said. And because of that ignorance they are cowards ? call that

He assented. And the reason why

they are cowards

admitted by you to

be cowardice?

assented.

Then ardice

the ignorance of

what

and

not dangerous

cow-

He nodded

assent.

But surely courage,

I said, is

opposed to cowardice ?

Yes.

And

the wisdom which knows what are and are not danopposed to the ignorance of them? To that again he nodded assent. And the ignorance of them is cowardice? To that he very reluctantly nodded assent. And the knowledge of that which is and is not dangerous courage, and is opposed to the ignorance of these things ? At this point he would no longer nod assent, but was silent. And why, I said, do you neither assent nor dissent, Pro-

gers

tagoras ?

Finish the argument by yourself, he said. I only want to ask one more question, I said. I want to know whether you still think that there are men who are most ignorant and yet most courageous? You seem to have a great ambition to make me answer, Socrates, and therefore I will gratify you, and say that this appears to me to be impossible consistently with the argument. My only object, I said, in continuing the discussion, has been the desire to ascertain the relations of virtue and the essential nature of virtue for if this were clear, I am very sure that the other controversy which has been carried on at great length by both of us you affirming and I denying that virtue can be taught would also have become clear. The result of our discussion appears to me to be singular. For if the argument had a human voice, that voice would be heard laughing at us and ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

DIALOGUES OF PLATO

208

Protagoras and Socrates, you are strange beings; you who were saying that virtue cannot be taught, contradicting yourself now in the attempt to show that all things are knowledge, including justice, and temperance, and courage which tends to show that virtue can certainly be taught for if virtue were other than knowledge, as Protagoras attempted to show, then clearly virtue cannot be taught but if virtue is entirely knowledge, as you, Socrates, are seeking to show, then I cannot but suppose that virtue is capable of being taught. Protagoras, on the other hand, who started by saying that it might be taught, is now eager to show that it is anything rather than knowledge; and if this is true, it must be quite incapable of being taught. Now I, Protagoras, perceiving this terrible confusion of ideas, have a great desire that they should be cleared up. And I should like to carry on the discussion until we ascertain what virtue is, and whether capable of being taught or not, lest haply Epimetheus should trip us up and deceive us in the argument, as he forgot to provide for us in the of story and I prefer your Prometheus to your Epimetheus him I make use whenever I am busy about these questions in Promethean care of my own life. And if you have no objection, as I said at first, I should like to have your help in the inquiry. Protagoras replied Socrates,* I am not of a base nature, and I cannot but apI am the last man in the world to be envious. plaud your enthusiasm in the conduct of an argument. As I have often said, I admire you above all men whom I know, cerand I believe that you will tainly above all men of your age become very eminent in philosophy. Let us come back to the at present we had better turn to subject at some future time saying:

there are

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

something else. By all means, I said, if that is your wish for I too ought long since to have kept the engagement of which I spdke before, and ;

only tarried because I could not refuse the request of the noble Callias. This finished the conversation, and we went our way.

noooooocxxjoaxxKXXxxxxxxxxxxcaxaoocxxx^

THE POLITICS OF ARISTOTLE

TRANSLATED BY

BENJAMIN JOWETT

WITH A PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR, AND A SPECIAL INTRODUCTION BY

MAURICE FRANCIS EGAN,

Ph.D.

PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE AT THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

REVISED EDITION

kf ViXlM(>)X(.>)Xi>TK

COl ONIA1 /agÂ£5isgS5^

1900,

THE COLONIAL PRESS

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

THE

translation of the " Politics "

the public

which is now given to was commenced about fifteen years since,

with the intention of illustrating the

rough draft was made by the

translator,

Laws

of Plato.

which he had the ad-

vantage of reading over with Mr. Alfred Robinson, of New College. But finding the work more difficult than he had anticipated, he determined to begin again and rewrite the whole. He was insensibly led on to the preparation of a commentary and an analysis. Other subjects of a more general character, which arose out of a study of Aristotle's " Politics," naturally took the form of essays. These will be published shortly. The translation was printed more than two years ago, and before the appearance of Mr. Welldon's excellent book. The editor has availed himself of the opportunity which the delay afforded to add in the notes his second thoughts on

some doubtful passages.

has to acknowledge the great assistance which he has

received

from several

friends,

especially

from Mr. David

Ritchie in the composition of the notes, and from Mr. Evelyn

Abbott

in the criticism of

them.

has also to express his Matthew Knight,

gratitude to his friend and secretary, Mr. for

many

valuable suggestions which, occur in different parts

He wishes that Mr. Knight could be induced to bestow on some work of his own the knowledge and thought which he devotes to the writings of another. The editor has to apologize for a delay in the fulfilment of his task, which has arisen necessarily out of the pressure of other avocations. He had hoped that his work would have been completed some years ago. An author p-enerally finds that his literary undertakings exceed the measure of time which he has assigned to them; they grow under his hand; the years which he has spent upon them quickly pass, and at last he too often fails of satisfying either himself or the public of the book.

;

ARISTOTLE

When he has nearly finished, if ever, he feels that he is beginning to have a greater command of his subject; but he He may perhaps claim to know is obliged to make an end. better than anyone else the deficiencies of his own performance but he knows also that he cannot expect to be heard if he attempts to excuse them. It is a " regrettable accident " that this book will probably appear about the same time with another edition of the " Politics of Aristotle," to be published at the Clarendon Press, the long expected work of an old friend and pupil, Mr. Newman, fellow and formerly tutor of Balliol College, which would " not have been delayed until now, if the " bridle of Theages (Plato, " Rep." vi. 496 b) had not retarded the progress of the

Those who remember the enthusiasm which was aroused by his brilliant lectures on this and other subjects a quarter of a century ago will take a great interest in the

author.

result of his labors.

and

gladly welcome the

difriyovov

re/co?

offer hearty wishes for the success of the work.

The

owes a In some one of them he will probably find the collation of the text ready to his hand, or at least carried to such an extent that to pursue the inquiry further would lead to no adequate result. The difficult passages have already been translated by them many times over, and the use of words and idioms has been minutely analyzed by them. There are innumerable parallels and illustrations, relevant and also irrelevant, which have been collected by their industry. The new editor freely appropriates the materials which they have accumulated nor can he greatly add to them. He is no longer the pioneer; he enters into the labors of others, and is responsible for the use which he makes of them. The field in which he has to work is limited the least of the kingdoms into which physical science is subdivided is greater and more extended. It is an ancient branch of knowledge on which he is employed; a mine, out of which, with care, some good pieces of ore may still be extracted, but which does not editor of a Greek or Latin classic generally

large debt to his predecessors.

;

yield the

same

rich profits as formerly.

of finding that " what

And

danger

new is not true, and that what is true He knows how often conjectures which cannot is

is not new." be disproved have taken the place of real knowledge. He can only hope that the constant study of his author, the interpret*-

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

him from his own writings, the dismissal of all prejuand preconceptions may throw some fresh light upon the page. It will not always be easy for him to determine what he has thought out for himself and what he has derived from others, and still less to distinguish what in former editors is their own and what they in turn have derived from their predecessors. No one who has spent many years in the study of an author can remember whether a thought occurred to him spontaneously or was suggested by the remark of another. There is therefore the more reason that he should make his acknowledgments to those who have preceded him. The writer of these volumes is under great obligations to Schlosser, whose good sense and manly criticism are of great tion of

dices

value in the interpretation of the " Politics " indebted to Schneider,

who

;

also

much

a sound scholar and a distin-

guished critic both of Aristotle and Plato; as well as to A. Stahr and Bernays, who have made accurate and finished translations, Stahr of the whole work, Bernays of the three first books above all, to the learning of Susemihl, who is not only the author of a new translation, but has also made a fuller collection of all the materials necessary, either for the study of the text or the illustration of the subject, than any previous editor; lastly to Immanuel Bekker, the father of modern textual criticism, who has not left much to be improved in the text of Aristotle. The commentary of Goettling has likewise a good deal of merit. I am indebted for a few references to Mr. Eaton's edition of the " Politics," and to Mr. Congreve for several excellent English expressions, and still more for ;

and valuable

his full

The

indices.

many

of his predecessors, has been led to the conclusion that the " Politics of Aristotle " exists only in a editor, like

questionable and imperfect shape.

work

cannot say that the

from confusion of thought or irregularities of style and language. To assume a perfection or completeness which does not exist would contradict facts which are obvious on the surface. The worst kind of inacis

well arranged or free

curacy is pretended accuracy. No progress can be made in the study of Aristotle by an art of interpretation which aims only at reconciling an author with himself. Neither is there any use in seeking to reconstruct the " Politics " in another

form no analysis of the " ;

Politics " will enable us to arrive at

ARISTOTLE

the secret of

its

composition.

cannot rehabilitate the text

by a transposition of sentences, or by a change in the order of Real uncerthe books; we must take the books as they are. better than imaginary certainties.

Yet the unone of which the human mind is For amid so much repetition and conpeculiarly impatient. fusion great truths are constantly appearing which reflect the mind of the master. But to separate these by any precise line, to say " here are the genuine words of Aristotle," " this the The student of later addition," is beyond the art of the critic. Aristotle will do better to fix his mind on the thoughts which have had so vast an influence, and have so greatly contributed to the progress of mankind, and not to inquire too curiously into the form of the writing which contains them. tainties are

certainty in this instance

Benjamin Jowett.

CONTENTS PAGB

Book

III

Book IV

54 '.

Book V

116

Book VI

151

Book VII

165

Book

196

VIII

THE POLITICS BOOK

EVERY community

a community of some kind, and every established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims, and in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good. Now there is an erroneous opinion a that a statesman, king, householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a few called a master; over more, the manager of a household over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the principles of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman. But all this is a mistake for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may see in what they differ from one another, and whether any scientific distinction can be drawn between the different kinds of rule. He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them. In the first place (i) there must be a union of those who state is

;

a Cp. Plato, Politicus, 258 e l

foil.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ARISTOTLE

cannot exist without each other;

for example, of male ancl

may continue and this is a union which formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural And (2) desire to leave behind them an image of themselves. there must be a union of natural ruler and subject, that both may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave hence master and slave have the same interest. Nature, however, has distinguished between the female and the slave. For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife for many uses ; she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among female, that the race

;

them: they are a community of Wherefore the poets say "

It is

slaves,

male and female.

meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians ;" b

as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one.

Out

of these

two relationships between man and woman, first arises, and Hesiod is right

master and slave, the family when he says

" First house and wife and an ox for the plough," c

for the

The

the poor man's slave.

by nature

family

the associa-

for the supply of

men's every day wants, and the members of it are called by Charondas " companions of the cupboard " [oimhtlttvovs] and by Epimenides tion established

the Cretan, " companions of the

manger

[o/jLOKairov^] But and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, then comes into existence the village. And the most natural form of the village appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children and grandchildren, who are said to be " suckled with the same milk." And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came together, as the barbarians

when

several families are united,

;

b Eurip. Iphig. in Aulid. 1400.

c Op. et Di. 405.

—

;

THE POLITICS

still are. Every family is ruled by the eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says

[of the Cyclopes] "

Each one gives law

to his children

and

to his wives."

For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times. Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves either are or were in ancient times under the rule of

For they imagine, not only the forms ways of life to be like their own.

a king. their

of the Gods, but

When

several villages are united in a single community, perand large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the end of them, and the [completed] nature is the end. For what each thing is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best. Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and And he who by nature that man is by nature a political animal. and not by mere accident is without a state, is either above humanity, or below it he is the fect

;

" Tribeless, lawless, heartless one,"

whom Homer e

—

denounces the outcast who is a lover of war be compared to a bird which flies alone. Now the reason why man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere sound is but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and likewise the just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has

may

d Od. €

ix. 114,

II. ix.

63.

quoted by Plato Laws,

iii.

680,

and

N. Eth.

x. 9. §13.

ARISTOTLE

any sense of good and tion of living beings

evil,

of just

who have

and unjust, and the

this sense

associa-

makes a family and a

state.

by nature clearly prior to the family and whole is of necessity prior to the part for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand for when destroyed the hand will be no But things are defined by their working and power; better. and we ought not to say that they are the same when they are no longer the same, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the

Thus

the state

to the individual, since the ;

;

individual

that the individual,

cing; and therefore he

is like

when

But he who

cause he

sufficient for himself,

god he :

unable to

no part

live in society,

of a state.

isolated, is not self-suffi-

a part in relation to the whole.

who

must be

has no need be-

either a beast or a

A social instinct is

implanted in

and yet he who first founded the state was For man, when perfected, is the the greatest of benefactors. best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with the arms of intelligence and with moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, and the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just/ is the all

men by

nature,

;

principle of order in political society.

Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state, we must speak of the management of the household. The parts of the household are the persons who compose it, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its least elements and the first and least parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We have therefore to consider what each of these three relations is and ought to be I mean the relation of master and servant, of husband and wife, and thirdly of parent and child. [I say ;

yafUKi? latter

and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

reKvoirot,r}TLKri

there being

no words

notions which adequately represent them.] / Cp. N. Eth. v.

6. Â§ 4.

for the

And

two

there

;

THE POLITICS is

another element of a household, the so-called art of money-

making, which, according to some, is identical with household management, according to others, a principal part of it; the nature of this art will also have to be considered by us. Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory For some are of opinof their relation than exists at present. ion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset,g are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust. Property is a part of the household, and therefore the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers must have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so it is in the management of a household. Now, instruments are of various ;

;

sorts

;

some

are living, others lifeless

of a ship has a

lifeless, in

;

in the rudder, the pilot

man, a living instrument a kind of instrument. Thus, too,

the look-out

for in the arts the servant

an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments and the servant is himself an instrument, which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues a possession

;

of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,^ " of their

own

accord entered the assembly of the Gods

" ;

in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. Here, however, another distinction must be drawn the instruments commonly if,

so called are instruments of production, whilst a possession is an instrument of action. The shuttle, for example, is not only of use but something else is made by it, whereas of a garment ;

g Plato

in Pol. 258 e foil.

h Horn.

II.

xviii. 376.

;

ARISTOTLE

or of a bed there is only the use. Further, as production and action are different in kind, and both require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind.

But

action

life is

and not production, and therefore the slave

the minister of action [for he ministers to his master's

life].

Again, a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of for the is not only a part of something else, but wholly belongs The master is only to it and this is also true of a possession. the master of the slave he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave he who is by nature not his own but another's and yet a man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to belong to another who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action, separable from the possessor. But is there any thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature ? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule, and others be ruled is a thing, not only necessary, but expedient from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, ;

part

;

others for rule.

And

whereas there are many kinds both of rulers and subthe better which is exercised over better subfor example, to rule over men is better than to rule over jects wild beasts. The work is better which is executed by better workmen and where one man rules and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work. In all things which form a composite whole and which are made up of parts, whether continuous or discrete, a distinction between the ruling and the subject element comes to light. Such a duality exists in living creatjects, that rule is

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

them only it originates in the constitution of even in things which have no life, there is a ruling principle, as in musical harmony. But we are wandering from ures, but not in

the universe

the subject.

;

We will, therefore, restrict ourselves to the living

place, consists of soul and body and by nature the ruler, and the other the But then we must look for the intentions of nature subject. in things which retain their nature, and not in things which are

creature which, in the of these two, the

one

first is

: ;

THE POLITICS

corrupted. And therefore we must study the man who is in the most perfect state both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the two ; although in bad or corrupted

natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition. First then we may observe in living creatures both a despotical and a constitutional rule

;

for the soul rules the

body with a despotical

whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a constituAnd it is clear that the rule of the soul tional and royal rule. over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate is natural and expedient; whereas the equality The of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. same holds good of animals as well as of men for tame animals have a better nature than wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior and the one rules, and the other is ruled this principle, of neWhere then there is such a cessity, extends to all mankind. difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is another's, and he who participates in reason enough to apprehend, but not to have, reason, is a slave by Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend nature. reason they obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the But this does not hold universally arts both of war and peace. for some slaves have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if there is a difference in the body, how much more in the soul ? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. rule,

;

It is clear, then, that

some men are by nature

free,

and others

ARISTOTLE

8 slaves,

and

that for these latter slavery

both expedient and

right.

But that those who take the opposite view have in a certain right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention, according to which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure: they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall be his slave and subject. Even

way

philosophers there is a difference of opinion. The orand the reason why the arguments cross, is as follows Virtue, when furnished with means, may be deemed to have the greatest power of doing violence and as superior power is only found where there is superior excellence of some But does it likewise kind, power is thought to imply virtue. imply justice ? that is the question. And, in order to make a

among

igin of the dispute, :

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

between them, some assert that justice is benevolence to which others reply that justice is nothing more than the rule of a superior. If the two views are regarded as antagonistic and exclusive [i.e. if the notion that justice is benevdistinction :

olence excludes the idea of a just rule of a superior] the alternative [viz. that no one should rule over others] has no force ,

or plausibility, because it implies that not even the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be master. Some, clinging, as they think, to a principle of justice (for law and custom are a sort of justice), assume that slavery in war is justified by law, but they are not consistent. For what if the cause of the war be unjust ? No one would ever say that he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave. Were this the case, men of the highest rank would be slaves and the children of slaves if they or their parents chance to have been taken captive and sold. Wherefore Hellenes do not like to call themselves slaves, but confine the term to barbarians. Yet, in using this language, they really mean the natural slave of whom we spoke at first; for it must be admitted that some are slaves everywhere, others nowhere. The same principle applies to nobility. Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home, thereby implying

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

THE POLITICS that there are lute, the

two

sorts of nobility

The Helen

other relative.

and freedom, the one absoof Theodectes says

" Who would presume to call me servant who from the stem of the Gods ? "

What

mean but

am on

both sides sprung

and by the two principles of good and evil ? They think that as men and animals beget men and animals, so from good men a good man springs. But this is what nature, though she may intend it, cannot always accomdoes this

slavery, noble

and humble

that they distinguish freedom

birth,

plish.

We see then that there is of opinion, and that

men by

all

some foundation

for this difference

are not either slaves by nature or free-

and also that there is in some cases a marked between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters the one practising obedience, the others exercising the authority which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the nature,

distinction

;

master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame.

Where

them is natural they are friends and have but where it rests merely on law and force

the relation between a

common

the reverse

interest, is true.

The previous remarks

are quite enough to

show

that the rule

not a constitutional rule, and therefore that all the different kinds of rule are not, as some affirm, the same with each other.* For there is one rule exercised over subjects who of a master

are by nature free, another over subjects slaves.

The

rule of a household

who

are by nature

a monarchy, for every house

whereas constitutional rule is a government The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character, and Still the same remark applies to the slave and the freeman. there may be a science for the master and a science for the slave. The science of the slave would be such as the man of Syracuse taught, who made money by instructing slaves in their ordinary duties. And such a knowledge may be carried further, so as to include cookery and similar menial arts. For some duties are of the more necessary, others of the more honorable sort is

under one head

of freemen and equals.

ÂŤ

Plato, Polit. 258 e

foil.

ARISTOTLE

as the proverb says, " slave before slave, master before master.*

There is likeall such branches of knowledge are servile. wise a science of the master, which teaches the use of slaves; for the master as such is concerned, not with the acquisition, but with the use of them. Yet this so-called science is not any-

But

thing great or wonderful ; for the master need only know how which the slave must know how to execute. Hence

to order that

who are in a position which places them above toil, have stewards who attend to their households while they occupy themselves with philosophy or with politics. But the art of acquiring slaves, I mean of justly acquiring them, differs both from the art of the master and the art of the slave, being a species of hunting or war. Enough of the distinction between those

master and slave. Let us now inquire into property generally, and into the art of money-making, in accordance with our usual method [of resolving a whole into its parts], for a slave has been shown to be a part of property. The first question is whether the art of money-making is the same with the art of managing a household or a part of it, or instrumental to it and if the last, whether r

;

in the

way

that the art of

making

the art of weaving, or in the

way

shuttles is instrumental to

that the casting of bronze

instrumental to the art of the statuary, for they are not instru-

mental in the same way, but the one provides tools and the other and by material I mean the substratum out of which material any work is made thus wool is the material of the weaver, bronze of the statuary. Now it is easy to see that the art of household management is not identical with the art of moneymaking, for the one uses the material which the other provides. And the art which uses household stores can be no other than the art of household management. There is, however, a doubt whether the art of money-making is a part of household management or a distinct art. [They appear to be connected] for the money-maker has to consider whence money and property can be procured; but there are many sorts of property and wealth: there is husbandry and the care and provision of food in general are these parts of the money-making art or distinct arts? Again, there are many sorts of food, and therefore there are many kinds of lives both of animals and men; they must all have food, and the differences in their food have made differences in their ways of life. For of beasts, some arc ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

THE POLITICS

gregarious, others are solitary; they live in the

way which

best adapted to sustain them, accordingly as they are carnivor-

ous or herbivorous or omnivorous and their habits are determined for them by nature in such a manner that they may obtain :

with greater

facility the

food of their choice.

ent individuals have different tastes, the

But, as differ-

same things are not

all of them and therefore the lives of carnivorous or herbivorous animals further differ among themselves. In the lives of men too there is a great difference. The laziest are shepherds, who lead an idle life, and get their subtheir flocks having sistence without trouble from tame animals

naturally pleasant to

;

wander from place

to place in search of pasture, they are

compelled to follow them, cultivating a sort of living farm. Others support themselves by hunting, which is of different kinds. Some, for example, are pirates, others, who dwell near lakes or marshes or rivers or a sea in which there are fish, are fishermen, and others live by the pursuit of birds or wild beasts. The greater number obtain a living from the fruits of the soil. Such are the modes of subsistence which prevail among those whose industry is employed immediately upon the products of nature,/ and whose food is not acquired by exchange and retail trade there is the shepherd, the husbandman, the pirate, the fisherman, the hunter. Some gain a comfortable maintenance out of two employments, eking out the deficiencies of one of them by another: thus the life of a shepherd may be combined with that of a brigand, the life of a farmer with that of a hunter. Other modes of life are similarly combined in any way which the needs of men may require. Property, in the sense of a bare livelihood, seems to be given by nature herself to all, both when they are first born, and when they are grown up. For some animals bring forth, together with their offspring, so much food as will last until they are able to supply themselves of this the vermiparous or oviparous animals are an instance; and the viviparous animals have up to a certain time a supply of food for their young in themselves, which is called milk. In like manner we may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of man, the tame for use and food, the wild, if not all, at least the greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing and various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing in-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

I Or,

" whose labor

personal."

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ARISTOTLE

complete, and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she

made all animals and plants for the sake of man. And so, one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for it includes hunting, an art which we ought to practise against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit for war of such a kind has

;

naturally just.

the art of acquisition then there

natural and

a part of the

we must suppose

one kind which

management of a household. Either

the necessaries of

previously, or

life to exist

management must provide a store of them for the common use of the family or State. They are the elements of true wealth; for the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited, although Solon in one of his poems says that the art of household

But there

No bound

to riches has been fixed for

a boundary fixed, just as there

man." k in the arts

the instruments of any art are never unlimited, either in

for

and wealth may be defined as a number of instruments

size,

to be used in a

there

;

number

household or in a State.

a natural art of acquisition which

And is

see that

practised by

agers of households and by statesmen, and what

man-

the reason

of this.

There

another variety of the art of acquisition which is rightly called the art of making money, and has in fact suggested the notion that wealth and property have no limit. Being nearly connected with the preceding, it is often identified with it. But though they are not very different, neither are they the same. The kind already described is given by nature, the other is gained by experience and art. Let us begin our discussion of the question with the following is

commonly and

considerations

everything which we possess there are two uses: both belong to the thing as such, but not in the same manner, for one is

the proper, and the other the improper or secondary use of

For example, a shoe is used for wear, and is used for exchange both are uses of the shoe. He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one, does indeed use the shoe as a shoe, but this is not its proper or primary purit.

;

k Bergk, " Poet. Lyr. Solon,"

iv. 12, v. 71.

THE POLITICS

The same is not made to be an object of barter. be said of all possessions, for the art of exchange extends to all of them, and it arises at first in a natural manner from the circumstance that some have too little, others too much. Hence we may infer that retail trade is not a natural part of the art of money-making; had it been so, men would have ceased to exchange when they had enough. And in the first community, pose, for a shoe

may

which

the family, this art

gins to be useful

when

obviously of no use, but only be-

the society increases.

of the family originally had

all

For the members

common in a more diin many things, but they

things in

;

vided state of society they still shared were different things I which they had to give in exchange for

what they wanted, a kind of barter which is still practised among barbarous nations who exchange with one another the necesgiving and receiving wine, for saries of life and nothing more example, in exchange for corn and the like. This sort of barter is not part of the money-making art and is not contrary to ;

needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants. of exchange grew out of the simpler. When the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported the surplus, money necessarily came into For the various necessaries of life are not easily carried use. about, and hence men agreed to employ in their dealings with each other something which was intrinsically useful and easily applicable to the purposes of life, for example, iron, silver, and the like. Of this the value was at first measured by size and weight, but in process of time they put a stamp upon it, to save the trouble of weighing and to mark the value. When the use of coin had once been discovered, out of the

nature, but

The other or more complex form

barter of necessary articles arose the other art of ing, namely, retail trade

;

which was

money-mak-

at first probably a simple

matter, but became more complicated as soon as men learned by experience whence and by what exchanges the greatest profit might be made. Originating in the use of coin, the art of money-making is generally thought to be chiefly concerned with it, and to be the art which produces wealth and money having Indeed, wealth is to consider how they may be accumulated. assumed by many to be only a quantity of coin, because the art of money-making and retail trade are concerned with coin, ;

Or, more simply, " shared in

many more

things."

ARISTOTLE

Others maintain that coined money is a mere sham, a thing not natural, but conventional only, which would have no value or use for any of the purposes of daily life if another commodity were substituted by the users. And, indeed, he who is rich in coin may often be in want of necessary food. But how can that be wealth of which a man may have a great abundance and yet perish with hunger, like Midas in the fable, whose insatiable prayer turned everything that was set before him into gold ? Men seek after a better notion of wealth and of the art of making money than the mere acquisition of coin, and they are For natural wealth and the natural art of money-makright. ing are a different thing; in their true form they are part of management of a household ; whereas retail trade is the art of producing wealth, not in every way, but by exchange. And the

for coin is the beginning of it seems to be concerned with coin exchange and the measure or limit of it. And there is no bound to the wealth which springs from this art of money-making. As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the pursuit of health, and as in the other arts there is no limit to the pursuit of their several ends, for they aim at accomplishing their ends to (but of the means there is a limit, for the end is the uttermost always the limit), so, too, in this art of money-making there is no limit of the end, which is wealth of the spurious kind, and the acquisition of money. But the art of household management has a limit the unlimited acquisition of money is not its business. And, therefore, in one point of view, all wealth musj have a limit nevertheless, as a matter of fact, we find the opfor all money-makers increase their hoard posite to be the case ;

;

The source of the confusion is the near connection between the two kinds of money-making in either, the instrument [i.e. wealth] is the same, although the use is different, and so they pass into one another for each is a use of coin without limit.

;

of the same property, but with a difference: accumulation is the end in the one case, but there is a further end in the other.

Hence some persons are led to believe that making money is the object of household management, and the whole idea of their lives is that they ought either to increase their money without limit,

or at any rate not to lost it. The origin of this disposition is that they are intent upon living only, and not upon

men

living well

that the

;

and, as their desires are unlimited, they also desire

means of gratifying them should be without

limit.

THE POLITICS Even

those

who aim

bodily pleasures;

at a good life seek the means of obtaining and, since the enjoyment of these appears

to depend on property, they are absorbed in making money: and so there arises the second species of money-making. For, as their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art which produces

the excess of enjoyment; their pleasures

by the

and,

art of

they are not able to supply

money-making, they try other

arts,

using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature. The quality of courage, for example, is not intended to make money, but to inspire confidence; neither is this the aim of the general's or of the physician's art; but the one aims at victory and the other at health. Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of making money this they conceive to be the end, and to the promotion of the end all ;

things must contribute.

Thus, then, we have considered the art of money-making, which is unnecessary, and why men want it and also the necessary art of money-making, which we have seen to be different from the other, and to be a natural part of the art of managing ;

a household, concerned with the provision of food, not, however, like the former kind, unlimited, but having a limit. And we have found the answer to our original question.

Whether

the art of

money-making

the business of the

man-

ager of a household and of the statesman or not their business ? For poviz. that it is an art which is presupposed by them. litical science does not make men, but takes them from nature and uses them and nature provides them with food from the element of earth, air, or sea. At this stage begins the duty of the manager of a household, who has to order the things which he may be compared to the weaver who has nature supplies not to make but to use wool, and to know what sort of wool is

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

good and serviceable or bad and unserviceable. Were this otherwise, it would be difficult to see why the art of moneymaking is a part of the management of a household and the art of medicine not for surely the members of a household must have health just as they must have life or any other necessary. And as from one point of view the master of the house and the ruler of the State have to consider about health, from another point of view not they but the physician so in one way the art of household management, in another way the subordinate art, has to consider about money. But, strictly speaking, as I have ;

;

ARISTOTLE

already said, the means of life must be provided beforehand by nature; for the business of nature is to furnish food to that which is born, and the food of the offspring always remains over in the parent. Wherefore the art of making money out of fruits and animals is always natural. Of the two sorts of money-making one, as I have just said, is the a part of household management, the other is retail trade former necessary and honorable, the latter a kind of exchange which is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term usury [tokos], which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural. Enough has been said about the theory of money-making; :

will

now proceed

to the practical part.

The

discussion of

not unworthy of philosophy, but to be engaged in them practically is illiberal and irksome. The useful parts of money-making are, first, the knowledge of live-stock which

such matters

how

—

example, what sort of horses or sheep or oxen or any other animals are most likely to give a return. A man ought to know which of these pay better than others, and which pay best in particular places, for some do better in one place and some in another. Secondly, husbandry, which may be either tillage or planting, and the keeping of bees and of fish, or fowl, or of any animals which may be useful to man. These are the divisions of the true or proper art of money-making and come first. Of the other, which consists in exchange, the first and most important division is commerce (of which there are three kinds commerce by sea, commerce by land, selling in shops these again differing as they are safer or more profitable), the second is usury, the third, service for hire of this, one kind is employed in the mechanical arts, the other in unskilled and bodily labor. There is still a third sort of money-making intermediate between this and the first or natural mode which is partly natural, but is also concerned with exchange of the fruits and other products of the earth. Some of these latter, although they bear no fruit, are

are most profitable, and where, and

as, for

—

THE POLITICS

for example, wood and minerals. The by which minerals are obtained, has many

nevertheless profitable art of mining,

;

dug out of the money-making I now speak generally; a minute consideration of them might be useful in practice, but it would be tiresome to dwell upon them at greater branches, for there are various kinds of things

earth.

the several divisions of

length now.

Those occupations are most

truly arts in which there is the they are the meanest in which the body most deteriorated, the most servile in which there is the great-

least is

element of chance

est use of the body,

;

and the most

illiberal in

which there

the

need of excellence. Works have been written upon these subjects by various persons; for example, by Chares the Parian, and Apollodorus the Lemnian, who have treated of tillage and planting, while others have treated of other branches; anyone who cares for such matters may refer to their writings. It would be well also least

ways in which individuals amassing a fortune for all this is useful to persons who value the art of making money. There is the anecdote of Thales the Milesian and his financial device, which into collect the scattered stories of the

have succeeded

;

volves a principle of universal application, but

attributed to

wisdom. He was reproached for his poverty, which was supposed to show that philosophy was of no use. According to the story, he knew by his skill in the stars while it was yet winter that there would be a great harvest of olives in the coming year so, having a little money, he gave deposits for the use of all the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low price because no one bid against him. When the harvest-time came, and many wanted them all at once and of a sudden, he let them out at any rate which he pleased, and made a quantity of money. Thus he showed the world that philosophers can easily be rich if they like, but that their ambition is of another sort. He is supposed to have given a striking proof of his wisdom, but, as I was saying, his device for getting money is of universal application, and is nothing but the creation of a monopoly. It is an art often practised by cities when they are in want of money they make a monopoly of provisions. There was a man of Sicily, who, having money deposited with afterwards, him, bought up all the iron from the iron mines

him on account of

his reputation for

;

ARISTOTLE

when the merchants from their various markets came to buy, he was the only seller, and without much increasing the price he gained 200 per cent. Which when Dionysius heard, he told him that he might take away his money, but that he must not remain at Syracuse, for he thought that the man had discovered a way of making money which was injurious to his own interHe had the same idea as Thales they both contrived to ests. And statesmen ought to create a monopoly for themselves. ;

know these things; for a State is often as much in want of money and of such devices for obtaining it as a household, or even more so; hence some public men devote themselves entirely to finance.

Of household management we have parts

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;one

seen that there are three

the rule of a master over slaves, which has been

discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a hus-

husband and father rules over wife and children, both but the rule differs, the rule over his children being a royal, over his wife a constitutional rule. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for band. free,

command than

the female, just as the elder and full-grown

more immature. But in most citizens rule and are ruled by turns, for

superior to the younger and constitutional States the

the idea of a constitutional State implies that the natures of the

and do not differ at all. Nevertheless, when one rules and the other is ruled we endeavor to create a difference of outward forms and names and titles of respect, which may be illustrated by the saying of Amasis about his foot-pan. m The relation of the male to the female is of this kind, but there the inequality is permanent. The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he receives both love and the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus " father of gods and men," because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of citizens are equal,

father

and

Thus

son.

it is

men than

clear that household

management attends more

more than to the excellence of property and to the virtue of freemen more than to the virtue of

excellence wealth,

human which we call

to the acquisition of inanimate things, and to

m Herod,

ii.

172.

THE POLITICS slaves.

A question

excellence at

all in

isterial qualities

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

may

indeed be raised, whether there

any

a slave beyond merely instrumental and minwhether he can have the virtues of temper-

ance, courage, justice, and the like

;

or whether slaves possess

And, whichever way we answer the question, a difficulty arises for, if they have virtue, in what will they differ from freemen? On the other hand, since they are men and share in reason, it seems absurd to say A similar question may be raised that they have no virtue. about women and children, whether they too have virtues: ought a woman to be temperate and brave and just, and is a child to be called temperate, and intemperate, or not? So in general we may ask about the natural ruler, and the natural subject, whether they have the same or different virtues. For a only bodily and ministerial qualities.

;

is equally required in both, but if so, why should one of them always rule, and the other always be ruled ? Nor can we say that this is a question of degree, for the difference between ruler and subject is a difference of kind, and therefore not of degree yet how strange is the supposition that the one ought, and that the other ought not, to have virtue For if the ruler is intemperate and unjust, how can he rule well? if the subject, how can he obey well? If he be licentious and cowardly, he will certainly not do his duty. It is evident, therefore, that both of them must have a share of virtue, but varying according to their various natures. And this is at once indicated by the soul, in which one part naturally rules, and the other is subject, and the virtue of the ruler we maintain to be different from that of the subject the one being the virtue of the rational, and the other of the irrational part. Now, it is obvious that the same principle applies generally, and therefore almost all things rule and are ruled according to nature. But the kind of rule differs the freeman rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child although the parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For the slave has no deliberative faculty at all the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. So it must necessarily be with the moral virtues also all may be supposed to partake of them, but only in such manner and degree as is required by each for the fulfilment of his duty. Hence the ruler ought to have moral virtue in perfection, for his duty is

noble nature

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

ARISTOTLE

and the master artificer is on the other hand, require only that measure of virtue which is proper to each of them. Clearly, but the temperance then, moral virtue belongs to all of them or and justice of a man woman, the courage a of and of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. And this holds of all other virtues, as will be more clearly seen if we look at them in detail, for those who say generally that virtue consists in a good disposition of the soul, or in doing rightly, or the like, only deceive themselves. Far better than such definitions is their mode of speaking, who, like Gorgias,** enumerate the virtues. All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of women, entirely that of a master artificer,

the subjects,

reason;

;

" Silence

but this

a woman's glory," o

not equally the glory of man.

and therefore obviously alone, but to the perfect

his virtue

man and

The

child

imperfect,

not relative to himself

to his teacher,

and

in like

man-

ner the virtue of the slave is relative to a master. Now we determined that a slave is useful for the wants of life, and therefore he will obviously require only so much virtue as will prevent him from failing in his duty through cowardice and intemperance. Some one will ask whether, if what we are saying is true, virtue will not

often

be required also in the artisans, for they

work through misconduct? But is there not a in the two cases? For the slave shares in his

fail in their

great difference master's life;

the artisan

is less

closely connected with him,

and only attains excellence in proportion as he becomes a slave, [i.e. is under the direction of a master]. The meaner sort of mechanic has a special and separate slavery and whereas the slave exists by nature, not so the shoemaker or other artisan. It is manifest, then, that the master ought to be the source of ;

but not merely because he possesses in his duties. Wherefore they are mistaken who forbid us to converse with slaves and say that we should employ command only,/' for slaves stand even more in

excellence in the slave;

the art which trains

him

need of admonition than children. The relations of husband and wife, parent and child, their several virtues, what in their intercourse with one another is n

Plato,

Meno,

71-73.

Soph, Aj. 293.

p Plato, Laws,

vi. 777.

THE POLITICS

good, and what is evil, and how we may pursue the good and escape the evil, will have to be discussed when we speak of the different forms of government. For, inasmuch as every family is a part of a State, and these relationships are the parts of a family, the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the whole. And therefore women and children must be trained by education with an eye to the State, if the virtues of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the virtues of for the children the State. And they must make a difference grow up to be citizens, and half the free persons in a State are :

women.

these matters, enough has been said; of what remains, us speak at another time. Regarding, then, our present inquiry as complete, we will make a new beginning. And, first, let us examine the various theories of a perfect State. let

BOOK

OUR

purpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal of life. We must therefore examine

not only this but other constitutions, both such as actually exist in well-governed States, and any theoretical forms which are is good and useful may be brought no one suppose that in seeking for something beyond them we at all want to philosophize at the expense of

held in esteem; that what

And

to light.

truth ; a

tions with

let

only undertake this inquiry because

which we are acquainted are

will begin

all

the constitu-

faulty.

with the natural beginning of the subject.

Three alternatives are conceivable: The members of a State must either have (i) all things or (2) nothing in common, or That they should (3) some things in common and some not. have nothing in common is clearly impossible, for the State is a community, and must at any rate have a common place one city will be in one place, and the citizens are those who share in that one city. But should a well-ordered State have all things, as far as may be, in common, or some only and not others ? For the citizens might conceivably have wives and children and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

property in common, as Socrates proposes in the " Republic " of Plato. Which is better, our present condition, or the pro-

posed new order of society ?

There are many difficulties in the community of women. the principle on which Socrates rests the necessity of such an institution does not appear to be established by his arguments. The end which he ascribes to the State, taken literally, is impossible, and how we are to interpret it is nowhere precisely stated. I am speaking of the premise from which the argument of Socrates proceeds, " that the greater the unity of

And

the State the better." Is it not obvious that a State may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State?

a Rep.

457

THE POLITICS

—

is to be a plurality, and in tending from being a State, it becomes a family, and from being a family, an individual ; for the family may be said to be more one than the State, and the individual than the family. So that we ought not to attain this greatest unity even if we could, for it would be the destruction of the State. Again, a State is not made up only of so many men, but of different kinds of men for similars do not constitute a State. It is not like a military alliance, of which the usefulness depends upon its quantity even where there is no difference in quality. For in that mutual protection is the end aimed at and the question is the same as about the scales of a balance: which is the

since the nature of a State

to greater unity,

;

heavier ?

In like manner, a State differs from a nation for in a nation the people are not b distributed into villages, but live scattered ;

about, like the Arcadians

whereas in a State the elements out formed differ in kind. Wherefore the principle of compensation/ as I have already remarked in the " Ethics,"^ is the salvation of States. And among freemen and equals this is a principle which must be maintained, for they cannot all rule together, but must change at the end of a of which the unity

;

to be

year or some other period of time or in some order of succesThe result is that upon this plan they all govern; [but sion. the manner of government is] just as if shoemakers and carpenters were to exchange their occupations, and the same per-

sons did not always continue shoemakers and carpenters. it is

And

clearly better that, as in business, so also in politics there

should be continuance of the same persons where this is posBut where this is not possible by reason of the natural equality of the citizens, and it would be unjust that anyone

sible.

should be excluded from the government (whether to govern be a good thing or a bad),? then it is better, instead of all holding power, to adopt a principle of rotation, equals giving place to equals, as the original rulers gave place to them/ Thus the

one party rule and the others are ruled in turn, as if they were no longer the same persons. In like manner there is a variety Hence it is evident that a city is in the offices held by them. b Or, " dispersed in villages, but are in the condition of the Arcadians." c Or, " reciprocal proportion." d N. Eth., v. 8, § 6. *Cp. PI. Rep. i. 345-6. / Cp.,

12, §

;

iii.

17, § 4-

ARISTOTLE

not by nature one in that sense which some persons affirm ; and that what is said to be the greatest good of cities is in reality their destruction; but surely the good of things must be that which preserves them.g Again, in another point of view, this extreme unification of the State is clearly not good for a family is more self-sufficing than an individual, and a city than a family, and a city only comes into being when the community is If then self-sufficiency is to large enough to be self-sufficing. ;

be desired, the lesser degree of unity

desirable than the

greater.

But, even supposing that it were best for the community to have the greatest degree of unity, this unity is by no means proved to follow from the fact " of all men saying mine and not mine at the same instant of time," which, according to '

Socrates,^ is the sign of perfect unity in a State. For the " all " is ambiguous. If the meaning be that every individual says " mine " and " not mine " at the same time, than

word

perhaps the result at which Socrates aims may be in some degree accomplished each man will call the same person his own son and his own wife, and so of his property and of all that belongs to him. This, however, is not the way in which people would speak who had their wives and children in common; they would say " all " but not " each." In like manner their property would be described as belonging to them, not severally but collectively. There is an obvious fallacy in the term " all " like some other words, " both," " odd," " even," it is ambiguous, and in argument becomes a source of logical puzzles. That all persons call the same thing mine in the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense [i.e. the sense which distinguishes " all " from " each "], such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the pro;

For that which

common

to the greatest number ha s Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest and only when he is himself concerned as an individual. For besides other considerations, everybody is more inclined to neglect the duty which posal.

the least care bestowed

upon

it.

;

he expects another to fulfil as in families many attendants are often less useful than a few. Each citizen will have a thousand sons who will not be his sons individually, but anybody will be ;

g Cp. PL Rep.

352.

h PL Rep.

462

;

THE POLITICS

equally the son of anybody, and will therefore be neglected by all alike. Further, upon this principle, everyone will call another " mine " or " not mine " according as he is prosperous or

—

however small a fraction he may be of the whole number, he will say of every individual of the thousand, or whatever be the number of the city, " such a one is mine," " such a one his " and even about this he will not be positive for it is impossible to know who chanced to have a child, or whether, if one came into existence, it has survived. But which is better to be able to say " mine " about every one of the two thousand or the ten thousand citizens, or to use the word " mine " in the ordinary and more restricted sense ? For usually the same person is called by one man his son whom another calls his brother or cousin or kinsman or blood-relation or connection by marriage either of himself or of some relation of his, and these relationships he distinguishes from the tie which binds him to his tribe or ward and how much better is it to be the real cousin of somebody than to be a son after Nor is there any way of preventing brothers Plato's fashion and children and fathers and mothers from sometimes recognizing one another; for children are born like their parents, and they will necessarily be finding indications of their relationship to one another. Geographers declare such to be the fact they say that in Upper Libya, where the women are common, nevertheless the children who are born are assigned to their respective fathers on the ground of their likeness.*' And some women, like the females of other animals for example, mares and cows have a strong tendency to produce offspring resembling their parents, as was the case with the Pharsalian mare called Dicaea (the Just) J Other evils, against which it is not easy for the authors of such a community to guard, will be assaults and homicides, voluntary as well as involuntary, quarrels and slanders, all which are most unholy acts when committed against fathers and mothers and near relations, but not equally unholy when there is no relationship. Moreover, they are much more likely to occur if the relationship is unknown, and, when they have occurred, the customary expiations of them cannot be made. Again, how strange it is that Socrates, after having made the children common, should hinder lovers from carnal intercourse the reverse

;

—

;

—

Cp. Herod,

iv. 180.

/ Cp. Hist.

Anim.

vii. 6, p,

586

a. 13.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ARISTOTLE

only, but should permit familiarities between father and son or between brother and brother, than which nothing can be more unseemly, since even without them, love of this sort is improper. How strange, too, to forbid intercourse for no other reason than the violence of the pleasure, as though the relationship of father and son or of brothers with one another made no differ ence.

This community of wives and children seems better suited tc husbandmen than to the guardians, for if they have wives and children in common, they will be bound to one another by weaker ties, as a subject class should be, and they will remain obedient and not rebel. In a word, the result of such a law would be just the opposite of that which good laws ought to the

have, and the intention of Socrates in

about

women and

making

children would defeat

believe to be the greatest

these regulations

For friendship and the preserva-

itself.

good of States

tive of them against revolutions; neither is there anything which Socrates so greatly lauds as the unity of the State which he and all the world declare to be created by friendship. But the unity which he commends would be like that of the lovers in the " Symposium,"/ who, as Aristophanes says, desire to grow together in the excess of their affection, and from being two to become one, in which case one or both would certainly perish. Whereas [the very opposite will really happen] in a State having women and children common, love will be watery and the ;

father will certainly not say "

son," or the son "

father."

sweet wine mingled with a great deal of water is imperceptible in the mixture, so, in this sort of community, the idea of relationship which is based upon these names will be lost; there is no reason why the so-called father should care about the son, or the son about the father, or brothers about one another. Of the two qualities which chiefly inspire regard and affection that a thing is your own and that you love it neither can exist in such a state as this. Again, the transfer of children as soon as they are born from the rank of busbandmen or of artisans to that of guardians, and from the rank of guardians into a lower rank,w will be very the givers or transferrers cannot but know difficult to arrange whom they are giving and transferring, and to whom. And a

little

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

the previously mentioned evils, such as assaults, unlawful loves, k Cp. N. Eth.,

viii. I, Â§ 4.

/Symp.

189-193.

m Rep.

iii.

415.

THE POLITICS

homicides, will happens more often amongst those who are who have a place assigned to

transferred to the lower classes, or

them among the guardians; for they will no longer members of any other class brothers, and children, and

call the

fathers,

and mothers, and will not, therefore, be afraid of committing any crimes by reason of consanguinity. Touching the community of wives and children, let this be our conclusion. Next let us consider what should be our arrangements about property: should the citizens of the perfect state have their possessions in

common

or not

may be women and

This question

separately from the enactments about

Even supposing

that the

viduals, according to the

women and

discussed children.

children belong to indi-

custom which

at present universal,

may there not be an advantage in having and using possessions in common? Three cases are possible: (1) the soil may be appropriated, but the produce may be thrown for consumption into the common stock; and this is the practice of some nations. Or (2), the soil may be common, and may be cultivated in common, but the produce divided among individuals for their this is a form of common property which is said private use to exist among certain barbarians. Or (3), the soil and the produce may be alike common. ;

When

the

husbandmen are not

the owners, the case will be

when they till the ground themselves the question of ownership will give a world of trouble. If they do not share equallv in enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of different

those

and

who

always a

easier to deal with

labor

little

difficulty in

common, but

;

but

and receive or consume much. There living together and having things

men

especially in their having

common

property.

The

partnerships of fellow-travellers are an example to the point;

way and quarrel about any we are most liable to with whom we most frequently come into

for they generally fall out by the trifle

which turns up.

take offence at those contact in daily

So with servants

life.

These are only some of the disadvantages which attend the community of property the present arrangement, if improved as it might be by good customs and laws, would be far better, and would have the advantages of both systems. Property ;

should be in a certain sense common, but, as a general rule, when everyone has a distinct interest,** men will n Cp. Rep. ii. 374.

private; for,

;

ARISTOTLE

not complain of one another, and they will because everyone will be attending to his

make more

own

progress,

And

business.

the good, and in respect of use, " Friends," as the " will have all things common." Even now there says, proverb

among

yet

are traces of such a principle, showing that it is not impracticable, but, in well-ordered States, exists already to a certain ex-

and may be carried further. own property, some things he

For, although every

tent his

friends, while of others

man

has

will place at the disposal of his

The Lace-

he shares the use with them.

daemonians, for example, use one another's slaves, and horses

and when they happen to if they were their own be in the country, they appropriate in the fields whatever provisions they want. It is clearly better that property should be and dogs, as

;

private, but the use of

the legislator

common and the special men this benevolent ;

to create in

how immeasurably own

Again, feels

a thing to be his

;

greater

the pleasure,

for the love of self P

business of disposition.

when a man a feeling im-

planted by nature and not given in vain, although selfishness is rightly censured; this, however, is not the mere love of self,

but the love of self in excess, like the miser's love of money; all, or almost all, men love money, and other such objects in

for

a measure. And further, there is the greatest pleasure in doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions, which can only be rendered when a man has private property. The

advantage

is lost

by the excessive

unification of the State.

virtues are annihilated in such a state

first,

Two

temperance towards

women

( for it is an honorable action to abstain from another's wife for temperance' sake) secondly, liberality in the matter ;

of property.

any longer

set

one,

when men have

an example of

all

common,

things in

liberality or

do any

will

liberal action

which is made of property .q a specious appearance of benevoreadilv listen to it, and are easily induced to believe

for liberality consists in the use

Such lence

legislation

men

;

that in

may have

some wonderful manner everybody will become everywhen some one r is heard denouncing

body's friend, especially the evils

now

existing in States, suits about contracts, convic-

tions for perjury, flatteries of rich

men and

the

like,

which are These

said to arise out of the possession of private property. evils,

however, are due to a very different cause oCp. Rep. iv. 424 A. p Cp. N. Eth. ix. 8, Â§

^ 6.

Ibid. iv.

r Rep.,

Â§

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the wicked-

v. 464, 465.

THE POLITICS

human nature. Indeed, we see that there is much more among those who have all things in common, though there are not many of them when compared with the vast numbers who have private property. Again, we ought to reckon, not only the evils from which the ness of

quarrelling

which they will which they are to lead appears to be quite imThe error of Socrates must be attributed to the practicable. false notion of unity from which he starts. Unity there should be, both of the family and of the State, but in some respects only. For there is a point at which a State may attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a State, or at which, without actually ceasing to exist, it will become an inferior State, like harmony passing into unison, or rhythm which has been reduced to 1 The State, as I was saying, is a plurality, which single foot. should be united and made into a community by education; and it is strange that the author of a system of education which he thinks will make the State virtuous, should expect to improve his citizens by regulations of this sort, and not by philosophy or by customs and laws, like those which prevail at Sparta and Crete respecting common meals, whereby the legislator has [to a certain degree] made property common. Let us remember

citizens will be saved, but also the advantages lose.

The

life

we should not disregard the experience of ages; in the multitude of years these things, if they were good, would certhat

have been unknown for almost everything has been found out, although sometimes they are not put together; in other cases men do not use the knowledge which they have. Great light would be thrown on this subject if we could see such a form of government in the actual process of construction for the legislator could not form a State at all without distributing and dividing the citizens into associations for common meals, and into phratries and tribes. But all this legislation ends only in forbidding agriculture to the guardians, a prohibition which the Lacedaemonians try to enforce already. Again, Socrates has not said, nor is it easy to decide, what in such a community will be the general form of the State. The citizens who are not guardians are the majority, and about them nothing has been determined are the husbandmen, too, to have their property in common? Or, besides the common land which he tills, is each individual to have his own ? and are their wives and children to be individual or common ? If, like tainly not

;

ARISTOTLE

all things in common, in what from them, or what will they gain by submitting to their government ? Or, upon what principle would they submit, unless indeed the governing class adopt the ingenious policy of the Cretans, who give their slaves the same institutions as their own, but forbid them gymnastic exercises and the posIf, on the other hand, the inferior classes are session of arms ? to be like other cities in respect of marriage and property, what Must it not contain two will be the form of the community? States in one/ each hostile to the other ? One class will consist

the guardians, they are to have

do they

differ

who

of the guardians,

are a sort of

watchmen

;

another, of the

husbandmen, and there will be the artisans and the other citizens. But [if so] the suits and quarrels, and all the evils which Socrates affirms

to exist in other States, will exist equally

among them. He

says indeed that, having so good an educa-

need many laws, for example laws about the city or about the markets ÂŤ but then he confines his education to the guardians. Again, he makes the husbandmen owners of the land upon condition of their paying a tribute.^ But in that case they are likely to be much more unmanageable and conceited than the Helots, or Penestae, or slaves in general. And whether community of wives and property be necessary for the lower equally with the higher class or not, and the questions akin to this, what will be the education, form of government, laws of the lower class, Socrates has nowhere determined: neither is it easy, though very important, to discover what should be the character of the inferior classes, if the common life of the guardians is to be maintained. Again, if Socrates makes the women common, and retains private property, the men will see to the fields, but who will see to the house? And what will happen if the agricultural class have both their property and their wives in common? Once more it is absurd to argue, from the analogy of the animals, that men and women should follow the same pursuits w for animals have not to manage a household. The government, too, as constituted by Socrates, contains elements of danger; for he makes the same persons always rule. And if this is often a cause of disturbance among the meaner sort, how much more among high-spirited warriors? But that the persons whom tion, the citizens will not

;

j Cp. Rep.

iv.

422

Ibid. v.

464

Rep.

v. 464, 465.

w Cp.

Rep.

Ibid. iv. 425 d.

451

;

THE POLITICS

he makes rulers must be the same is evident for the gold which the God mingles in the souls of men is not at one time given to one, at another time to another, but always to the same as he says, " God mingles gold in some, and silver in others, from but brass and iron in those who are meant to their very birth be artisans and husbandmen."-*' Again, he deprives the guardians of happiness, and says that the legislator ought to make the whole State happy.y But the whole cannot be happy unless most, or all, or some of its parts enjoy happiness. In this respect happiness is not like the even principle in numbers, which may exist only in the whole, but in none of the parts ; not so And if the guardians are not happy, who are? happiness. Surely not the artisans, or the common people. The Republic of which Socrates discourses has all these difficulties, and others ;

;

quite as great.

The same, or

nearly the same, objections apply to Plato's work, the Laws, and therefore we had better examine briefly the constitution which is therein described. In the Republic, Socrates has definitely settled in all a few questions only such as the community of women and children, the community of property, and the constitution of the State. The population is divided into two classes one of husbandmen, and the other of warriors from this latter is taken a third class of counsellors and rulers of the State. But Socrates has not determined whether the husbandmen and artisans are to have a share in the government, and whether they, too, are to carry arms and share in military service, or not. He certainly thinks that the women ought to share in the education of the guardians, and to fight by their side. The remainder of the work is filled up with digressions foreign to the main subject, and with discussions about the education of the guardians. In the Laws there is hardly anything but laws not much is said about the constitution. This, which he had intended to make more of the ordinary type, he gradually brings round to the other or ideal form. For with the exception of the community of women and property, he supposes everything to be the same in both States later

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

there

live free

to be the

from

meals in both.

x Cp.

same education

;

the citizens of both are to

and there are to be common The only difference is that in the Laws, the

servile occupations,

Rep.

iii.

415 A.

y Rep.

iv.

419,

40a

ARISTOTLE

meals are extended to women,^ and the warriors number about 5,000,0 but in the Republic only i,ooo.& The discourses of Socrates are never commonplace ; they always exhibit grace and originality and thought ; but perfection must not overlook in everything can hardly be expected.

common

the fact that the number of 5,000 citizens, just now mentioned, will require a territory as large as Babylonia, or some other

many persons are to be supported in idlewomen and attendants, who will be a multitude many times as great. [In framing an ideal] we may assume what we wish, but should avoid impossibilities. huge country,

ness, together with their

Laws] that the legislator ought to have two points the people and the country .c But neighboring countries also must not be forgotten by him, It is said

[in the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

his eye directed to

the State for which he legislates is to have a true political life. For a State must have such a military force as will be serviceable against her neighbors, and not merely useful at home.

Even

not admitted to be the best, either a city should be formidable to enemies, whether invading or retreating. There is another point : Should not the amount of property if

the

life

of action

for individuals or States,

still

be defined in some clearer way ? For Socrates says that a man should have so much property as will enable him to live temperately/* which is only a way of saying " to live well " this would be the higher or more general conception. But a man ;

may live temperately and yet woud be that a man must have him

miserably. so

much

better definition

property as will enable

to live not only temperately but liberally;

parted, liberality will combine with luxury; ciated with temperance.

For

liberality

two are

the

be assoand temperance are the toil will

only virtues which have to do with the use of property. man cannot use property with mildness or courage, but temperately and liberally he may and therefore the practice of these virtues ;

inseparable from property.

There

an inconsistency,

too, in

equalizing the property and not regulating the number of the citizens ; * the population is to remain unlimited, and he thinks that it will be sufficiently equalized by a certain number of marriages being unfruitful,

2 Laws, vi. 781. a Ibid. v. 737 e. b Rep. iv. 423 A.

however many are born to

others, be-

Laws, 703-707 and 747 D d Laws, v. 737 d. e But see Laws, v. 740.

c Perhaps

( ?).

THE POLITICS

cause he finds this to be the case in existing States. But [in Plato's imaginary State] greater care will be required than

now;

for

among

citizens, the

ourselves, whatever

property

therefore no one

may

always distributed

want

;

but,

be the number of among them, and

the property were incapable

of division [as in the Laws] the supernumeraries, whether few or many, would get nothing. One would have thought that it was even more necessary to limit population than property; and that the limit should be fixed by calculating the chances of mortality in the children, and of sterility in married

The neglect of this subject, which in existing States common, is a never-failing cause of poverty among the

persons. is

and poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. Pheidon the Corinthian, who was one of the most ancient legislators, thought that the families and the number of citizens ought to remain the same, although originally all the lots may have been of different sizes; but in the Laws, the opposite principle is maintained. What in our opinion is the right arrangement will have to be explained hereafter. There is another omission in the Laws; Socrates does not tell us how the rulers differ from their subjects; he only says that they should be related as the warp and the woof, which are made out of different wools.f He allows that a man's whole property may be increased five-fold,^ but why should not his land also increase to a certain extent? Again, will the good management of a household be promoted by his arrangement of homesteads ? for he assigns to each individual two homesteads in separate places,** and it is difficult to live in two houses. The whole system of government tends to be neither democracy nor oligarchy, but something in a mean between them, which is usually called a polity, and is composed of the heavy armed soldiers. Now, if he intended to frame a constitution which would suit the greatest number of States, he was very likely right, but not if he meant to say that this constitutional form came nearest to his first or ideal State for many would prefer the Lacedaemonian, or, possibly, some other more aristocratic government. Some, indeed, say that the best constitution is a combination of all existing forms, and they praise the Lacedaemonian because it is made up of oligarchy, monarchy, citizens;

;

f Laws, v. 734 e, 735 a. h Ibid. v. 745; but cp. infra,

Ibid. v. 744 e.

vii. io, ยง IX.

;

ARISTOTLE

and democracy, the King forming the monarchy, and the Counof Elders the oligarchy, while the democratic element is represented by the Ephors; for the Ephors are selected from the people. Others, however, declare the ephoralty to be a cil

tyranny, and find the element of democracy in the meals and in the habits of daily life. In the Laws, it tained that the best State

made up

common is

main-

of democracy and tyr-

anny, which are either not constitutions at all, or are the worst all. But they are nearer the truth who combine many forms

for the State

which

better

made up

more numerous

ele-

ments. The constitution proposed in the Laws has no element of monarchy at all it is nothing but oligarchy and democracy, leaning rather to oligarchy. This is seen in the mode ;

of appointing magistrates;* for although the appointment of lot from among those who have been already selected combines both elements, the way in which the rich are compelled by law to attend the Assembly / and vote for magistrates or discharge other political duties, while the rest may do as they like, and the endeavor to have the greater number of the magistrates

them by

appointed out of the richest classes and the highest officers sefrom those who have the greatest incomes, both these are

lected

The

oligarchical features.

in the choice of the Council

oligarchical principle prevails also k for all are compelled to choose, ;

but the compulsion extends only to the choice out of the first class, and of an equal number out of the second class and out of the third class, but not in this latter case to

all

the voters of the

and the selection of candidates out of the fourth class is only compulsory on the first and second. Then, he says that there ought to be an equal number of each class

third

and fourth

Thus

selected.

class

;

a preponderance will be given to the better sort

who have

the larger incomes, because many of the lower classes, not being compelled, will not vote. These considerations, and others which will be adduced when the time comes for examining similar polities, tend to show that States like Plato's should not be composed of democracy and monarchy. There is also a danger in electing the magistrates out of a body who are themselves elected for, if but a small number choose to combine, the elections will always go as they de-

of people,

;

sire.

Such I

the constitution which

Laws,

vi. 755,

described in the Laws.

e, 765. ; Ibid. vi. Ibid. vi. 756 b-e.

763

764 a.

THE POLITICS

Other constitutions have been proposed; some by private persons, others by philosophers and statesmen, which

all

come

nearer to established or existing ones than either of Plato's. No one else has introduced such novelties as the community of women and children, or public tables for women: other legis-

what

In the opinion of some, all, that being the question upon which all revolutions turn. This danger was recognized by Phaleas of Chalcedon, who was the first to affirm that the citizens of a State ought to have equal possessions. He thought that in a new colony the equalization might be accomplished without difficulty, not so easily when a State was already established and that then the shortest way of compassing the desired end would be for the rich to give and not to receive marriage portions, and for the poor not to give but to receive them. Plato in the Laws was of opinion that, to a certain extent, accumulation should be allowed, forbidding, as I have already observed, any citizen to possess more than five times the minimum qualification. But those who make such laws should remember what they are apt to forget that the legislator who fixes the amount of property should also fix the number of children for, if the children are too many for the property, the law must be broken. And, besides the violation of the law, it is a bad thing that many from being rich should become poor; for men of ruined fortunes are sure to stir up revolutions. That the equalization of property exercises an influence on political society was clearly understood even by some of the old legislators. Laws were made by Solon and others prohibiting an individual from possessing as much land as he pleased; and there are other laws in States which forbid the sale of property among the Locrians, for example, there is a law that a man is not to sell his property unless he can prove unmistakably that some misfortune has befallen him. Again, there have been laws which enjoin the preservation of the original lots. Such a law existed in the island of Leucas, and the abrogation of it made the constitution too democratic, for the rulers no longer had the prescribed qualification. Again, where there is equality of property, the amount may be either too large or too small, and the possessor may be living either in luxury or penury. Clearly, then, the legislator ought not only to aim at the equalization of properties, but at moderation in their amount. And yet, if he lators begin with

the regulation of property

necessary. is

the chief point of

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

ARISTOTLE

36 prescribe this moderate

mark

amount equally

all,

will

be no

not the possessions but the desires of mankind which require to be equalized, and this is impossible, unless a sufficient education is provided by the State. But Phaleas will probably reply that this is precisely what he means nearer the

;

for

it is

that, in his opinion, there ought to be in States, not only Still he should tell us equal property, but equal education. what will be the character of his education there is no use in having one and the same for all, if it is of a sort that predisposes

and

;

men

Moreover,

to avarice, or ambition, or both.

civil

troubles

not only out of the inequality of property, but out of the inequality of honor, though in opposite ways. For the common people quarrel about the inequality of property, the higher

arise,

class about the equality of "

honor

The bad and good

;

as the poet says honor share/7

alike in

There are crimes of which the motive is want and for these Phaleas expects to find a cure in the equalization of property, which will take away from a man the temptation to be a highwayman, because he is hungry or cold. But want is not the sole incentive to crime; men desire to gratify some passion which preys upon them, or they are eager to enjoy the pleasures which are unaccompanied with pain, and therefore they commit ;

crimes.

Now

what

the cure of these three disorders ?

the

first,

moderate possessions and occupation of the second, habits of temperance as to the third, if any desire pleasures which depend on themselves, they will find the satisfaction of their defor all other pleasures we are sires nowhere but in philosophy dependent on others. The fact is that the greatest crimes are caused by excess and not by necess ity. Men do not become and hence great tyrants in order that they may not suffer cold is the honor bestowed, not on him who kills a thief, but on him who kills a tyrant. Thus we see that the institutions of Phaleas ;

;

avail only against petty crimes.

There is another objection to them. They are chiefly designed to promote the internal welfare of the State. But the legislator should consider also its relation to neighboring naand to all who are outside of it. The Government must be organized with a view to military strength ; and of this he

tions,

III

ix. 319.

THE POLITICS

has said not a word. And so with respect to property: there should not only be enough to supply the internal wants of the The State, but also to meet dangers coming from without. property of the State should not be so large that more powerful neighbors may be tempted by it, while the owners are unable to repel the invaders ; nor yet so small that the State is unable to

maintain a war even against States of equal power, and of the same character. Phaleas has not laid down any rule ; and we should bear in mind that a certain amount of wealth is an advantage. The best limit will probably be, not so much as will tempt a more powerful neighbor, or make it his interest to go to war with you. There is a story that Eubulus, when Autophradates was going to besiege Atarneus, told him to consider how long the operation would take, and then reckon up the cost which would be incurred in the time. " For," said he, " I am willing for a smaller sum than that to leave Atarneus at once." These words of Eubulus made an impression on Autophradates, and he desisted from the siege. One advantage gained by the equalization of property is that Not that the gain in it prevents the citizens from quarrelling. this direction is very great. For the nobles will be dissatisfied because they do not receive the honors which they think their due and this is often found to be a cause of sedition and revolution. And the avarice of mankind is insatiable; at one time two obols was pay enough but now, when this sum has become customary, men always want more and more without end for it is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied, and most men TfienSegTnning of reform live only foFtHe gratification of it. ;

;

not so much to equalize property as to train the nobler sort of natures not to desire more, and to prevent the lower from get-

must be kept down, but not illby Phaleas is imfor he only equalizes land, whereas a man may be rich perfect also in slaves, and cattle, and money, and in the abundance of what are called his movables. Now either all these things must be equalized, or some limit must be imposed on them, or they must all be let alone. It would appear that Phaleas is legislat-

ting

;

that

to say, they

Besides, the equalization proposed

treated.

;

ing for a small city only, the city. slaves,

if,

as he supposes,

all

the artisans are

and not to form a part of the population of But if there is a law that artisans are to be public should only apply to those engaged on public works, as

to be public slaves

;

ARISTOTLE

3S at

Epidamnus, or

Athens on the plan which Diophantus

once introduced.

From

these observations anyone

was wrong

may judge how

far Phaleas

or right in his ideas.

Hippodamus, the son of Euryphon, a native of Miletus, the same who invented the art of planning cities, and who also laid out the Piraeus a strange man, whose fondness for distinction led him into a general eccentricity of life, which made some think him affected (for he would wear flowing hair and expensive ornaments; and yet he dressed himself in the same cheap warm garments both in winter and summer) he, besides aspiring to be an adept in the knowledge of nature, was the

—

;

first

person not a statesman

who made

inquiries about the best

form of government.

The

city of

Hippodamus was composed of 10,000

citizens

—

divided into three parts one of artisans, one of husbandmen, and a third of armed defenders of the State. He also divided the land into three parts, one sacred, one public, the third private the first was set apart to maintain the customary worship of the gods, the second was to support the warriors, the third was the property of the husbandmen. He also divided his laws into three classes, and no more, for he maintained that there are three subjects of lawsuits insult, injury, and homicide. He likewise instituted a single final court of appeal, to which all causes seeming to have been improperly decided might be referred this court he formed of elders chosen for the purpose. He was further of opinion that the decisions of the courts ought not to be given by the use of a voting pebble, but that every one should have a tablet on which he might not only write a simple :

—

;

condemnation, or leave the tablet blank for a simple acquittal and partly condemned, he was to distinguish accordingly. To the existing law he objected that it obliged the judges to be guilty of perjury, whichever way they voted. He also enacted that those who discovered anything for the good of the State should be rewarded and he provided that the children of citizens who died in battle should be maintained at the public expense, as if such an enactment had never been heard of before, yet it actually exists at Athens m and in other places. As to the magistrates, he would have them all

but, if he partly acquitted

;

elected

by the people, that

is,

m Cp.

by the three

Thuc.

ii.

c. 46.

classes already

men-

THE POLITICS

and those who were elected were to watch over the inand of orphans. These are the most striking points in the constitution of Hippodamus. There is not much else. The first of these proposals to which objection may be taken, is the threefold division of the citizens. The artisans, and the husbandmen, and the warriors, all have a share in the government. But the husbandmen have no arms, and the artisans neither arms nor land, and therefore they become all but slaves of the warrior class. That they should share in all the offices is an impossibility; for generals and guardians of the citizens, and nearly all the principal magistrates, must be taken from the class of those who carry arms. Yet, if the two other classes have no share in the government, how can they be loyal citizens? It may be said that those who have arms must necestioned,

terests of the public, of strangers,

sarily be masters of both the other classes, but this is not so

numerous ; and if they are, should the other classes share in the government at all, or have power to appoint magistrates? Artisans there must be, for these are wanted in every city, and they can live by their craft, as elsewhere; and the husbandmen, too, if they really provided the warriors with food, might fairly have a share in the government. But in the republic of Hippodamus they are supposed to have land of their own, which they cultivate for Again, as to this common land out of their private benefit. which the soldiers are maintained, if they are themselves to be the cultivators of it, the warrior class will be identical with the husbandmen, although the legislator intended to make a disIf, again, there are to be other cultitinction between them. vators distinct both from the husbandmen, who have land of easily accomplished unless they are

why

own, and from the warriors, they will make a fourth class, which has no place in the State and no share in anything. Or, if the same persons are to cultivate their own lands, and those of the public as well, they will have a difficulty in supplying the quantity of produce which will maintain two households: and why, in this case, should there be any division, for they might find food themselves and give to the warriors from the same lots? There is surely a great confusion in all this. Neither is the law to be commended which says that the

their

judges,

when a

simple issue

tinguish in their judgment

;

is laid

before them, should dis-

for the judge

thus converted into

ARISTOTLE

Now, in an arbitration, although the arbitramany, they confer with one another about the decision,

arbitrator.

tors are

and therefore they can distinguish but in courts of law this is impossible, and, indeed, most legislators take pains to prevent the judges from holding any communication with one another. Again, will there not be confusion if the judge thinks that damages should be given, but not so much as the suitor demands ? He asks, say, for twenty minae, and the judge allows him ten minae, or one judge more and another less; one five, another four minae. In this way they will go on apportioning the damages, and some will grant the whole and others nothing how is the final reckoning to be taken ? Again, no one who votes for a simple acquittal or condemnation is compelled to perjure himself, if the indictment is quite simple and in right form; for the judge who acquits does not decide that the defendant owes nothing, but that he does not owe the twenty minae. He only is guilty of perjury who thinks that the defendant ought not to pay twenty minae, and yet condemns him. To reward those who discover anything which is useful to the State is a proposal which has a specious sound, but cannot safely be enacted by law, for it may encourage informers, and perhaps even lead to political commotions. This question involves another. It has been doubted whether it is or is not expedient to make any changes in the laws of a country, even if another law be better. Now, if all changes are inexpedient, we can hardly assent to the proposal of Hippodamus for, under pretence of doing a public service, a man may introduce measures which are really destructive to the laws or to the constitution. But, since we have touched upon this subject, perhaps we had better go a little into detail, for, as I was saying, there is a difference of opinion, and it may sometimes seem desirable to make changes. Such changes in the other arts and sciences have certainly been beneficial medicine, for example, and gymnastic, and every other art and science have departed from traditional usage. And, if politics be an art, change must be necessary in this as in any other art. The need of improvement is shown by the fact that old customs are exceedingly simple and barbarous. For the ancient Hellenes went about armed n and bought their wives of each other. The remains of ancient laws which have come down to us are quite absurd for example, at ;

;

ÂŤ Cp. Thucyd.

and

THE POLITICS

Cumae there is a law about murder, to the effect that if the accuser produce a certain number of witnesses from among his own kinsmen, the accused shall be held guilty. Again, men in general desire the good, and not merely what their fathers had. But the primeval

inhabitants, whether they

were born of the

may be supposed to have been no better than ordinary foolish people among ourselves (such is certainly the tradition concerning the earthand it would be ridiculous to rest contented with born men) their notions. Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered. As in other sciences, so in politics, it is impossible that all things should be precisely set down in writing for enactments must be universal, but actions are concerned with particulars./* Hence we infer that sometimes and in certain cases laws may be changed but when we look at the matter from another point of view, great caution would seem to be required. For the habit of lightly changing the laws is an evil, and, when the advantage is small, some errors both of law-givers and rulers had better be left the citizen will not gain so much by the change as he will lose by the habit of disobedience. The analogy of the arts is false; a change in a law is a very different thing from a change in an art. For the law has no power to command obedience except that of habit, which can only be given by time, so that a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law. Even if we admit that the laws are to be changed, are they all to be changed, and in every State ? And are they to be changed by anybody who likes, or only by certain persons? These are very important questions and therefore we had better reserve the discussion of them to a more suitable occasion. In the governments of Lacedaemon and Crete, and indeed in all governments, two points have to be considered; first, whether any particular law is good or bad, when compared with the perfect state secondly, whether it is or is not consistent with the idea and character which the law-giver has set before his That in a well-ordered State the citizens should have citizens. leisure and not have to provide for their daily wants is generally acknowledged, but there is a difficulty in seeing how this leisure [For, if you employ slaves, they are liable to is to be attained. earth or were the survivors of

some

destruction,

;

o Cp. Plato, Laws,

p Cp. Plato,

iii.

677 a; Polit. 271 a; Tim. 22

Polit. 295 a.

ARISTOTLE

The Thessalian

rebel.]

Penestae have often risen against their

masters, and the Helots in like manner against the Lacedaemonians, for whose misfortunes they are always lying in wait.

Nothing, however, of this kind has as yet happened to the the reason probably is that the neighboring cities, even when at war with one another, never form an alliance with rebellious serfs, rebellions not being for their interest, since they Cretans

;

themselves have a dependent population. Whereas all the neighbors of the Lacedaemonians, whether Argives, Messenians, or Arcadians, are their enemies [and the Helots are al-

ways revolting

In Thessaly, again, the original rewhen the Thessalians were still at war with the neighboring Achaeans, Perrhaebians, and Magnesians. Besides, if there were no other difficulty, the treatment or management of slaves is a troublesome affair for, if not kept in hand, they are insolent, and think that they are as good as their masters, and, if harshly treated, they hate and conspire against them. Now it is clear that when these are the results the citizens of a State have not found out the secret of to

them].

volt of the slaves occurred at a time

;

managing their

subject population.

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the good order of the State. For a husband and a wife, being each a part of every family, the State may be considered as about

men and women; and, therefore, in those women is bad, half the city having no laws. And this is what has actu-

equally divided into

States in which the condition of the

may be regarded

happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole State hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The conally

sequence

that in such a State wealth

too highly valued,

under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of all warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in especially if the citizens fall

;

THE POLITICS

regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women in other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This

Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements license of the

times,

of virtue), to receive his enactments.

But,

when Lycurgus,

wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. They, and not he, are to blame for what then happened, and this defect in the constitu-

tradition says,

tion

clearly to be attributed to them.

considering what

are not, however,

not to be excused, but what

right or

wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only of itself gives an air of indecorum to the State, but tends in a measure to foster avarice. The mention of avarice naturally suggests a criticism on the inequality of property. While some of the Spartan citizens have quite small properties, others have very large ones hence the land has passed into the hands of a few. And here is an;

other fault in their laws; for, although the legislator rightly

holds up to shame the sale or purchase of an inheritance, he allows anybody who likes to give and bequeath it. Yet both

same result. And nearly two-fifths of the whole country is held by women this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on anyone whom he pleases, and, practices lead to the

;

he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1,500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens [at the time of the Theban invasion] fell below 1,000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property for the city sank under a single defeat the want of men was their ruin. There is a tradition that, in the days of if

to his heir.

;

ARISTOTLE

their ancient kings, they were in the habit of giving the rights of citizenship to strangers, and therefore, in spite of their long wars, no lack of population was experienced by them indeed, ;

one time Sparta

citizens.

Whether

said to have

numbered not

less

this statement is true or not,

than 10,000

would

cer-

have maintained their numbers by the Again, the law which relates to the equalization of property.

tainly have been better to

procreation of children equality.

For the

adverse to the correction of this inwanting to have as many Spartans

legislator,

as he could, encouraged the citizens to have large families

and

;

a law at Sparta that the father of three sons shall be exempt from military service, and he who has four from all the burdens of the State. Yet it is obvious that, if there were many children, the land being distributed as it is, many of them there

must necessarily fall into poverty. The Lacedaemonian constitution

is defective in another This magistracy has authority in the highest matters, but the Ephors are all chosen from the people, and so the office is apt to fall into the hands of very poor men, who, being badly off, are open to bribes. There have been many examples at Sparta of this evil in former times; and quite recently, in the matter of the Andrians, certain of the

point; I

mean

the ephoralty.

Ephors who were bribed did so great and tyrannical

their best to ruin the State.

their power, that even the kings

And have

been compelled to court them through their influence the constitution has deteriorated, and from being an aristocracy has turned into a democracy. The ephoralty certainly does keep the State together; for the people are contented when they have a share in the highest office, and the result, whether due to the legislator or to chance, has been advantageous. For if a constitution is to be permanent, all the parts of the State must wish that it should exist and be maintained. This is the case at Sparta, where the kings desire permanence because they have due honor in their own persons the nobles are represented in the Council of Elders ( for the office of Elder is a reward of virtue) and the people in the ephoralty, for all are eligible to it. The election of Ephors out of the whole people is perfectly right, but ought not to be carried on in the present fashion, which is too childish. Again, they have the decision of great causes, although they are quite ordinary men, and therefore they should not determine them merely on their own judgment, ;

;

THE POLITICS

but according to written rules, and to the laws. Their way of too, is not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution

life,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;they have a deal too much

license; whereas, in the case of

the other citizens, the excess of strictness

they run

away from

so intolerable that

the law into the secret indulgence of sen-

sual pleasures.

Again, the Council of Elders is not free from defects. It may be said that the Elders are good men and well trained in manly virtue and that, therefore, there is an advantage to the State in having them. But that judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body. And when men have been educated in such a manner that even the legislator himself cannot trust them, Many of the Elders are well known to there is real danger. have taken bribes and to have been guilty of partiality in pubAnd therefore they ought not to be irresponsible; lic affairs. yet at Sparta they are so. But (it may be replied), " All magistracies are accountable to the Ephors." Yes, but this prerogative is too great for them, and we maintain that the control should be exercised in some other manner. Further, the mode in which the Spartans elect their Elders is childish and it is improper that the person to be elected should canvass for the office; the worthiest should be appointed, whether he chooses or not. And here the legislator clearly indicates the same intention which appears in other parts of his constitution; he would have his citizens ambitious, and he has reckoned upon this quality in the election of the Elders for no one would ask to be elected if he were not. Yet ambition and avarice, almost more than any other passions, are the motives of crime. Whether kings are or are not an advantage to States, I will consider at another time; they should at any rate be chosen, not as they are now, but with regard to their personal life and conduct. The legislator himself obviously did not suppose that he could make them really good men at least he shows a great For this reason the Spartans used to distrust of their virtue. join enemies in the same embassy, and the quarrels between the ;

;

kings were held to be conservative of the State. Neither did the first introducer of the common meals, called " phiditia," regulate them well. The entertainment ought to

have been provided at the public cost, as in Crete but among the Lacedaemonians everyone is expected to contribute, and ;

ARISTOTLE

some of them are too poor tention of the legislator

meant

to be

to afford the expense

;

thus the in-

The common meals were but the existing manner of

frustrated.

a popular institution,

is the reverse of popular. For the very poor can scarcely take part in them ; and, according to ancient custom, those who cannot contribute are not allowed to retain their

regulating them

rights of citizenship.

The law about the Spartan admirals has often been censured, and with justice; it is a source of dissension, for the kings are perpetual generals, and this office of admiral is but the setting up of another king. The charge which Plato brings, in the Laws,? against the intention of the legislator, is likewise justified; the whole constitution has regard to one part of virtue only the virtue of the soldier, which gives victory in war. And so long as they were at war, their power was preserved, but when they had attained empire they fell, for of the arts of peace they knew nothing, and had never engaged in any employment higher than war. There is another error, equally great, into which they have fallen. Although they truly think that the goods for which they contend are to be acquired by virtue rather than by vice, they err in supposing that these goods are to be preferred to the virtue which gains them.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Once more no money in :

the revenues of the State are ill-managed

;

there

the treasury, although they are obliged to carry

on great wars, and they are unwilling to pay taxes. The greater part of the land being in the hands of the Spartans, they do not look closely into one another's contributions. The result which the legislator has produced is the reverse of beneficial; for he has made his city poor, and his citizens greedy. Enough respecting the Spartan constitution, of which these are the principal defects.

The Cretan in

constitution nearly resembles the Spartan,

some few points

perfect in form.

The

good

and

but for the most part less older constitutions are generally less

quite as

;

and the Lacedaemonian is said to be, and probably is, in a very great measure, a copy of the Cretan. According to tradition, Lycurgus, when he ceased to be the guardian of King Charilaus, went abroad and spent a long time in Crete. For the two countries are nearly connected; gLaws, * 630. elaborate than the later,

THE POLITICS

the Lyctians are a colony of the Lacedaemonians, and the colonists, when they came to Crete, adopted the constitution which they found existing among the inhabitants. Even to this day

the Periceci, or subject population of Crete, are governed by the original laws which

The

Minos enacted.

island seems to

be intended by nature for dominion in Hellas, and to be well situated it extends right across the sea, around which nearly all the Hellenes are settled and while one end is not far from ;

;

the Peloponnese, the other almost reaches to the region of Asia

about Triopium and Rhodes. Hence Minos acquired the empire of the sea, subduing some of the islands and colonizing others at last he invaded Sicily, where he died near Camicus. The Cretan institutions resemble the Lacedaemonian. The Helots are the husbandmen of the one, the Periceci of the other, and both Cretans and Lacedaemonians have common meals, which were anciently called by the Lacedaemonians not " phiditia " but " andria " and the Cretans have the same word, the use of which proves that the common meals [or syssitia] originally came from Crete. Further, the two constitutions are similar [in many particulars] for the office of the Ephors is the same as that of the Cretan Cosmi, the only difference being that whereas the Ephors are five, the Cosmi are ten in number. The Elders, too, answer to the Elders in Crete, who are termed by the Cretans the Council. And the kingly office once existed in Crete, but was abolished, and the Cosmi have now the duty of leading them in war. All classes share in the Ecclesia, but it can only ratify the decrees of the Elders and the Cosmi. The common meals of Crete are certainly better managed than the Lacedaemonian; for in Lacedaemon everyone pays so much per head, or, if he fails, the law, as I have already explained, forbids him to exercise the rights of citizenship. But in Crete they are of a more popular character. There, of all the fruits of the earth, of cattle, of the public revenues, and of the tribute which is paid by the Periceci, one portion is assigned to the gods and to the service of the State, and another ;

;

to the

common

meals, so that men,

women, and

children are

all

supported out of a common stock. The legislator has many ingenious ways of securing moderation in eating which he conceives to be a gain; he likewise encourages the separation of

men from women,

lest

they should have too

many

children,

and

ARISTOTLE

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

the companionship of men with one another whether this is a good or bad thing I shall have an opportunity of considering

But that the Cretan common meals are better ordered than the Lacedaemonian there can be no doubt. On the other hand, the Cosmi are even a worse institution than the Ephors, of which they have all the evils without the good. Like the Ephors, they are any chance persons, but in Crete this is not counterbalanced by a corresponding political advantage. At Sparta everyone' is eligible, and the body of the people, having a share in the highest office, want the State But in Crete the Cosmi are elected out of to be permanent. certain families, and not out of the whole people, and the Elders out of those who have been Cosmi. The same criticism may be made about the Cretan, which has been already made about the Lacedaemonian Elders. Their irresponsibility and life tenure is too great a privilege, and their arbitrary power of acting upon their own judgment, and dispensing with written law, is dangerous. It is no proof of the at another time.

goodness of the institution that the people are not discontented For there is no profit to be made at being excluded from it. out of the office and, unlike the Ephors, the Cosmi, being in an island, are removed from temptation. The remedy by which they correct the evil of this institution is an extraordinary one, suited rather to a close oligarchy than ;

For the Cosmi are often expelled to a constitutional State. by a conspiracy of their own colleagues, or of private individuals and they are allowed also to resign before their term of ;

has expired. Surely all matters of this kind are better regulated by law than by the will of man, which is a very unsafe rule. Worst of all is the suspension of the office of Cosmi, a office

device to which the nobles often have recourse

not submit to justice.

when they

will

This shows that the Cretan Government,

although possessing some of the characteristics of a constitutional State, is really a close oligarchy.

The Cretans have a habit, too, of setting up a chief they get among the common people and gather their ;

together a party

and then quarrel and fight with one another. What is temporary destruction of the State and dissolution of society ? A city is in a dangerous condition when those who friends

this but the

But, as I have already saved by her situation ; distance has

are willing are also able to attack her. said, the island of Crete is

— ;

THE POLITICS

the same effect as the Lacedaemonian prohibition of strangers and the Cretans have no foreign dominions. This is the reason why the Periceci are contented in Crete, whereas the Helots are perpetually revolting. But when lately foreign invaders found their way into the island, the weakness of the Cretan constitution was revealed. Enough of the government of Crete. The Carthaginians are also considered to have an excellent form of government, which differs from that of any other State in several respects, though it is in some very like the Lacedaemonian. Indeed, all three States the Lacedaemonian, the Cretan, and the Carthaginian nearly resemble one another, and are very different from any others. Many of the Car-

—

The

thaginian institutions are excellent.

superiority of their

proved by the fact that, although containing an element of democracy, it has been lasting; the Carthaginians have never had any rebellion worth speaking of, and have never been under the rule of a tyrant. Among the points in which the Carthaginian constitution resembles the Lacedaemonian are the following: The common tables of the clubs answer to the Spartan phiditia, and their magistracy of the 104 to the Ephors but, whereas the Ephors are any chance persons, the magistrates of the Carthaginians are elected according to merit this is an improvement. They have also their kings and their Gerusia, or Council of Elders, who correspond to the kings and Elders of Sparta. Their kings, unlike the Spartan, are not always of the same family, whatever that may happen to be, but if there is some distinguished family they are selected out of it and not appointed by seniority Such officers have great power, and therethis is far better. fore, if they are persons of little worth, do a great deal of harm, and they have already done harm at Lacedaemon. constitution

—

;

—

Most of the defects or deviations from the perfect State, for which the Carthaginian constitution would be censured, apply equally to all the forms of government which we have menBut of the deflections from aristocracy and constitutioned. tional government, some incline more to democracy and some The kings and Elders, if unanimous, may deterto oligarchy. mine whether they will or will not bring a matter before the people, but when they are not unanimous, the people may decide whether or not the matter shall be brought forward. And whatever the kings and Elders bring before the people is not 4

ARISTOTLE

5°

only heard but also determined by them, and anyone who likes may oppose it now this is not permitted in Sparta and Crete. That the magistracies of five who have under them many im;

portant matters should be co-opted, that they should choose the Supreme Council of ioo,and should hold office longer than other

magistrates (for they are virtually rulers both before and after these are oligarchical features; their being they hold office)

—

without salary and not elected by lot, and any similar points, such as the practice of having all suits tried by the magistrates, and not some by one class of judges or jurors and some by another, as at Lacedsemon, are characteristic of aristocracy. The Carthaginian constitution deviates from aristocracy and inclines to oligarchy, chiefly on a point where popular opinion is on their side. For men in general think that magistrates should be chosen not only for their merit, but for their wealth: a man, they say, who is poor cannot rule well he has not the leisure. If, then, election of magistrates for their wealth be characteristic of oligarchy, and election for merit of aristocracy, there will be a third form under which the constitution of Carthage is

—

comprehended for the Carthaginians choose their magistrates, and particularly the highest of them their kings and generals with an eye both to merit and to wealth. But we must acknowledge that, in thus deviating from aristocracy, the legislator has committed an error. Nothing is more absolutely necessary than to provide that the highest class, not only when in office, but when out of office, should have leisure and not demean themselves in any way and to this his attention should be first directed. Even if you must have regard to wealth, in order to secure leisure, yet it is surely a bad thing that the greatest offices, such as those of kings and generals, should be bought. The law which allows this abuse makes wealth of more account than virtue, and the whole State becomes avaricious. For, whenever the chiefs of the State ;

—

;

deem anything honorable,

the other citizens are sure to follow

example; and, where virtue has not the first place, there aristocracy cannot be firmly established. Those who have been at the expense of purchasing their places will be in the habit of repaying themselves and it is absurd to suppose that a poor and honest man will be wanting to make gains, and that a lower stamp of man who has incurred a great expense will not. Wherefore they should rule who are able to rule best [ apiorap* their

;

THE POLITICS Xâ&#x201A;Źiv

good

the legislator does not care to protect the from poverty, he should at any rate secure leisure for

those in It

And

even

office.

would seem

also to be a

bad principle that the same person

should hold many offices, which is a favorite practice among the Carthaginians, for one business is better done by one man.' The legislator should see to this and should not appoint the same person to be a flute-player and a shoemaker. Hence, where the State is large, it is more in accordance both with

and with democratic principles that the

constitutional

State should be distributed

was saying,

this

among many

arrangement

persons.

offices of

For, as

more popular, and any

action

We is better and sooner performed. and naval matters the duties of com-

familiarized by repetition

have a proof

in military

;

mand and of obedience in both these services extend to all. The government of the Carthaginians is oligarchical, but they successfully escape the evils of oligarchy by their wealth, which enables them from time to time to send out some portion

panacea and the Accident favors them, but the legislator should be able to provide against revolution without trusting to accidents. As things are, if any misfortune occurred, and the people revolted from their rulers, there would be no way of restoring peace by legal methods. Such is the character of the Lacedaemonian, Cretan, and Carthaginian constitutions, which are justly celebrated. Of those who have treated of governments, some have never taken any part at all in public affairs, but have passed their about most of them, what was worth lives in a private station Others have been lawgivers, telling has been already told. either in their own or in foreign cities, whose affairs they have administered and of these some have only made laws, others have framed constitutions; for example, Lycurgus and Solon did both. Of the Lacedaemonian constitution I have already spoken. As to Solon, he is thought by some to have been a good of the people to their colonies.

means by which they give

This

their

stability to the

State.

;

who put an end to the exclusiveness of the oligarchy, emancipated the people, established the ancient Athenian democracy, and harmonized the different elements of the State. According to their view, the Council of Areopagus was an

legislator,

oligarchical element, the elected magistracy, aristocratical, r Cp. Plato, Rep.

ii.

374 a.

and

ARISTOTLE

the courts of law, democratical. The truth seems to be that the Council and the elected magistracy existed before the time of

Solon, and were retained by him, but that he formed the courts all the citizens, thus creating the democracy,

of law out of

which

the very reason

why he

sometimes blamed.

For

giving the supreme power to the law courts, which are elected by lot, he is thought to have destroyed the non-democratic element. When the law courts grew powerful, to please the peo-

who were now playing the tyrant, the old constitution was changed into the existing democracy. Ephialtes and Pericles they also instituted the curtailed the power of the Areopagus payment of the juries, and thus every demagogue in turn increased the power of the democracy until it became what we now see. All this is true it seems however to be the result of circumstances, and not to have been intended by Solon. For the people having been instrumental in gaining the empire of the sea in the Persian War, began to get a notion of itself, and followed worthless demagogues, whom the better class opSolon, himself, appears to have given the Athenians posed. only that power of electing to offices and calling to account the magistrates, which was absolutely necessary; for without it they would have been in a state of slavery and enmity to the government. All the magistrates he appointed from the notables and the men of wealth, that is to say, from the pentacosiomedimni, or from the class called zeugitce (because they kept a yoke of oxen), or from a third class of so-called knights or cavalry. The fourth class were laborers who had no share in any magistracy. Mere legislators were Zaleucus, who gave laws to the Epizephyrian Locrians, and Charondas, who legislated for his own city of Catana, and for the other Chalcidian cities in Italy and Sicily. Some persons attempt to make out that Onomacritus was the first person who had any special skill in legislation, and that he, although a Locrian by birth, was trained in Crete, where he lived in the exercise of his prophetic art that Thales was his companion, and that Lycurgus and Zaleucus were disciples of Thales, as Charondas was of Zaleucus. But their acple,

;

count

quite inconsistent with chronology.

There was

also

Theban

legislator,

whose name was

This Philolaus was one of the family of the Bacchiadae, and a lover of Diodes, the Olympic Philolaus, the Corinthian.

THE POLITICS victor,

who

left

Corinth in horror of the incestuous passion

which his mother Halcyone had conceived for him, and retired to Thebes, where the two friends together ended their days. The inhabitants still point out their tombs, which are in full view of one another, but one looks towards Corinth, the other not. Tradition says that the two friends arranged them in this way, Diodes out of horror at his misfortunes, so that the land Philolaus that of Corinth might not be visible from his tomb This is the reason why they settled at Thebes, and so it might. Philolaus legislated for the Thebans, and, besides some other enactments, gave them laws about the procreation of children, which they call the " Laws of Adoption." These laws were peculiar to him, and were intended to preserve the number of the ;

lots.

In the legislation of Charondas there

except the laws about false witnesses.

nothing remarkable, is

the

first

who

insti-

His laws are more exact and more precisely expressed than even those of our modern legislators. tuted actions for perjury.

Characteristic of Phaleas

the equalization of property

;

community of women, children, and property, the common meals of women, and the law about drinking, that the Plato, the

sober shall be masters of the feast ; s also the training of soldiers to acquire by practice equal skill with both hands, so that one should be as useful as the other.' Draco has left laws, but he adapted them to a constitution which already existed, and there is no peculiarity in them which is worth mentioning, except the greatness and severity of the punishments. Pittacus, too, was only a lawgiver, and not the author of a constitution; he has a, law which is peculiar to him, that, if a drunken man strike another, he shall be more heavily punished than if he were sober ;ÂŤ he looked not to the excuse which might be offered for the drunkard, but only to expediency, for drunken more often than sober people commit acts of violence. Androdamas of Rhegium gave laws to the Chalcidians of

Thrace. Some of them relate to homicide, and to heiresses; but there is nothing remarkable in them. And here let us conclude our inquiry into the various constitutions

which either actually

exist, or

have been devised by

theorists. s Cp.

Laws,

ii.

671 D-672 a. u Cp. N. Eth.

t iii.

5. Â§ 8.

Ibid. vii.

794

BOOK

who would

III

and various kinds determine " What is a State ? " At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the State has done a certain act others, no, not the State, but the oligarchy or the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely with the State a constitution or government being an arrangement of the inhabitants of a State. But a State is composite, and, like any other whole, made up of many inquire into the nature

of government

must

first

all

;

parts;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;these are the

therefore, that

and what

citizens,

we must

the

who compose

begin by asking,

meaning of the term?

It is evident,

it.

Who

the citizen,

For here again there

be a difference of opinion. He who is a citizen in a dewill often not be a citizen in an oligarchy. Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen in any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed

may

mocracy

under the provisions of a

Even

treaty.

resident aliens in

many

places possess such rights, although in an imperfect form

;

for

Hence they do but imperand we call them citizens only

they are obliged to have a patron. fectly participate in citizenship,

in a qualified sense, as

we might

apply the term to children

who

young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from State duties. Of these we do not say simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or someare too

thing of that sort;

the precise expression

immaterial, for

our meaning is clear. Similar difficulties to those which I have mentioned may be raised and answered about deprived citizens and about exiles. But the citizen, whom we are seeking to define, is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can to taken, and his special characteristic is that he 54

THE POLITICS

shares in the administration of justice, and in

offices.

Now

some have a limit of time, and the same persons are not allowed to hold them twice, or can only hold them after a fixed interval others have no limit of time for example, the office of dicast or ecclesiast.o It may, indeed, be argued that these are not magistrates at all, and that their functions give them no share in the government. But surely it is ridiculous to say that those who have the supreme power do not govern. Not to dwell further upon this, which is a purely verbal question, what we want is a common term including both dicast and ecoffices

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

Let us, for the sake of distinction, call it " indefinite office," and we will assume that those who share in such office are citizens. This is the most comprehensive definition of a clesiast.

and best suits all those who are generally so called. But we must not forget that things of which the underlying notions differ in kind, one of them being first, another second, citizen,

another third, have, when regarded in this relation, nothing, or hardly anything, worth mentioning in common. Now we see that governments differ in kind,

and that some of them are

prior and that others are posterior; those which are faulty or

perverted are necessarily posterior to those which are perfect.

(What we mean by perversion will be hereafter explained.) The citizen then of necessity dfffers under each form of government and our definition is best adapted to the citizen of a democracy; but not necessarily to other States. For in some States the people are not acknowledged, nor have they any regular assembly, but only extraordinary ones; and suits are distributed in turn among the magistrates. At Lacedaemon, for instance, the Ephors determine suits about contracts, which ;

among themselves, while the elders are judges of homicide, and other causes are decided by other magistrates.

they distribute

similar principle prevails at Carthage

trates decide all causes.

We may,

;

of the citizen so as to include these States. it

only applies in democracies.]

there certain magis-

indeed, modify our definition

[But

In other States

strictly

it is

taken

the holder

of a definite, not of an indefinite office, who legislates and judges, and to some or all such holders of definite offices is reserved the right of deliberating or judging about some things

or about

all

things.

The conception of

now

begins to

" ecclesiast "

= member

the citizen

clear up.

juryman and judge in one a " Dicast " of the Ecclesia, or assembly of the citizens.

;

ARISTOTLE

He who

has the power to take part in the deliberative or any State is said by us to be a citizen of that State and speaking generally, a State is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life. judicial administration of ;

But

in practice

a citizen

defined to be one of

whom

both

the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back;

more grandparents. This is a short and some who raise the further How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a question: Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficitizen? say to two or three or

practical definition; but there are

culty, partly in irony, said, "

Mortars are made by the mortarmakers, and the citizens of Larissa are also a manufactured article, made, like the kettles which bear their name {kapiaaloi], by the magistrates."** Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. [This is a better definition than the other.] For the words, " born of a father or mother, who is a citizen," cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a State. There is a greater difficulty in the case of those who have been made citizens after a revolution, as by Cleisthenes at

Athens after the expulsion of the tyrants, for he enrolled in number of strangers and slaves and resident aliens. The doubt in these cases is, not who is, but whether he, who is, ought to be a citizen and there will still be a further doubt, whether he who ought not to be a citizen, is one in fact, for what ought not to be is what is false and is not. Now, there are some who hold office, and yet ought not to hold office, whom tribes a

;

call rulers,

although they rule unjustly. And the citizen fact of his holding some kind of rule or holds a judicial or legislative office fulfils our

was defined by the office

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;he who

definition of a citizen.

It is evident, therefore, that the citizens about whom the doubt has arisen must be called citizens whether they ought to be so or not is a question which is bound up with the previous inquiry.

parallel question is raised respecting the State

whether

not an act of the State ; for example, in the transition from an oligarchy or a tyranny to a democracy. In such cases persons refuse to fulfil their contracts or any

a certain act

untranslatable play upon

either " a magistrate " or "

the

an artisan."

word

Hrj/xiovpyot,

which means

THE POLITICS

other obligations, on the ground that the tyrant, and not the State, contracted them; they argue that some constitutions are established by force, and not for the sake of the common good. But this would apply equally to democracies, for they too may be founded on violence, and then the acts of the democracy will be neither more nor less legitimate than those of an oligarchy or of a tyranny. This question runs up into

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;when

we say that the State is the same, and would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another. This, however, is not a very serious difficulty; we need only remark that the word " state " is ambiguous, meaning both State and city. When are men, living in the same place, It is further ask d to be regarded as a single city what is the limit? Certainly not the wall of the city, for you might surround all Peloponnesus with a wall. But a city, having such vast circuit, would another:

when

different?

shall It

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

contain a nation rather than a State, like Babylon, which, as

they say, had been taken for three days before some part of became aware of the fact. This difficulty may, however, with advantage be deferred to another occasion the the inhabitants

;

statesman has to consider the size of the State, and whether it should consist of more than one nation or not. Again, shall we say that while the race of inhabitants, as well as their place of abode, remain the same, the city is also the same, although the citizens are always dying and being born, as we call rivers and fountains the same, although the water is always flowing away and coming again? Or shall we say that the generations of men, like the rivers, are the same, but that the State changes? For, since the State is a community and a community is made up of citizens, when the form of the government changes and becomes different, then it may be supposed that the State is no longer the same, just as a tragic differs from a. comic chorus, although the members of both may be identical. And in this manner we speak of every union or composition of elements, when the form of their composition alters; for example, harmony of the same sounds is said to be different, accordingly as the Dorian or the Phrygian mode is employed. And if this is true it is evident that the sameness of the State consists chiefly in the sameness

ARISTOTLE

of the constitution, and may be called or not called by the same name, whether the inhabitants are the same or entirely It is quite another question, whether a State ought different. or ought not to fulfil engagements when the form of government changes. There is a point nearly allied to the preceding: Whether

the virtue of a

good man and a good

citizen

not.c

But, before entering on this discussion,

obtain

some general notion of the

the same or

we must

virtue of the citizen.

first

is a member of a community. Now, have different functions, for one of them is a rower, another a pilot, and a third a lookout man, a fourth is described by some similar term and while the precise definition of each individual's virtue applies exclusively to him, there

the sailor, the citizen sailors

;

same time, a common definition applicable to them For they have all of them a common object, which is safety in navigation. Similarly, one citizen differs from another, but the salvation of the community is the common business of them all. This community is the State the virtue of the citizen must therefore be relative to the constitution of which he is a member. If, then, there are many forms of government, it is evident that the virtue of the good citizen cannot be the one perfect virtue. But we say that the good man is he who has perfect virtue. Hence it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man. The same question may also be approached by another road, from a consideration of the perfect State. If the State cannot be entirely composed of good men, and etch citizen is expected to do his own business well, and must therefore have virtue, inasmuch as all the citizens cannot be alike, the virtue of the citizen and of the good man cannot coincide. All must have the virtue of the good citizen thus, and thus only, can the State be perfect but they will not have the virtue of a good man, unless we assume that in the good State all the citizens must be good. Again, the State may be compared to the living being: as the first elements into which the living being is resolved are soul and body, as the soul is made up of reason and appetite, the family of husband and wife, property of master and slave, is,

at the

all.

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

cCp. N. Eth.

v. 2, Â§ ii.

THE POLITICS so out of State

all these,

composed

;

as well as other dissimilar elements, the

and, therefore, the virtue of

all

the citizens

cannot possibly be the same, any more than the excellence of the leader of a chorus is the same as that of the performer who stands by his side. I have said enough to show why the two kinds of virtue cannot be absolutely and always the same. But will there then be no case in which the virtue of the

and the virtue of the good man coincide? To [not that the good citizen, but] that the good ruler is a good and wise man, and that he who would be a statesman must be a wise man. And some persons say that

good this

citizen

we answer

even the education of the ruler should be of a special kind; for are not the children of kings instructed in riding and military exercises? As Euripides says: "

As though

subtle arts for me, but

what the State requires."

there were a special education needed by a ruler. good ruler is the same as that of a good

If then the virtue of a

man, and we assume further that the subject is a citizen as well as the ruler, the virtue of the good citizen and the virtue of the good man cannot be always the same, although in some cases

[i.e.

in the perfect State] they

may;

for the virtue of a

from that of a citizen. It was the sense of this difference which made Jason say that " he felt hungry when he was not a tyrant," meaning that he could not endure to live in a private station. But, on the other hand, it may be argued that men are praised for knowing both how to rule and how to obey, and he is said to be a citizen of approved virtue who is able to do both. Now if we suppose the virtue of a good man to be that which rules, and the virtue of the citizen to include ruling and obeying, it cannot be said that they are equally worthy of praise. Seeing, then, that according to common opinion the ruler and the ruled must at some time or other learn the duties of both, but that what they learn is different, and that the citizen must know and share in them both the inference is obvious.^ There is, indeed, the rule of a master which is concerned with menial offices the master need not know how to perform these, but may employ others in the execution of them anything else would be degrading ruler differs

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

d Viz., that ruler.

some kind of previous subjection

;

an advantage

to the

ARISTOTLE

else I mean the menial duties which vary and are executed by various classes of slaves, such, for example, as handicraftsmen, who, as their name sigunder these the menifies, live by the labor of their hands: chanic is included. Hence in ancient times, and among some nations, the working classes had no share in the government a privilege which they only acquired under the extreme democracy. Certainly the good man and the statesman and the good citizen ought not to learn the crafts of inferiors ex-

and by anything

much

in character

—

cept for their own occasional use; if they habitually practise them, there will cease to be a distinction between master and slave.

This is not the rule of which we are speaking; but there a rule of another kind, which is exercised over freemen and equals by birth a constitutional rule, which the ruler must learn by obeying, as he would learn the duties of a general of cavalry by being under the orders of a general of cavalry, or the duties of a general of infantry by being under the orders of a general of infantry, or by having had the command of a company or brigade. It has been well said that " he who has never learned to obey cannot be a good commander." The two are not the same, but the good citizen ought to be capable he should know how to govern like a freeman, and of both how to obey like a freeman these are the virtues of a citizen. And, although the temperance and justice of a ruler are disis

—

;

—

good man will and also a subject, will not have one virtue only, say justice but he will have distinct kinds of virtue, the one qualifying him to rule, the other to obey, and differing as the temperance and courage of men and women differ. For a man would be thought a coward if he had no more courage than a courageous woman, and a woman would be thought loquacious if she imposed no more restraint on her conversation than a good man and intinct

from those of a

include both;

for the

subject, the virtue of a

good man, who

free

—

;

deed their part in the management of the household is different, for the duty of the one is to acquire, and of the other to preserve. Practical wisdom only is characteristic of the ruler e it would seem that all other virtues must equally belong to ruler and subject. The virtue of the subject is certainly not wisdom, but only true opinion; he may be compared to the :

e Cp. Rep.

iv.

428.

THE POLITICS maker of the

flute,

while his master

is like

the flute-player or

user of the fluted

From

these considerations

may

be gathered the answer to

the question, whether the virtue of the as that of the

good

citizen, or different,

good man is the same and how far the same,

and how far different. There still remains one more question about the citizen: Is he only a true citizen who has a share of office, or is the mechanic to be included? If they who hold no office are to be deemed citizens, not every citizen can have this virtue of ruling and obeying which makes a citizen. And if none of the lower class are citizens, in which part of the State are they to be placed? For they are not resident aliens, and they are not foreigners.

this objection

may we

not reply, that there

no more absurdity in excluding them than in excluding slaves and f reedmen from any of the above-mentioned classes ? It must be admitted that we cannot consider all those to be is

who are necessary to the existence of the State; for example, children are not citizens equally with grown up men, who are citizens absolutely, but children, not being grown up, are only citizens in a qualified sense. Doubtless in ancient citizens

times,

and among some nations, the artisan

class

were slaves

or foreigners, and therefore the majority of them are so now. The best form of State will not admit them to citizenship ; but if they are admitted, then our definition of the virtue of a citizen will apply to

to those

who work

some

citizens

and freemen

for their living.

The

only,

and not

latter class, to

whom

a necessity, are either slaves who minister to the wants of individuals, or mechanics and laborers who are the servants toil is

of the community.

These

will explain their position;

already

itself

reflections carried a little further

and indeed what has been said

explanation enough.

many forms

of government there must be and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and

Since there are

many

varieties of citizens,

the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such a one), in which honors are given according to virtue

and merit; for no man can practice virtue who life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the /

Cp. Rep. x. 60 1

d, e.

living the

qualification

ARISTOTLE

is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citibut a mechanic may, for many of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. In many States the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citi-

for office

zen;

zen [and his father an alien]

;

plied to illegitimate children;

and a similar principle the law

relaxed

when

ap-

there

But when the number of citizens a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens. is

a dearth of population.

increases, first the children of

Hence, as is evident, there are different kinds of citizens; is a citizen in the highest sense who shares in the honors of the State. In the poems of Homer Achilles complains of Agamemnon treating him " like some dishonored stranger " g for he who is excluded from the honors of the State is no better than an alien. But when this exclusion is

and he

;

concealed, then the object

that the privileged class

may

de-

ceive their fellow-citizens. to the question whether the virtue of the good man is same as that of the good citizen, the considerations already adduced prove that in some States the two are the same, and in others different. When they are the same it is not the virtue of every citizen which is the same as that of the good man, but only the virtue of the statesman and of those who have or

the

may

have, alone or in conjunction with others, the conduct of

public affairs.

these questions, we have next to conwhether there is only one form of government or many, and if many, what they are, and how many, and what are the differences between them. A constitution is the arrangement of magistracies in a State, The government is everyespecially of the highest of all. where sovereign in the State, and the constitution is in fact the government. For example, in democracies the people are supreme, but in oligarchies, the few; and, therefore, we say and so in that these two forms of government are different

Having determined

sider

other cases.

gll

ix.

648.

THE POLITICS First, let us consider

how many forms society

what

the purpose of a State,

regulated.

have already

and

human

of government there are by which

former part

said, in the

when drawing a distinction between household management and the rule of a master, that man is by nature a political animal. And, therefore, men, even when they of this treatise,

do not require one another's

help, desire to live together all

the same, and are in fact brought together by their interests in proportion as they severally attain to

common

any measure

of well-being. This is certainly the chief end both of individuals and of States. And also for the sake of mere life (in which there is possibly some noble element) mankind meet ;

together and maintain the political community, so long as the evils of existence do not greatly overbalance the good.h And all see that men cling to life even in the midst of misfortune, seeming to find in it a natural sweetness and happiness. There is no difficulty in distinguishing the various kinds of authority; they have been often defined already in popular works. The rule of a master, although the slave by nature and the master by nature have in reality the same interests, is nevertheless exercised primarily with a view to the interest of

the master, but accidentally considers the slave, since,

slave perish, the rule of the master perishes with him.

the

the other hand, the government of a wife and children and of

a household, which exercised in the

we have

first

management, is good of the governed or

called household

instance for the

common good of both parties, but essentially for the good of the governed, as we see to be the case in medicine, gymnastic, and the arts in general, which are only accidentally concerned with the good of the artists themselves.* (For there is no reason why the trainer may not sometimes practise gymThe trainer nastics, and the pilot is always one of the crew.) or the pilot considers the good of those committed to his care. But, when he is one of the persons taken care of, he accifor the

dentally participates in the advantage, for the pilot

also a

and the trainer becomes one of those in training. And so in politics: when the State is framed upon the principle of equality and likeness, the citizens think that they ought to hold office by turns. In the order of nature everyone would take his turn of service and then again, somebody else would sailor,

;

h Cp. Plato,

Polit.

302 A.

â&#x20AC;˘

Cp. PI. Rep.

341

;

ARISTOTLE

office, had looked way.] But nowadays, for the sake of the advantage which is to be gained from the public revenues and from office, men want to be always in One might imagine that the rulers, being sickly, were office. in that case only kept in health while they continued in office we may be sure that they would be hunting after places. The that governments, which have a regard conclusion is evident to the common interest^ are constituted in accordance with strict principles Of Justice, and are therefore true forms; but ;hose which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a itate is a community of freemen. Having determined these points, we have next to consider how many forms of government there are, and what they are and in the first place what are the true forms, for when they are determined the perversions of them will at once be apparent. The words " constitution " and " government " have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in States, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of many. The tr ue forms o f government ^therefore,, are those in which fli e"~one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one, or of the few, or of the many, are perversions./ For citizens, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in the advantages of a Of forms of government in which one rules, we call State. that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy [the rule of the best] and it is so called, either because the

look after his interest, just as he, while in

after theirs.

was

[That

originally

the

;

men, or because they have at heart the best of the State and of the citizens. But when the citi-

rulers are the best interests

zens at large administer the State for the the

government

called

common

by the generic name

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;a

interest,

constitution

And there is a reason for this use of language. One man or a few may excel in virtue but of virtue there are many kinds: and as the number increases it becomes more [iroXtrela],

;

though they Hence, in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens. difficult for

may

them

to attain perfection in very kind,

in military virtue, for this is

j Cp. Eth.

found

viii.

in the masses.

10.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ;

THE POLITICS Of

the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as fol-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;of

of aristocracy, oligarchy of congovernment, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy democracy, of the needy none of them the common good of all. But there are difficulties about these forms of government, and it will therefore be necessary to state a little more at length the nature of each of them. For he who would make a philosophical study of the various sciences, and does not regard practice only, ought not to overlook or omit anything, but to set forth the truth in every particular. Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the in-

lows

royalty, tyranny

;

stitutional

;

and not the men of property, are the rulers. And first of our difficulties, and it relates to the definition just given. For democracy is said to be the government of the many. But what if the many are men of property and have the power in their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be the government of the few; but what if the poor are fewer than the rich, and have the power in their hands because they are stronger ? In these cases the distinction which we have drawn between these different forms of government would no longer hold good. Suppose, once more, that we add wealth to the few and poverty to the many, and name the governments accordingly an oligarchy is said to be that in which the few and the wealthy, and a democracy that in which the many and the poor are the rulers there will still be a difficulty. For, if the only forms of government are the ones already mentioned, how shall we describe those other governments also just mentioned by us, in which the rich are the more numerous and the poor are the fewer, and both govern in their respective States ? The argument seems to show that, whether in oligarchies or in democracies, the number of the governing body, whether the greater number, as in a democracy, or the smaller number, as in an oligarchy, is an accident due to the fact that the rich everywhere are few, and the poor numerous. But if so, there is a misapprehension of the causes of the difference between them. For the real difference between democracy and olidigent,

here arises the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ARISTOTLE

Wherever men rule by reason is poverty and wealth. of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a democracy. But

garchy

few and the poor many: for few are freedom is enjoyed by all, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the oligarchical and demoas a fact the rich are

well-to-do, whereas

cratical parties respectively claim

power

Let us begin by considering the garchy and democracy, and what democratical.

For

all

men

in the State.

common is

definitions of oli-

justice oligarchical

cling to justice of

some

and

kind, but

and they do not express the whole idea. For example, justice is thought by them to be, and is, equality, not, however, for all, but only for equals. And inequality is thought to be, and is, justice neither is this for their conceptions are imperfect

;

but only for unequals. men judge erroneously.

all,

When

the persons are omitted, then

The reason

that they are passing

judgment on themselves, and most people are bad judges in their own case. And whereas justice implies a relation to persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have already said in the " Ethics," & embraces alike persons and things, they acknowledge the equality of the things, but dispute about the merit of the persons, chiefly for the reason which I have because they are bad judges in their own affairs just given and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themFor those who are selves to be speaking of absolute justice. unequal in one respect, for example wealth, consider themselves to be unequal in all; and any who are equal in one respect, for example freedom, consider themselves to be equal in all. But they leave out the capital point. For if men met and associated out of regard to wealth only, their share in the State would be proportioned to their property, and the oligarchical doctrine would then seem to carry the day. It would not be just that he who paid one mina should have the same share of a hundred minae, whether of the principal or of the profits, as he who paid the remaining ninety-nine. But a State exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only: if life only were the object, slaves and brute animals might form a State, but they cannot, for they have no

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

share in happiness or in a

life

of free choice.

k Nicom. Ethics,

v. 3, Â§ 4.

Nor does a

State

THE POLITICS

and security from injustice, nor and mutual intercourse for then the Tyrrhenians and the Carthaginians, and all who have commercial treaties with one another, would be the citizens of one State. True, they have agreements about imports, and engagements that they will do no wrong to one another, and written articles of alliance. But there are no magistracies comexist for the sake of alliance

yet for the sake of exchange

;

mon to the contracting parties who will enforce their engagements different States have each their own magistracies. Nor does one State take care that the citizens of the other are such as they ought to be, nor see that those who come under the terms of the treaty do no wrong or wickedness at all, but only that they do no injustice to one another. Whereas, those who care for good government take into consideration [the larger question of] virtue and vice in States. Whence it may be ;

further inferred that virtue must be the serious care of a State which truly deserves the name: for [without this ethical end] the community becomes a mere alliance which differs only in place from alliances of which the members live apart and law is only a convention, " a surety to one another of justice," as the sophist Lycophron says, and has no real power to make the citizens good and just. This is obvious for suppose distinct places, such as Corinth and Megara, to be united by a wall, still they would not be one city, not even if the citizens had the right to intermarry, which is one of the rights peculiarly characteristic of States. Again, if men dwelt at a distance from one another, but not so far off as to have no intercourse, and there were laws among them ;

;

wrong each other in their exchanges, be a State. Let us suppose that one man is a carpenter, another a husbandman, another a shoemaker, and that they should not

neither

would

this

number is ten thousand: nevertheless, they have nothing in common but exchange, alliance, and the like, that would not constitute a State. Why is this?

so on, and that their if

Surely not because they are at a distance from one another: for even supposing that such a

community were to meet in one and that each man had a house of his own, which was a manner his State, and that they made alliance with one

place, in

another, but only against evil-doers

;

still

an accurate thinker

would not deem this to be a State, if their intercourse with one another was of the same character after as before their union.

;

ARISTOTLE

68 It is clear

common

then that a State

not a mere society, having a

and for These are conditions without which a State cannot exist but all of them together do not constitute a State, which is a community of well-being in families and aggregations of families, for the sake of a perfect and selfsufficing life. Such a community can only be established among those who live in the same place and intermarry. Hence arise place, established for the prevention of crime

the sake of exchange. ;

in cities family connections, brotherhoods,

amusements which draw men together.

common

They are

sacrifices,

created by

is the motive of society. The end and these are the means towards it. And the State is the union of families and villages having for an end a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life.'

friendship, for friendship

the

good

life,

Our conclusion, then, is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. And they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed

by them

in virtue.

From what has been

said

will

be clearly seen that

all

the

partisans of different forms of government speak of a part

of justice only.

There

also a doubt as to

in the State

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

what

the multitude ?

to be the

supreme power

the wealthy ?

the

a tyrant? Any of these alternatives seems to involve disagreeable consequences. If the poor, for example, because they are more in number, divide among themselves the property of the rich is not this unjust? No, by heaven (will be the reply), for the lawful authority [i.e. the people] willed it. But if this is not injustice, pray what is? Again, when [in the first division] all has been taken, and the majority divide anew the property of the minority, is it not evident, if this goes on, that they will ruin the State? Yet surely, virtue is not the ruin of those who possess her, nor is justice destructive of a State w and thereIf it fore this law of confiscation clearly cannot be just. were, all the acts of a tyrant must of necessity be just; for

good?

the one best

man?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

N. Eth. I

7, Â§ 6.

m Cp.

Plato Rep.

i.,

351, 352.

THE POLITICS

he only coerces other men by superior power, just as the multitude coerce the rich. But is it just then that the few and the wealthy should be the rulers? And what if they, in like manner, rob and plunder the people is this just? If so, the other case [i.e. the case of the majority plundering the minority] will likewise be just. But there- can be no doubt that all

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

these things are

Then ought

wrong and

unjust.

the good to rule

and have supreme power ? But

being excluded from power, will be dishonored. For the offices of a State are posts of honor; and if one set of men always hold them, the rest must be deprived of them. Then will it be well that the one best man should rule ? Nay, that is still more oligarchical, for the number of those who are dishonored is thereby increased. Some one may say that it is bad for a man, subject as he is to all the accidents of human passion, to have the supreme power, rather than the law. But what if the law itself be democratical or oligarchical, how will that help us out of our difficulties? Not at all ; the same consequences will follow. Most of these questions may be reserved for another occasion. The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is capable of a satisfactory explanation, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry for some understand one part, and some another, and among them, they understand the whole. There is a similar combination of qualities in good men, who differ from any individual of the many, as the beautiful are said to differ from those who are not beautiful, and works of art from realities, because in them the scattered elements are combined, although, if taken separately, the eye of one person or some other feature in another person would be fairer than in the picture. Whether this principle in that case

everybody

else,

;

— ;

ARISTOTLE

can apply to every democracy, and to all bodies of men, is not Or rather, by heaven, in some cases it is impossible of clear. application for the argument would equally hold about brutes and wherein, it will be asked, do some men differ from brutes ? But there may be bodies of men about whom our statement And if so, the difficulty which has been is nevertheless true. already raised, and also another which is akin to it viz., what power should be assigned to the mass of freemen and citizens, who are not rich and have no personal merit are both solved. There is still a danger in allowing them to share the great ;

—

them into error, and But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a State in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates to account, but they do not allow them to hold office single. When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the State (just as impure food when mixed with what is pure sometimes makes the entire mass more wholesome than a small quantity of the pure would be), but each individual, left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment. On the other hand, the popular form of government involves certain difficulties. In the first place, it might be objected that he who can judge of the healing of the sick man would be one who could himself heal his disease, and make him whole that is, in other words, the physician and so in all professions and arts. As, then, the physician ought to be called to account by physicians, so ought men in general to be called to account by their peers. But physicians are of three kinds there is the apothecary, and there is the physician of the higher class, and offices

of State, for their folly will lead

their dishonesty into crime.

;

—

man who has studied the art: in all and we attribute the power of judgmuch as to professors of the art. Now,

thirdly the intelligent

arts there is such a class

;

ing to them quite as does not the same principle apply to elections? For a right election can only be made by those who have knowledge; a geometrician, for example, will choose rightly in matters of geometry, or a pilot in matters of steering; and, even if there be some occupations and arts with which private persons are

THE POLITICS familiar, they certainly cannot

judge better than those

who

according to this argument, neither the election of magistrates, nor the calling of them to account, should be intrusted to the many. Yet possibly these objections are to a great extent met by our old answer, that if the people are not utterly degraded, although individually they may be

know.

that,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

worse judges than those who have special knowledge as a body they are as good or better. Moreover, there are some artists whose works are judged of solely, or in the best manner, not by themselves, but by those who do not possess the art; for example, the knowledge of the house is not limited to the builder only; the user, or, in other words, the master, of the

house will even be a better judge than the builder, just as the pilot will judge better of a rudder than the carpenter, and the guest will judge better of a feast than the cook.

seems now to be sufficiently answered, but another akin to it. That inferior persons should have authority in greater matters than the good would appear to be a strange thing, yet the election and calling to account of the magistrates is the greatest of all. And these, as I was saying, are functions which in some States are assigned to the people, for the assembly is supreme in all such matters. Yet persons of any age, and having but a small property qualification, sit in the Assembly and deliberate and judge, although for the great officers of State, such as controllers and generals, a high qualification is required. This difficulty may be solved in the same manner as the preceding, and the present practice of democracies may be really defensible. For the power does not reside in the dicast, or Senator, or ecclesiast, but in the court and the Senate, and the Assembly, of which individual Senators, or ecclesiasts, or dicasts, are only parts or members. And for this reason the many may claim to have a higher authority than the few for the people, and the Senate, and the This

there

difficulty

;

many

persons, and their property collectively greater than the property of one or of a few individuals holding great offices. But enough of this.

courts consist of is

The

discussion of the

as that laws,

first

question shows nothing so clearly

when good, should be supreme; and

that the magistrate or magistrates should regulate those matters only on which the laws are unable to speak with precision owing to the difficulty of any general principle embracing all particu-

ARISTOTLE

72 lars.w

plained

But what are good laws has not yet been ;

clearly ex-

The goodness or

the old difficulty remains.

badness,

justice or injustice, of laws is of necessity relative to the

But if so, true forms of government have just laws, and perverted forms of government will have unjust laws. In all sciences and arts the end is a good, and especially and above all in the highest of all o this is the political science of which the good is justice, in other words, the common inAll men think justice to be a sort of equality; and terest. to a certain extent they agree in the philosophical distinctions which have been laid down by us about ethics.P For they admit that justice is a thing having relation to persons, and that equals ought to have equality. But there still remains a constitutions of States.

will of necessity

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

question equality or inequality of what ? here is a difficulty which the political philosopher has to resolve. For very likely some persons will say that offices of State ought to be unequally distributed according to superior excellence, in whatever respect, of the citizen, although there is no other difference between him and the rest of the community; for that those w"ho differ in any one respect have different rights and claims. But, surely, if this is true, the complexion or height of a man, or any other advantage, will be a reason for his obtaining a greater share of political rights. The error here lies upon the surface, and may be illustrated from the other When a number of flute-players are equal arts and sciences. in their art, there is no reason why those of them who are for they better born should have better flutes given to them will not play any better on the flute, and the superior instrument should be reserved for him who is the superior artist. If what I am saying is still obscure, it will be made celarer as we proceed. For if there were a superior flute-player who was far inferior in birth and beauty, although either of these may be a greater good than the art of flute-playing, and persons ;

;

gifted with these qualities

may

excel the flute-player in a

greater ratio than he excels them in his art,

still he ought to have the best flutes given to him, unless the advantages of wealth and birth contribute to excellence in flute-playing, which they do not. Moreover upon this principle any good may be compared with any other. For if a given height, then height

n Cp. N. Eth.

v. 10,

84-

o N. Eth.

Â§

p Cp. N. Eth.

v. z.

;

THE POLITICS

may be measured either against height or against freedom. Thus if excels in height more than B in virtue, and height in general is more excellent than virtue, all things for if a certain will be commensurable [which is absurd] magnitude is greater than some other, it is clear that some other will be equal. But since no such comparison can be in general

;

made, it is evident that there is good reason why in politics men do not ground their claim to office on every sort of inequality any more than in the arts. For if some be slow, and others swift, that is no reason why the one should have little and the others much; it is in gymnastic contests that such excellence

rewarded.

Whereas the

rival claims of candi-

dates for office can only be based on the possession of ele-

ments which enter into the composition of a State [such as

And therefore the noble, or free-born, with good reason claim office; for holders of offices must be freemen and taxpayers: a State can be no more composed entirely of poor men than entirely of slaves. But if wealth and freedom are necessary elements, justice and valor are equally so; for without the former a State cannot exist at all, without the latter not well. If the existence of the State is alone to be considered, then it would seem that all, or some at least, of these claims are just but, if we take into account a good life, as I have already said, education and virtue have superior claims. As, however, those who are equal in one thing ought not to be equal in all, nor those who are unequal in one thing to be unequal in all, it is certain that all forms of government which rest on either of these principles are perversions. All men have a claim in a certain sense, as I have already admitted, but they have not an absolute claim. The rich claim because they have a greater share in the land, and land is the common element of the State The also they are generally more trustworthy in contracts. free claim under the same title as the noble; for they are nearly akin. And the noble are citizens in a truer sense than the ignoble, since good birth is always valued in a man's own home and country. Another reason is, that those who are sprung from better ancestors are likely to be better men, for nobility is excellence of race. Virtue, too, may be truly said to have a claim, for justice has been acknowledged by us to be a social virtue, and it implies all others.? Again, the many wealth, virtue, etc.].

or rich,

may

;

g Cp. N. Eth.

v. i, ยง is.

ARISTOTLE

urge their claim against the few for, when taken collectively, and compared with the few, they are stronger and richer and But, what if the good, the rich, the noble, and the better. other classes who make up a State, are all living together in the same city, will there, or will there not, be any doubt who No doubt at all in determining who ought to rule shall rule ? above-mentioned forms of government. For the of each in States are characterized by differences in their governing bodies one of them has a government of the rich, another of the virtuous, and so on. But a difficulty arises when all these elements coexist. How are we to decide? Suppose the virtuous to be very few in number; may we consider their numbers in relation to their duties, and ask whether they are enough to administer a State, or must they be so many as will make up a State? Objections may be urged against all the aspirants to political power. For those who found their claims on wealth or family have no basis of justice on this principle, if any one person were richer than all the rest, it is clear that he ought to be the ruler of them. In like manner he who is very distinguished by his birth ought to have the superiority over all those who claim on the ground that they are freeborn. In an aristocracy, or government of the best, a like difficulty ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

occurs about virtue

;

for

one citizen be better than the other

members of the government, however good they may be, he too, upon the same principle of justice, should rule over them. And if the people are to be supreme because they are stronger than the few, then if one man, or more than one, but not a majority, is stronger than the many, they ought to rule, and not the many. All these considerations appear to principles

on which men claim to

show

rule,

that none of the and hold all other

in subjection to them, are strictly right. To those who claim to be masters of the State on the ground of their virtue

men

or their wealth, the

many might

selves are often better

fairly answer that they themand richer than the few I do not say

individually, but collectively.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

And

another ingenious objection which is sometimes put forward may be met in a similar manner. Some persons doubt whether the legislator who de^ sires to make the justest laws ought to legislate with a view to the good of the higher classes or of the many, when the case which

we have mentioned occurs

[i.e.

when

all

the ele-

THE POLITICS

Now what is just or right is to be interpreted sense of " what is equal " and that which is right in the sense of being equal is to be considered with reference to

ments coexist]. in die

;

the advantage of the State, and the

And

common good

of the

citi-

one who shares in governing and being governed. He differs under different forms of government, but in the best State he is one who is able and willing to be governed and to govern with a view to the life of virtue. If, however, there be some one person, or more than one, although not enough to make up the full complement of a State, whose virtue is so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political power of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of a State; for justice will not be done to the superior, if he is reckoned only as the equal of those who are so far inferior to him in virtue and in political power. Such a one may truly be deemed a god among men. Hence we see that legislation is necessarily concerned only with those who are equal in birth and in power; and that for men of pre-eminent virtue there is no law they are themselves a law. Anyone would be ridiculous who attempted to make laws for them: they would probably retort what, in the fable of Antisthenes, the lions said to the hares ["where are your claws?"], when in the council of the beasts the latter began haranguing and claiming equality for all. And for this reason democratic States have instituted ostracism equality is above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracise and banish from the city for a time those who seem to predominate too much through their wealth, or the number of their friends, or through any other political influence. Mythology tells us that the Argonauts left Heracles behind for a similar reason the ship Argo would not take him because she feared that he would have been too much for the rest of the crew. Wherefore those who denounce tyranny and blame the counsel which Periander gave to Thrasybulus cannot be held altogether just in their censure. The story is that Periander, when the herald was sent to ask counsel of him, said nothing, but only cut off the tallest ears of corn till he had brought the field to a level. The herald did not know the meaning of the action, but came and reported what he had seen to Thrasybulus, who understood that he was to cut off and this is a policy not only the principal men in the State zens.

a citizen

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

ARISTOTLE

expedient for tyrants or in practice confined to them, but equally necessary in oligarchies and democracies. Ostracism acts by disabling and is a measure of the same kind, which Great powers do the citizens. prominent banishing the most to whole cities and nations, as the Athenians did to the Samians, Chians, and Lesbians ; no sooner had they obtained a firm grasp of the empire, than they humbled their allies contrary to treaty ; and the Persian king has repeatedly crushed the Medes, Babylonians, and other nations when their spirit has been stirred by the recollection of their former greatness. The problem is a universal one, and equally concerns all forms of government, true as well as false ; for, although per-

same

verted forms with a view to their own interests may adopt this policy, those which seek the common interest do so like-

The same thing may be observed

wise.

and sciences have a foot which, proportion, nor will the shipin the arts

for the painter will not allow the figure to

however

beautiful,

not in

builder allow the stern or any other part of the vessel to be

unduly large, any more than the chorus-master will allow anyone who sings louder or better than all the rest to sing in the choir. Monarchs, too, may practise compulsion and still live in harmony with their cities, if their government is for the interest of the State. Hence where there is an acknowledged superiority the argument in favor of ostracism is based upon a kind of political justice. It would certainly be better that the legislator should from the first so order his State as to have no need of such a remedy. But if the need arises, the next best thing is that he should endeavor to correct the evil by this or some similar measure. The principle, however, has not been fairly applied in States for, instead of looking to the public good, they have used ostracism for factious purposes. It is true that under perverted forms of government, and from their special point of view, such a measure is just and expedient, but it is also clear that it is not absolutely just. In the perfect State there would be great doubts about the use of it, not ;

when like,

applied to excess in strength, wealth, popularity, or the

but

when used

against someone

who

pre-eminent in will not say that such a one is to be expelled and exiled; on the other hand, he ought not to be a subject that would be as if in the division of the empire of the gods the other gods should

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;what

virtue

to be done with

him?

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Mankind

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; THE POLITICS

claim to rule over Zeus. The only alternative is that all should joyfully obey such a ruler, according to what seems to be the order of nature, and that men like him should be kings in their State for

life.

The preceding

discussion, by a natural transition, leads to

we admit to be one of the Let us see whether in order to be well governed a State or country should be under the rule of a king or under some other form of government; and whether monarchy, although good for some, may not be bad for others. But first we must determine whether there is one the consideration of royalty, which true forms of government.

species of royalty or many. It is easy to see that there are many, and that the manner of government is not the same in all

of them.

royalties according to law, the Lacedaemonian is thought answer best to the true pattern, but there the royal power is not absolute except when the kings go on an expedition, and then they take the command. Matters of religion are likewise committed to them. The kingly office is in truth a kind of generalship, irresponsible and perpetual. The King has not the power of life and death, except when upon a campaign and in the field; after the manner of the ancients which is described in Homer. For Agamemnon is patient when he is attacked in the Assembly, but when the army goes out to battle he has the power even of life and death. Does he not say ? " When I find a man skulking apart from the battle, nothing shall save him from the dogs and vultures, for in my hands

is death."**

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

This, then, is one form of royalty a generalship for life: and of such royalties some are hereditary and others elective. (2) There is another sort of monarchy not uncommon among the barbarians, which nearly resembles tyranny. But even this is legal and hereditary. For barbarians, being more servile in character than Hellenes, and Asiatics than Europeans, do not rebel against a despotic government. Such royalties have the nature of tyrannies because the people are by nature slaves but there is no danger of their being overthrown, for they are hereditary and legal. Wherefore also their guards are such as a king and not such a tyrant would ;

rll.

ii.

391-393.

ARISTOTLE

employ, that is to say, they are composed of citizens, whereas the guards of tyrants are mercenaries. For kings rule according to law over voluntary subjects, but tyrants over involuntary; and the one are guarded by their fellow-citizens, the others are guarded against them.

These are two forms of monarchy, and there was a third (3) which existed in ancient Hellas, called an cesymnetia or This may be defined generally as an elective dictatorship. tyranny, which, like the barbarian monarchy, is legal, but differs from it in not being hereditary. Sometimes the office is held for life, sometimes for a term of years, or until certain duties have been performed. For example, the Mitylenseans elected Pittacus leader against the exiles, who were headed by Antimenides and Alcaeus the poet. And Alcaeus himself says in one of his irregular songs,* " They chose Pittacus tyrant," and he reproaches his fellow-citizens for " having made the lowborn Pittacus tyrant of the spiritless and ill-fated city, with one voice shouting his praises." These forms of government have always had the character of despotism, because they possess tyrannical power, but inasmuch as they are elective and acquiesced in by their subjects,

they are kingly.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

(4) There is a fourth species of kingly rule that of the heroic timesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; which was hereditary and legal, and was exer-

For the first chiefs were benearms; they either gathered them into a community, or procured land for them and thus they became kings of voluntary subjects, and their power was inherited by their descendants. They took the command in war and presided over the sacrifices, except those which recised over willing subjects.

factors of the people in arts or

;

quired a priest.

out an oath

;

They

also decided causes either with or with-

and when they swore, the form of the oath was

the stretching out of their sceptre.

power extended

In ancient times their

to all things whatsoever, in city

as well as in foreign parts

and country,

but at a later date they relinquished several of these privileges, and others the people took from them, until in some States nothing was left to them but the sacrifices; and where they retained more of the reality they had only the right of leadership in war beyond the border. These, then, are the four kinds of royalty. First the mon;

s Or, " banquet-odes."

THE POLITICS

archy of the heroic ages; this was exercised over voluntary subjects, but limited to certain functions; the king was a general and a judge, and had the control of religion. The second is that of the barbarians, which is an hereditary despotic government in accordance with law. third is the power of the so-called cesymnete or dictator; this is an elecThe fourth is the Lacedaemonian, which is in tive tyranny. fact a generalship, hereditary and perpetual. These four forms differ from one another in the manner which I have described. There is a fifth form of kingly rule in which one has the disposal of all, just as each tribe or each State has the disposal of the public property; this form corresponds to the control of a household. For as household management is the kingly rule of a house, so kingly rule is the household management of a city, or of a nation, or of many nations. Of these forms we need only consider two, the Lacedae-

monian and the absolute royalty; for most of the others lie in a region between them, having less power than the last, and more than the first. Thus the inquiry is reduced to two points advantageous to the State that there should be a if so, should the office be confined tq{ one family, or open to the citizens in turn? Secondly, is it well that a single man should have the supreme power in all things? The first question falls under the head of laws rather than of constitutions for perpetual generalship might equally exist under any form of government, so that this matter may be dismissed for the present. The other kind of royalty is a this we have now to consider, and briefly sort of constitution to run over the difficulties involved in it. We will begin by inquiring whether it is more advantageous to be ruled by the best man or by the best laws.' The advocates of royalty maintain that the laws speak only in general terms, and cannot provide for circumstances; and that for any science to abide by written rules is absurd. Even in Egypt the physician is allowed to alter his treatment after the fourth day, but if sooner, he takes the risk. Hence it is argued that a government acting according to written laws is plainly not the best. Yet surely the ruler cannot dispense with the general principle which exists in law; and he is a better ruler who is free from passion than he who is pasfirst,

perpetual general, and

;

Cp. Plato, Polit. pp. 293-295.

ARISTOTLE

Whereas the law is passionless, passion must ever sway the heart of man. Yes, some one will answer, but then on the other hand an

sionate.

individual will be better able to advise in particular cases. [To whom we in turn make reply :] There must be a legislator, call him a king or not, and laws must be passed, but these laws will have no authority when they miss the mark, [Yet a though in all other cases retaining their authority.

whether you

When the law cannot deter:] or not well, should the one best man or According to our present practice assem-

further question remains behind

mine a point at should blies

all

decide?

meet,

judgments

all,

sit

judgment, deliberate and decide, and their to individual cases. Now any member of

all relate

the assembly, taken separately,

certainly inferior to the wise

But the State is made up of many individuals. And as a feast to which all the guests contribute is better than a banquet furnished by a single man, so a multitude is a better judge of many things than any individual. Again, the many are more incorruptible than the few they are like the greater quantity of water which is less easily corrupted than a little. The individual is liable to be overcome by anger or by some other passion, and then his judgment is necesman.

;

sarily perverted;

but

it is

hardly to be supposed that a great

number of persons would all get into a passion and go wrong at the same moment. Let us assume that they are freemen, never acting in violation of the law, but filling up the gaps which the law is obliged to leave. Or, if such virtue is scarcely attainable by the multitude, we need only suppose that the majority are good men and good citizens, and ask which will be the more incorruptible, the one good ruler, or the many who are all good? Will not the many? But, you will say, there may be parties among them, whereas the one man is not divided against himself. To which we may answer that their character is as good as his. If we call the rule of many men, who are all of them good, aristocracy, and the rule of one man royalty, then aristocracy will be better for States than royalty, whether the government is supported by force or not, provided only that a can be found.

The

first

number of men equal

in virtue

governments were kingships, probably for this when cities were small, men of eminent

reason, because of old,

;

THE POLITICS virtue were few.

They were made kings because they were good men.

benefactors, and benefits can only be bestowed by

But when many persons equal

in merit arose,

no longer en-

during the pre-eminence of one, they desired to have a commonwealth, and set up a constitution. The ruling class soon deteriorated and enriched themselves out of the public treasury; riches became the path to honor, and so oligarchies naturally grew up. These passed into tyrannies and tyrannies into democracies; for love of gain in the ruling classes was always tending to diminish their number, and so to strengthen the masses, who in the end set upon their masters and established democracies. Since cities have increased in size, no other form of government appears to be any longer possible. Even supposing the principle to be maintained that kingly power is the best thing for States, how about the family of the King? Are his children to succeed him? If they are no better than anybody else, that will be mischievous. But [says the lover of royalty] the King though he might, will not hand on his power to his children. That, however, is hardly to be expected, and is too much to ask of human nature. There is also a difficulty about the force which he is to employ should a King have guards about him by whose aid he may be able to coerce the refractory? but if not, how will he administer his kingdom ? Even if he be the lawful sovereign who does nothing arbitrarily or contrary to law, still he must have some force wherewith to maintain the law. In the case of a limited monarchy there is not much difficulty in answering this question â&#x20AC;˘the king must have such force as will be more than a match for one or more individuals, but not so great as that of the people. The ancients observed this principle when they gave the guards to anyone whom they appointed dictator or tyrant. Thus, when Dionysius asked the Syracusans to allow him guards, somebody advised that they should give him only a certain number. ;

this

place in the discussion naturally follows the in-

King who acts solely according to his own he has now to be considered. The so-called limited monarchy, or kingship according to law, as I have already remarked, is not a distinct form of government, for under all governments, as, for example, in a democracy or aristocracy, there may be a general holding office for life, and one person quiry respecting the will

;

(

;

ARISTOTLE

g2 is

often

made supreme over

the administration of a State.

magistracy of this kind exists at

Epidamnus, and also

Opus,

but in the latter city has a more limited power. Now, absolute monarchy, or the arbitrary rule of a sovereign over all the citizens, in a city which consists of equals, is thought by to be quite contrary to nature; it is argued that those are by nature equals must have the same natural right and worth, and that for unequals to have an equal share, or for equals to have an unequal share, in the offices of state,

some

who

as bad as for different bodily constitutions to have the

same

Wherefore it is food and clothing or the same different. thought to be just that among equals everyone be ruled as thus well as rule, and that all should have their turn. And arrive at law; for an order of succession implies law. the rule of the law is preferable to that of any individual. On

the

same

principle,

even

be better for certain individuals

if it

to govern, they should be

made only guardians and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ministers

For magistrates there must be this is admitted but then men say that to give authority to any one man when There may indeed be cases which the all are equal is unjust. of the law.

law seems unable to determine, but in such cases can a man? Nay, it will be replied, the law trains officers for this express purpose, and appoints them to determine matters which are left undecided by it to the best of their judgment. Further it permits them to make any amendment of the existing laws which experience suggests. [But still they are only the ministers of the law.] He who bids the law rule, may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire. We are told that a patient should call in a physician he will not get better if he is doctored out of a book. But the parallel of the arts is clearly not in point for the physician does nothing contrary to reason from motives of friendship he only cures a patient and takes a fee whereas magistrates do many things from spite and partiality. And, indeed, if a man suspected the physician of being in league with his enemies to destroy him for a bribe, he would rather have recourse to the book. ;

;

Even physicians when they are sick, and training-masters when they are

call in

other physicians,

in training, other train-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

THE POLITICS ing-masters, as case

they could not judge truly about their

and might be influenced by

their feelings.

evident that in seeking for justice

men

seek for

own

Hence it is the mean or

and the law is the mean. Again, customary laws have more weight, and relate to more important matters, than written laws, and a man may be a safer ruler than the written law, but not safer than the customary law. Again, it is by no means easy for one man to superintend many things he will have to appoint a number of subordinates, and what difference does it make whether these subordinates always existed or were appointed by him because he needed them ? If, as I said before, the good man has a right to rule because he is better, then two good men are better than one: neutral,"

;

this is the old

saying

"two going

together ;"v

and the prayer of Agamemnon "would

And

that I

had ten such counsellors

day there are some magistrates, for example authority to decide matters which the law is unable to determine, since no one doubts that the law would command and decide in the best manner whatever it could. But some things can, and other things cannot, be comprehended under the law, and this is the origin of the vexed question whether the best law or the best man should rule. For matters of detail about which men deliberate cannot be included in legislation. Nor does anyone deny that the decision of such matters must be left to man, but it is argued that there should be many judges, and not one only. For every ruler who has been trained by the law judges well; and it would surely seem strange that a person should see better at this

judges,

who have

with two eyes, or hear better with two ears, or act better with two hands or feet, than many with many indeed, it is already the practice of kings to make to themselves many eyes and ears and hands and feet. For they make colleagues of those who are the friends of themselves and their governments. They must be friends of the monarch and of his government; if not his friends, they will not do what he wants but friendship implies likeness and equality and, therefore, if he thinks that ;

;

u Cp. N. Eth.

v. 4, 5 7.

II.

x. 224.

w Ibid.

ii.

372.

ARISTOTLE

must think that those who are equal ought to rule. These are the princihimself like and himself to pal controversies relating to monarchy. But may not all this be true in some cases and not in others ? friends ought to rule, he

for there is a natural justice and expediency in the relation of a master to his servants, or, again, of a King to his subjects, as also in the relation of free citizens to one another; whereas there is no such justice or expediency in a tyranny, or in any other perverted form of government, which comes into being contrary to nature.

Now, from what

has been said,

manifest that, where men are alike and equal, it is neither expedient nor just that one man should be lord of all, whether there are laws, or whether there are no laws, but he himself Neither should a good man be lord over is in the place of law. it is

good men, or a bad man over bad

nor, even if he excels in he have a right to rule, unless in a particular case, which I have already mentioned, and to which I will once more recur. But first of all, I must determine what natures are suited for royalties, and what for an aristocracy, and what for a constitutional government. A people who are by nature capable of producing a race ;

virtue, should

superior in virtue and political talent are fitted for kingly government; and a people submitting to be ruled as freemen by men whose virtue renders them capable of political command are adapted for an aristocracy: while the people who are suited for constitutional freedom, are those

among whom

there naturally exists a warlike multitude able to rule and to obey in turn by a law which gives office to the well-to-do ac-

cording to their desert. But when a whole family, or some individual, happens to be so pre-eminent in virtue as to surpass all others, then it is just that they should be the royal family and supreme over all, or that this one citizen should be king of the whole nation. For, as I said before, to give them authority is not only agreeable to that ground of right which the founders of all States, whether aristocratical, or oligarchical, or again democratical, are accustomed to put for-

ward

(for these all recognize the claim of excellence, although not the same excellence) but accords with the principle already laid down. For it would not be right to kill, or ostracise, or exile such a person, or require that he should take his turn in being governed. The whole is naturally superior to the ;

THE POLITICS

and he who has this pre-eminence is in the relation of But if so, the only alternative is that he whole to a part. a should have the supreme power, and that mankind should obey him, not in turn, but always. These are the conclusions at which we arrive respecting royalty and its various forms, and this is the answer to the question, whether it is or is not advantageous to States, and to whom, and how. We maintain that the true forms of government are three, and that the best must be that which is administered by the best, arid in which there is one man, or a whole family, or many persons, excelling in virtue, and both rulers and subjects are fitted, the one to rule, the others to be ruled, in such a manner as to attain the most eligible life. We showed at the commencement of our inquiry that the virtue of the good man is necessarily the same as the virtue of the citizen of the perfect State. Clearly then in the same manner, and by the same means through which a man becomes truly good, he will frame a State [which will be truly good] whether aristocratical, or under kingly rule, and the same education and the same habits will be found to make a good man and a good statesman and King. Having arrived at these conclusions, we must proceed to speak of the perfect State, and describe how it comes into being and is established. part,

;

BOOK

all

arts

subject,

and sciences which embrace the whole of any and are not restricted to a part only, it is the

province of a single art or science to consider all that For example, the art of gymnastic considers not only the suitableness of different modes appertains to a single subject.

of training to different bodies (2), but what sort is absolutely (for the absolutely best must suit that which ( 1 )

the best

;

by nature best and best furnished with the means of life), and also what common form of training is adapted to the great majority of men (4). And if a man does not desire the best habit of body or the greatest skill in gymnastics, which might be attained by him, still the trainer or the teacher of gymnastic should be able to impart any lower degree of either (3). The same principle equally holds in medicine and shipbuilding, and the making of clothes, and in the arts generally. Hence it is obvious that government too is the subject of a single science, which has to consider what kind of government would be best and most in accordance with our aspirations, if there were no external impediment, and also what kind of government is adapted to particular States. For the best is often unattainable, and therefore the true legislator and statesman ought to be acquainted, not only with ( 1 ) that which is best in the abstract, but also with (2) that which is best is

relatively to circumstances.

how

a State

may

should be able further to say be constiuted under any given conditions (3)

both how it is originally formed and, when formed, how it may be longest preserved; the supposed State being so far

from the very best that

unprovided even with the conneither is it the best under

ditions necessary for the very best

;

the circumstances, but of an inferior type.

He which

ought, moreover, to is

know

(4) the form of government

best suited to States in general

;

for political writers,

although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical. should consider, not only what form of government is best, 86

THE POLITICS

is possible and what is easily attainable by all. There are some who would have none but the most perfect;

but also what

for this many natural advantages are required. Others, again, speak of a more attainable form, and, although they reject the constitution under which they are living, they extol some one in particular, for example the Lacedaemonian. Any change of government which has to be introduced should be one which men will be both willing and able to adopt, since there is quite as much trouble in the reformation of an old constitution as in the establishment of a new one, just as to unlearn is as hard

as to learn.

And

therefore, in addition to the qualifications

of the statesman already mentioned, he should be able to find remedies for the defects of existing constitutions. This he

cannot do unless he knows how many forms of a government there are. It is often supposed that there is only one kind of democracy and one of oligarchy. But this is a mistake and, in order to avoid such mistakes, we must ascertain what dif;

ferences there are in the constitutions of States, and in

many ways

The same

they are combined.

political

how

insight

will enable a man to know which laws are the best, and which are suited to different constitutions; for the laws are, and ought to be, relative to the constitution, and not the constitu-

tion to the laws.

constitution

the organization of offices

and determines what is to be the governing body, and what is the end of each community. But laws are not to be confounded with the principles of the constitution: they are the rules according to which the magistrates should administer the State, and proceed against offenders. So that we must know the number and varieties of the several forms of government, if only with a view to making laws. For the same laws cannot be equally suited to all oligarchies and to all democracies, and there is certainly more than one form both of democracy and of oligarchy. In our original discussion a about governments we divided them into three true forms kingly rule, aristocracy, and constitutional government, and three corresponding perversions tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. Of kingly rule and of aristocracy we have already spoken, for the inquiry into the perfect State is the same thing with the discussion of the two forms thus named, since both imply a principle of virtue proin a State,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

a N. Eth.

viii.

10.

ARISTOTLE

have already determined in vided with external means. what aristocracy and kingly rule differ from one another, and when the latter should be established. In what follows we have to describe the so-called constitutional government, which bears the common name of all constitutions, and the other forms, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. It is obvious which of the three perversions is the worst, and which is the next in badness. That which is the perversion of the

first

and most divine

necessarily the worst.

And

just

as a royal rule, if not a mere name, must exist by virtue of some great personal superiority in the king, so tyranny, which is

the worst of governments, well-constituted

moved from a ter,

but a long way from

necessarily the farthest re-

form

;

oligarchy

aristocracy,

little

and democracy

bet-

the

most tolerable of the three. A writer b who preceded me has already made these disFor tinctions, but his point of view is not the same as mine. he lays down the principle that of all good constitutions (under which he would include a virtuous oligarchy and the like) democracy is the worst, but the best of bad ones. Whereas we maintain that they are all defective, and that one oligarchy is not to be accounted better than another, but only less bad. Not to pursue this question further at present, let us begin by determining (i) how many varieties of States there are (since of democracy and oligarchy there are several) ; (2) what constitution

the most generally acceptable, and what

is eligible

next degree after the perfect or any other aristocratical and well-constituted form of government if any other there be which is at the same time adapted to States in general (3) of the other forms of government to whom is each suited. For democracy may meet the needs of some better than oligarchy, and conversely. In the next place (4) we have to consider in what manner a man ought to proceed who desires to establish some one among these various forms, whether of democracy or of oligarchy and lastly, (5) having briefly discussed these subjects to the best of our power, we will endeavor to ascertain whence arise the ruin and preservation of States, both generally and in individual cases, and to what causes they are to be in the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

attributed.

The reason why

there are

many forms

b Plato, Pol it.

303 a.

of government

that

THE POLITICS many made up

every State contains that

all

States are

citizens there

In the first place we see of families, and in the multitude of

elements.

must be some

middle condition

;

rich

and some poor, and some

in a

the rich are heavy-armed, and the poor not.

common

people,

and some

artisans.

some are husbandmen, and some There are also among the notables differences of wealth and property for example, in the number of horses which they keep, for they cannot afford to keep them the

traders,

unless they are rich.

whose strength

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

And

therefore in old times the cities

lay in their cavalry

were oligarchies, and they

used cavalry in wars against their neighbors

as was the pracof the Eretrians and Chalcidians, and also of the Magnesians on the river Maeander, and of other peoples in Asia. Be;

tice

sides differences of wealth there are differences of rank

and and there are some other elements which were mentioned by us when in treating of aristocracy we enumerated the essentials of a State. Of these elements, sometimes all, sometimes the lesser and sometimes the greater number, have a share in the government. It is evident then that there must be many forms of government, differing in kind, since the parts of which they are composed differ from each other in kind. For a constitution is an organization of offices which all the citizens distribute among themselves, according to the power which different classes possess, for example the rich or the poor, or according to some principle of compensation which includes both. There must therefore be as many forms of government as there are modes of arranging the offices, according to the superiorities and other inequalities of the different parts merit,

of the State. There are generally thought to be two principal forms as men say of the winds that there are but two north and south, and that the rest of them are only variations of these, so of :

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

governments there are said to be only two forms democracy and oligarchy. For aristocracy is considered to be a kind of oligarchy, as being the rule of a few, and the so-called constitutional government to be really a democracy, just as among the winds we make the west a variation of the north, and the east of the south wind.

two

Similarly of harmonies there are said

and the Phrygian the other arrangements of the scale are comprehended under one of these two. About forms of government this is a very favorite notion. to be

kinds, the Dorian

;

ARISTOTLE

But in either case the better and more exact way is to distinguish, as I have done, the one or two which are true forms, and to regard the others as perversions, whether of the most perfectly attempered harmony or of the best form of government: we may compare the oligarchical forms to the severer and more overpowering modes, and the democratic to the more relaxed and gentler ones. It must not be assumed, as some are fond of saying, that democracy is simply that form of government in which the greater number are sovereign, for in oligarchies, and indeed nor again is oligarchy in every government, the majority rules that form of government in which a few are sovereign. Suppose the whole population of a city to be 1,300, and that of these 1,000 are rich, and do not allow the remaining 300 who ;

are poor, but free,

and

in all other respects their equals, a

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;no

share of the government

mocracy. of the rich

In like manner,

who outnumber

one will say that

this is

a de-

the poor were few and the masters

them, no one would ever

call

such

a government, in which the rich majority have no share of

Therefore we should rather say that office, an oligarchy. democracy is the form of government in which the free are it is only an accident rulers, and oligarchy in which the rich that the free are the many and the rich are the few. Otherwise a government in which the offices were given according ;

to stature, as

it is

said to be the case in Ethiopia, or according

would be an oligarchy; for the number of tall or good-looking men is small. And yet oligarchy and democracy are not sufficiently distinguished merely by these two characBoth of them contain many teristics of wealth and freedom. other elements, and therefore we must carry our analysis further, and say that the government is not a democracy in which the freemen, being few in number, rule over the many who are not free, as at Apollonia, on the Ionian Gulf, and at Thera ( for in each of these States the nobles, who were also the earliest settlers, were held in chief honor, although they were but a few out of many). Neither is it a democracy when the rich have the government, because they exceed in number as was the case formerly at Colophon, where the bulk of the inhabitants were possessed of large property before the Lydian War. But the form of government is a democracy when the free, who are also poor and the majority, govern, and oligarchy to beauty,

;

THE POLITICS when

the rich and the noble govern, they being at the

same

time few in number. I have said that there are many forms of government, and have explained to what causes the variety is due. Why there are more than those already mentioned, and what they are, and whence they arise, I will now proceed to consider, starting from the principle already admitted, which is that every State consists, not of one, but of many parts. If we were going to speak of the different species of animals, we should first of all determine the organs which are indispensable to every animal, as for example some organs of sense and instruments of receiving and digesting food, such as the mouth and the stomach, besides organs of locomotion. Assuming now that there are only so many kinds of organs, but that there may be differences in them I mean different kinds of mouths, and stomachs, and perceptive and locomotive organs the possible combinations

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

of these differences will necessarily furnish

many

varieties of

(For animals cannot be the same which have different kinds of mouths or of ears.) And when all the combinaanimals.

tions are exhausted, there will be as

many

sorts of animals as

there are combinations of the necessary organs. In like

manner

the forms of government which have been described, as I have repeatedly said, are composed, not of one, but of many elements.

One

element

the food-producing class,

who

are

husbandmen; a second, the class of mechanics, who practise the arts without which a city cannot exist; of these arts some are absolutely necessary, others contribute to luxury or to the grace of life. The third class is that of traders, and by traders I mean those who are engaged in buying and selling, whether in commerce or in retail trade. A fourth class is that of the serfs or laborers. The warriors make up the fifth class, and they are as necessary as any of the others, if the country is not to be the slave of every invader. For how can a State which has any title to the name be of a slavish nature ? The State is independent and self-sufficing, but a slave is the reverse of independent. Hence we see that this subject, though ingeniously, has not been satisfactorily treated in the Republic.'^ Socrates says that a State is made up of four called

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

who are absolutely necessary; these are a weaver, a husbandman, a shoemaker, and a builder; after-

sorts of people

cRep.

ii.

369.

;

ARISTOTLE

wards, finding that they are not enough, he adds a smith, and again a herdsman, to look after the necessary animals; then a merchant and then a retail trader. All these together form the complement of the first State,' as if a State were established merely to supply the necessaries of life, rather than for the sake of the good, or stood equally in need of shoemakers and of husbandmen. But he does not admit into the State a military class until the country has increased in size, and is be;

ginning to encroach on its neighbor's land, whereupon they Yet even amongst his four original citizens, or to war. whatever be the number of those whom he associates in the State, there must be some one who will dispense justice and determine what is just. And as the soul may be said to be more truly part of an animal than the body, so the higher parts of States, that is to say, the warrior class, the class engaged

in the administration of justice,

the special business of political essential to the State

necessaries of

life.

and

in deliberation,

common

sense

which

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;these are more

than the parts which minister to the

Whether

their several functions are the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

same for it may often happen that the same persons are both warriors and husbandmen is immaterial to the argument. The higher as well as the lower elements are to be equally considered parts of the State, and if so, the military element must be included. There are also the wealthy who minister to the State with their property; these form the seventh class. The eighth class is that of magistrates and of officers for the State cannot exist without rulers. And therefore some must be able to take office and to serve the State, either always or in turn. There only remains the class of those who deliberate and who judge between disputants we were just now distinguishing them. If the fair and equitable organization of all these elements is necessary to States, then there must also be persons who have functions of different citizens, or of the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

Many

the ability of statesmen.

are of opinion that different

same individual; for exhusbandman, or an artisan

functions can be combined in the

ample, the warrior

may

also be a

or, again, the counsellor

a judge.

And

all

claim to possess

and think that they are quite competent to fill most offices. But the same persons cannot be rich and poor at the same time. For this reason the rich and the poor are regarded in an especial sense as parts of a State. Again, be-

political ability,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; THE POLITICS

cause the rich are generally few in number, while the poor are many, they appear to be antagonistic, and as the one or the Hence arises the other prevails they form the government.

common opinion that there are two kinds of government democracy and oligarchy. I have already explained that there are many differences of constitutions, and to what causes the variety is due. Let me now show that there are different forms both of democracy and oligarchy, as will indeed be evident from what has preceded. For both in the common people and in the notables various classes are included of the common people, one class are husbandmen, another artisans; another traders, who are employed in buying and selling; another are the seafaring class, whether engaged in war or in trade, as ferrymen or as fishermen. (In many places any one of these classes forms .

;

quite a large population for example, fishermen at Tarentum and Byzantium, crews of triremes at Athens, merchant seamen To the classes at ^Egina and Chios, ferrymen at Tenedos.) already mentioned may be added day-laborers, and those who, owing to their needy circumstances, have no leisure, or those who are not of free birth on both sides; and there may be ;

The notables again may be divided according to their wealth, birth, virtue, education, and similar other classes as well. differences.

Of forms

of democracy

first

comes that which

said to

In such a democracy the law says that it is just for nobody to be poor, and for nobody to be rich; and that neither should be masters, but both equal. For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a deHere then is one sort of democracy. There is mocracy. another, in which the magistrates are elected according to a certain property qualification, but a low one; he who has the required amount of property has a share in the government, but he who loses his property loses his rights. Another kind is that in which all the citizens who are under no disqualification share in the government, but still the law is supreme. In another, everybody, if he be only a citizen, is be based

strictly

equality.

;

ARISTOTLE

admitted to the government, but the law is supreme as before. fifth form of democracy, in other respects the same, is that in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees. This is a state of affairs brought about by the demagogues. For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that " it is not good to have a rule of many,"<* but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. And the people, who is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor this sort of democracy being relatively to other, democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic

;

rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, and refer all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have all things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are Further, those who have any too ready to listen to them. complaint to bring against the magistrates say, " let the people be judges " the people are too happy to accept the invitation and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there The law ought to be supreme over all, and is no constitution. the magistracies and the government should judge of particulars. So that if democracy be a real form of government, the ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

which all things are regulated by decrees democracy in the true sense of the word, for

sort of constitution in is

clearly not a

decrees relate only to particulars.*

These then are the 'd

II. 2,

204.

different kinds of democracy.

e Cp. N. Eth. v. 10, Â§

oli7.

THE POLITICS garchies, too, there are different kinds

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;one where the prop-

erty qualification for office is so high that the poor, although

they form the majority, have no share in the government, yet he who acquires a qualification may obtain a share. Another sort is

when

there

a qualification for

office,

the vacancies in the governing body are

but a high one, and

by co-optation. If the qualified persons, a constitution of this kind inclines to an aristocracy, if out of a privileged class, to an oligarchy. Another sort of oligarchy is when the the election

made out

filled

all

There is a fourth form, likewise which the magistrates are supreme and not the law. Among oligarchies this is what tyranny is among monarchies, and the last-mentioned form of democracy among democracies; and in fact this sort of oligarchy receives the name of dynasty (or rule of powerful families). These are the different sorts of oligarchies and democracies. It should however be remembered that in many States the constitution which is established by law, although not democratic, owing to the character and habits of the people, may be administered democratically, and conversely in other States the established constitution may incline to democracy, but may be administered in an oligarchical spirit. This most often happens after a revolution: for governments do not change at once at first the dominant party are content with encroaching a little upon their opponents. The laws which existed preson succeeds the father.

hereditary, in

;

viously continue in force, but the authors of the revolution

have the power

in their hands.

From what has been already said we may safely infer that there are so many different kinds of democracies and of oliFor it is evident that either all the classes whom we mentioned must share in the government, or some only and not others. When the class of husbandmen and of those who possess moderate fortunes have the supreme power, the government is administered according to law. For the citizens being compelled to live by their labor have no leisure; and so they set up the authority of the law, and attend assemblies garchies.

only

when

necessary.

Since they

all

obtain a share in the

government when they have acquired the qualification which the absolute exclusion is fixed by the law, nobody is excluded of any class would be a step towards oligarchy. But leisure cannot be provided for them unless there are revenues to sup-

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ARISTOTLE

This

port them.

one sort of democracy, and these are the

causes which give birth to it. Another kind is based on the mode of election, which naturally comes next in order; in

everyone to whose birth there is no objection is eligible, and may share in the government if he can find leisure. And in such a democracy the supreme power is vested in the laws, because the State has no means of paying the citizens. A third kind is when all freemen have a right to share in the government, but do not actually share, for the reason which has been already given; so that in this form again the law must rule. A fourth kind of democracy is that which comes latest in the history of States. In our own day, when cities have far outgrown their original size, and their revenues have increased, all the citizens have a place in the government, through the great preponderance of their numbers; and they all, including the poor who receive pay, and therefore have this,

leisure to exercise their rights, share in the administration.

are paid, the common people have the most they are not hindered by the care of their property, whi' h often fetters the rich, who are thereby prevented from taking part in the assembly or in the courts, and so the State is governed by the poor, who are a majority, and not

Indeed,

when they

leisure, for

by the laws.

So many kinds of democracies there

are,

and

they grow out of these necessary causes.

one form is that in which the majority of some property, but not very much and this is the first form, which allows to anyone who obtains the required amount the right of sharing in the government. The sharers in the government being a numerous body, it follows For in prothat the law must govern, and not individuals. portion as they are further removed from a monarchical form of government, and in respect of property have neither so much

oligarchies,

the citizens have

;

as to be able to live without attending to business, nor so

little

must admit the rule of law and not claim to rule themselves. But if the men of property in the State are fewer than in the former case, and own more For the property, there arises a second form of oligarchy. stronger they are, the more power they claim, and having this as to need State support, they

object in view, they themselves select those of the other classes

who

are to be admitted to the government

yet strong

enough

;

but, not being as

to rule without the law, they

make

the law

;

THE POLITICS

When this power is intensified by a further diminution of their numbers and increase of their proprepresent their wishes.

erty, there arises a third and which the governing class keep and the law ordains that the When, again, the rulers have

further stage of oligarchy, in

own hands, son shall succeed the father. great wealth and numerous friends, this sort of dynastia or family despotism approaches a monarchy; individuals rule and not the law. This is the fourth sort of oligarchy, and is analogous to the last sort of democracy. There are still two forms besides democracy and oligarchy one of them is universally recognized and included among the four principal forms of government which are said to be (i) monarchy, (2) oligarchy, (3) democracy, and (4) the so-called aristocracy or government of the best. But there is also a fifth, which retains the generic name of polity or constitutional

government;

this

the offices in their

not

common, and

therefore

has not been noticed by writers who attempt to enumerate the different kinds of government; like Plato in his books about " the State, they recognize four only. The term " aristocracy

form of government which is described our treatise; for that only can be rightly called aristocracy [the government of the best] which is a government formed of the best men absolutely, and not merely of men who are good when tried by any given standard. In is

rightly applied to the

in the first part of

the perfect State the good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen whereas in other States the good citizen is only good relatively to his own form of government. But there are some States differing from oligarchies and also differing from the so-called polity or constitutional government; these are termed aristocracies, and in them magistrates are certainly chosen, both according to their wealth and according to their Such a form of government is not the same with the merit. two just now mentioned, and is termed an aristocracy. For indeed in States which do not make virtue the aim of the community, men of merit and reputation for virtue may be found. And so where a government has regard to wealth, virtue, and numbers, as at Carthage, that is aristocracy; and also where it has regard only to two out of three, as at Lacedsemon, to virtue and numbers, and the two principles of democracy and virtue temper each other. There are these two ;

;

ARISTOTLE

forms of aristocracy in addition to the first and perfect State, and there is a third form, viz., the polities which incline towards oligarchy. I have yet to speak of the so-called polity and of tyranny. I put them in this order, not because a polity or constitutional government is to be regarded as a perversion any more than the above-mentioned aristocracies. fall

The

truth

is,

that they all

short of the most perfect form of government, and so

they are reckoned among perversions, and other forms (sc. the really perverted forms) are perversions of these, as I said before. Last of all I will speak of tyranny, which I place last

am inquiring into the constitutions of very reverse of a constitution. Having explained why I have adopted this order, I will proceed to consider constitutional government; of which the nature will be clearer now that oligarchy and democracy have been defined. For polity or constitutional government may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy but the term is usually applied to those forms of government which incline towards democracy, and the term aristocracy to those which incline towards oligarchy, because birth and education are commonly the accompaniments of wealth. Moreover, the rich already possess the external advantages the want of which is a temptation to crime, and hence they are called noblemen and gentlemen. And inasmuch as aristocracy seeks to give predominance to the best of the citizens, people say also of oligarchies that they are composed of noblemen and gentlemen. Now it appears to be an impossible thing that the State which is governed by the best citizens should be ill-governed, and equally impossible that the State which is ill-governed should be governed by the best. But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government. For there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of citizens to the laws, the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey; they may obey bad laws as well as good. And there may be a further subthey may obey either the best laws which are attaindivision able to them, or the best absolutely. The distribution of offices according to merit is a special characteristic of aristocracy, for the principle of an aristocracy is virtue, as wealth is of an oligarchy, and freedom of a dein the series because I

States,

and

;

this is the

THE POLITICS mocracy.

all

them there of course exists the right of good to the majority of the government has authority. Generally,

the majority, and whatever seems

those

who

share in

however, a State of this kind is called a constitutional government [not an aristocracy], for the fusion goes no further than the attempt to unite the freedom of the poor and the wealth of the rich,

who commonly

take the place of the noble.

And

on which men claim an equal share in the government, freedom, wealth, and virtue (for the fourth or good birth is the result of the two last, being only ancient wealth and virtue), it is clear that the admixture of the two elements, that is to say, of the rich and poor, is to be called a polity or constitutional government; and the union of the three is to be called aristocracy or the government of the best, and more than any other form of government, except the true and ideal, has a right to this name. Thus far I have described the different forms of States which exist besides monarchy, democracy, and oligarchy, and what they are and in what aristocracies differ from one another, and polities from aristocracies that the two latter are not as there are three grounds

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

very unlike

obvious.

Next we have to consider how by the side of oligarchy and democracy the so-called polity or constitutional government springs up, and how it should be organized. The nature of it will be at once understood from a comparison of oligarchy and democracy; we must ascertain their different characteristics, and taking a portion from each, put the two together, Now there are three modes like the parts of an indenture. in which fusions of government may be effected. The nature of the fusion will be made intelligible by an example of the manner in which different governments legislate, say concerning the administration of justice. In oligarchies they impose a fine on the rich if they do not serve as judges, and to the poor they give no pay;

but in democracies they give

pay to the poor and do not fine the rich. Now ( i ) the union of these two modes is a common or middle term between them, and is therefore characteristic of a constitutional government, for it is a combination of both. This is one mode of uniting the two elements. Or (2) a mean may be taken between the enactments of the two: thus democracies require no property qualification, or only a small one, from members

;

ARISTOTLE

ioo

of the assembly, oligarchies a high one is

the

common

;

here neither of these

mean between them.

term, but a

(3) There

a third mode, in which something is borrowed from the oligarchical and something from the democratical principle. For example, the appointment of magistrates by lot is demois

cratical,

again

and the

when

them oligarchical; democratical no property qualification, oligarchical

election of

there

when there is. In the aristocratical or constitutional State, one element will be taken from each from oligarchy the mode of electing to offices, from democracy the disregard of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Such are the various modes of combination. There is a true union of oligarchy and democracy when the same State may be termed either a democracy or an oligarchy those who use both names evidently feel that the fusion is complete. Such a fusion there is also in the mean; for both extremes appear in it. The Lacedaemonian constitution, for

qualification.

example, is often described as a democracy, because it has democratical features. In the first place the youth receive a democratical education. For the sons of the poor are brought up with the sons of the rich, who are educated in such a manner as to make it possible for the sons of the poor similar equality prevails in the to be educated like them. following period of life, and when the citizens are grown up to manhood the same rule is observed there is no distinction between the rich and the poor. In like manner they all have the same food at their public tables, and the rich wear only such clothing as any poor man can afford. Again, the people elect to one of the two greatest offices of State, and in the other they share for they elect the Senators and share in the ephoralty. By others the Spartan constitution is said to be an oligarchy, because it has many oligarchical elements. That all offices are filled by election and none by lot, is one of these oligarchical characteristics that the power of inflicting death or banishment rests with a few persons is another and there are others. In a well attempered polity there should appear to be both elements and yet neither also the government should rely on itself, and not on foreign aid, nor on the goodwill of a majority of foreign States they might be equally well disposed when there is a vicious form of government but on the general willingness of all classes in the State to maintain the

many

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

constitution.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

THE POLITICS

ioi

Enough

of the manner in which a constitutional government, which the so-called aristocracies ought to be framed. Of the nature of tyranny I have still to speak, in order that it may have its place in our inquiry, since even tyranny is reckoned by us to be a form of government, although there I have already in the former is not much to be said about it.

and

part of this treatise discussed royalty or kingship according

most usual meaning of the term, and considered whether is not advantageous to States, and what kind of royalty should be established, and whence, and how it arises. When speaking of royalty we also spoke of two forms of tyranny, which are both according to law, and therefore easily to the it is

Among

barbarians there are elected mondespotic rulers were also elected in ancient Hellas, called ^Esymnetes, or dictators. These monarchies, when compared with one another, exhibit certain differences. And they are, as I said before, royal, in pass into royalty.

archs

who

exercise a despotic power;

monarch rules according to law and over willing but they are tyrannical in so far as he is despotic and rules according to his own fancy. There is also a third kind of tyranny, which is the most typical form, and is the so far as the subjects;

counterpart of the perfect monarchy. that arbitrary

This tyranny

power of an individual which

just

responsible to

no one, and governs

all alike, whether equals or betters, with advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman, if he can escape from it, will endure such a government. The kinds of tyranny are such and so many, and for the

a view to

its

own

reasons which

I have given. have now to inquire what is the best constitution for most States, and the best life for most men, neither assuming a standard of virtue which is above ordinary persons, nor an education which is exceptionally favored by nature and circumstances, nor yet an ideal State which is an aspiration only, but having regard to the life in which the majority are able to share, and to the form of government which States in genAs to those aristocracies, as they are called, eral can attain. of which we were just now speaking, they either lie beyond

the possibilities of the greater

number of

States, or they ap-

proximate to the so-called constitutional government, and therefore need no separate discussion. And in fact the con-

ARISTOTLE

102 elusion at which

arrive respecting

all

these forms rests

upon the same grounds. For if it has been truly said in the " Ethics n.t that the happy life is the life according to unimpeded virtue, and that virtue is a mean, then the life which is in a mean, and in a mean attainable by everyone, must be the best. And the same principles of virtue and vice are characteristic of cities and of constitutions; for the constitution is in

a figure the

Now

life

of a city.

one class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. It is admitted that moderation and the mean are best, and therefore it will clearly be best to possess the gifts of fortune in moderation; for in that condition of life men are most ready to listen to reason. But he who greatly excels in beauty, strength, birth or wealth, or on the other hand who is very poor, or very weak, or very much disgraced, finds it difficult to follow reason.g Of these two the one sort grow into violent and great criminals, the others into rogues and petty rascals. And two sorts of offences correspond to them,^ the one committed from violence, the other from roguery. The petty rogues are disinclined to hold office, whether military or civil, and their aversion to these two duties is as great an injury to the State as their tendency to crime. Again, those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority. The evil begins at home: for when they are boys, by reason of the luxury in which they are brought up, they never learn, even On the other hand, the at school, the habit of obedience. very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded. So that the one class cannot obey, and can only rule despotically the other knows not how to command and must be ruled like slaves. Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good-fellowship in States than this: for good-fellowship tends to friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and Wherefore the city these are generally the middle classes. in all States there are three elements;

;

which

composed of middle-class

f N. Eth.

citizens is necessarily best

g Cp.

vii. 13, ยง 2.

h Laws

viii.

831

PI. E.

Rep.

iv.

421

ff.

THE POLITICS governed

And

;

they are, as

say, the natural elements of a State.

this is the class of citizens

State, for they

goods

do not,

which

most secure

like the poor, covet their neighbors'

nor do others covet

;

of the rich;

103

theirs, as the

and as they neither

poor covet the goods

plot against others, nor are

themselves plotted against, they pass through life safely. Wisely then did Phocylides pray, " Many things are best in the mean ; I desire to be of a middle condition in my city." Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those States are likely to be well administered, in which the middle class is large, and larger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant. Great then is the good fortune of a State in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of a middle and nearly equal condition. I will explain the reason of this hereafter, when I speak of the revolutions of States. The mean condition of States is clearly best, for no other is free from faction; and where the middle class is large, there are least likely to be For a similar reason large States factions and dissensions. are less liable to faction than small ones, because in them the middle class is large; whereas in small States it is easy to divide all the citizens into two classes who are either rich or poor, and to leave nothing in the middle. And democracies are safer and more permanent than oligarchies, because they have a middle class which is more numerous and has a greater share in the government; for when there is no middle class, and the poor greatly exceed in number, troubles arise, and the proof of the superiority of the State soon comes to an end. middle class is that the best legislators have been of a middle ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

and for example, Solon, as his own verses tesify Lycurgus, for he was not a king and Charondas, and almost

condition

;

all legislators.

These considerations will help us to understand why most governments are either democratical or oligarchical. The rea-

ARISTOTLE

io 4

son is that the middle class is seldom numerous in them, and whichever party, whether the rich or the common people, transgresses the mean and predominates, draws the government to itself, and thus arises either oligarchy or democracy. There is another reason the poor and the rich quarrel with one another, and whichever side gets the better, instead of establishing a just or popular government, regards political supremacy as the prize of victory, and the one party sets up a democracy and the other an oligarchy. Both the parties which had the supremacy in Hellas looked only to the interest of their own form of government, and established in States, the one, democracies, and the other, oligarchies they thought of their own advantage, of the public not at all. For these reasons the middle form of governments has rarely, if ever, existed, and among a very few only. One man alone of all who ever ruled in Hellas was induced to give this middle conBut it has now become a habit among stitution to States. the citizens of States, not even to care about equality; all men are seeking for dominion, or, if conquered, are willing to

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

submit.

What it

then

the best

there are

the best form of government, and what

evident; and of other States, since

many

kinds of democracy and

many

makes

say that

of oligarchy,

and which the second or any other place in the order of excellence, now that we have determined which is the best. For that which is nearest to the best must of necessity be better, and that which is furthest from it worse, if we are judging absolutely and not relatively it is

not

difficult to see

which has the

first

say " relatively to given conditions," since a particular government may be preferable for some, but another form may be better for others. have now to consider what and what kind of government is suitable to what and what kind of men. I may begin

to given conditions

by assuming, as a general principle common to all governments, that the portion of the State which desires permanence ought to be stronger than that which desires the reverse. Now every city is composed of quality and quantity. By quality mean freedom, wealth, education, good birth, and by quantity, Quality may exist in one of the superiority of numbers.

which make up the State, and quantity in the other. For example, the meanly born may be more in number than

classes

THE POLITICS

105

the well-born, or the poor than the rich, yet they

much exceed

may

not so

in quantity as they fall short in quality;

and

therefore there must be a comparison of quantity and quality.

Where

the

number

of the poor

more than proportioned

the wealth of the rich, there will naturally be a democracy,

varying in form with the sort of people who compose it in each case. If, for example, the husbandmen exceed in number, the first form of democracy will then arise if the artisans and laboring class, the last; and so with the intermediate forms. But where the rich and the notables exceed in quality more than they fall short in quantity, there oligarchy arises, similarly assuming various forms according to the kind of superiority possessed by the oligarchs. The legislator should always include the middle class in his government; if he makes his laws oligarchical, to the middle class let him look; if he makes them democratical, he should equally by his laws try to attach this class to the There only can the government ever be stable where State. the middle class exceeds one or both of the others, and in that case there will be no fear that the rich will unite with the poor against the rulers. For neither of them will ever be willing to serve the other, and if they look for some form of government more suitable to both, they will find none better than this, for the rich and the poor will never consent to rule in turn, because they mistrust one another. The arbiter is always the one trusted, and he who is in the middle is an ;

arbiter.

The more

perfect the admixture of the political ele-

Many even of those governments make a mis-

ments, the more lasting will be the State.

who

desire to

form

aristocratical

take, not only in giving too much power to the rich, but in attempting to overreach the people. There comes a time when out of a false good there arises a true evil, since the encroachments of the rich are more destructive to the State â&#x20AC;˘ than those of the people. The devices by which oligarchies deceive the people are five in number; they relate to (1) the assembly; (2) the magistracies; (3) the courts of law; (4) the use of arms; (1) The assemblies are thrown (5) gymnastic exercises. open to all, but either the rich only are fined for non-attendance, or a much larger fine is inflicted upon them. (2) As to magistracies, those who are qualified by property cannot decline

ARISTOTLE

io6 office

rich,

upon oath, but the poor may. and the rich only, are fined

(3) In the law courts the they do not serve, the

let off with impunity, or, as in the laws of Charondas, a large fine is inflicted on the rich, and a smaller one on the In some States all the citizens who have registered thempoor. selves are allowed to attend the assembly and try causes ; but if after registration they do not attend in the assembly or at the courts, heavy fines are imposed upon them. The intention

poor are

that through fear of the fines they

themselves, and then they cannot

may

sit in

avoid registering

the law courts or in

(4) Concerning the possession of arms, and (5) gymnastic exercises, they legislate in a similar spirit. For the poor are not obliged to have arms, but the rich are fined for not having them and in like manner no penalty is inflicted on the poor for non-attendance at the gymnasium, and consequently, having nothing to fear, they do not attend, whereas the rich are liable to a fine, and therefore they take care to

the assembly.

;

attend.

These are the devices of oligarchical legislators, and in democracies they have counter-devices. They pay the poor for attending the assemblies and the law courts, and they inflict no penalty on the rich for non-attendance. It is obvious that he who would duly mix the two principles should combine the practice of both, and provide that the poor should be paid to attend, and the rich fined if they do not attend, for then all will take part if there is no such combination, power will be in the hands of one party only. The government should be confined to those who carry arms. As to the property qualification, no absolute rule can be laid down, but we must see what is the highest qualification sufficiently comprehensive to secure that the number of those who have the rights of citizens exceeds the number of those excluded. Even if they have no share in office, the poor, provided only that they are not outraged or deprived of their property, will be quiet enough. But to secure gentle treatment for the poor is not an easy thing, since a ruling class is not always humane. And in time of war the poor are apt to hesitate unless they are fed; when fed, they are willing enough to fight. In some States the government is vested, not only in those who are actually serving, but also in those who have served among the Malians, ;

;

THE POLITICS

107

for example, the governing body consisted of the latter, while the magistrates were chosen from those actually on service.

And

the earliest government which existed among the Heloverthrow of the kingly power, grew up out

lenes, after the

of the warrior class, and was originally taken from the knights (for strength and superiority in war at that time depended on cavalry)

;

indeed, without discipline, infantry are useless, and

was no military knowledge or tactics, and therefore the strength of armies lay in their cavalry. But when cities increased and the heavy-armed grew in strength, more had a share in the government; and this is the reason why the States, which we call constitutional governments, in ancient times there

have been hitherto called democracies. Ancient constitutions, their popuas might be expected, were oligarchical and royal the lation being small they had no considerable middle class people were weak in numbers and organization, and were therefore more contented to be governed. I have explained why there are various forms of government, and why there are more than is generally supposed; for democracy, as well as other constitutions, has more than one form: also what their differences are, and whence they arise, and what is the best form of government, speaking generally, and to whom the various forms of government are best all this has now been explained. suited Having thus gained an appropriate basis of discussion we will proceed to speak of the points which follow next in order. We will consider the subject not only in general but with reference to particular States. All States have three elements, and the good law-giver has to regard what is expedient for ;

;

When they are well ordered, the State is well ordered, and as they differ from one another, constitutions What is the element first (1) which deliberates about differ. public affairs secondly (2) which is concerned with the magistrates and determines what they should be, over whom they each State.

;

should exercise authority, and what should be the mode of them; and thirdly (3) which has judicial power? The deliberative element has authority in matters of war

electing

and peace,

making and unmaking

alliances

;

passes laws,

death, exile, confiscation, audits the accounts of magisAll these powers must be assigned either to all the trates. citizens or to some of them, for example, to one or more magis-

inflicts

ARISTOTLE

108

trades; or different causes to different magistracies, or some of them to all, and others of them only to some. That all things should be decided by all is characteristic of democracy; this But there are is the sort of equality which the people desire. various ways in which all may share in the government ; they may deliberate, not all in one body, but by turns, as in the

There are other States which the boards of magistrates meet and deliberate, but come into office by turns, and are elected out of the tribes and constitution of Telecles the Milesian. in

the very smallest divisions of the State, until everyone has

obtained

office in his turn.

The

citizens,

on the other hand,

are assembled only for the purposes of legislation, and to con-

about the constitution, and to hear the edicts of the magisIn another variety of democracy the citizens form one assembly, but meet only to elect magistrates, to pass laws, to advise about war and peace, and to make scrutinies. Other matters are referred severally to special magistrates, who are elected by vote or by lot out of all the citizens. Or again, the citizens meet about election to offices and about scrutinies, and deliberate concerning war or alliances, while other matters are administered by the magistrates, who, as far as is possible, are elected by vote. I am speaking of those magistracies in sult

trates.

which special knowledge is required. A fourth form of democracy is when all the citizens meet to deliberate about everything, and the magistrates decide nothing, but only make the preliminary inquiries; and that is the way in which the last and worst form of democracy, corresponding, as we maintain, to the close family oligarchy and to tyranny, is at present administered. All these modes are democratical. On the other hand, that some should deliberate about all is oligarchical. This again is a mode which, like the demo-

many

When

the deliberative class being a moderate qualification are numerous and they respect and obey the law without altering it, and anyone who has the required qualification shares in the government, then, just because of this moderation, the olicratical,

has

forms.

elected out of those

who have

garchy inclines towards polity. But when only selected individuals and not the whole people share in the deliberations of the State, then, although, as in the former case, they obOr, again, serve the law, the government is a pure oligarchy. when those who have the power of deliberation are self-elected,

— ;

THE POLITICS

109

and son succeeds father, and they and not the laws are supreme the government is of necessity oligarchical. Where,

—

again, particular persons have authority in particular matters

—for example, when the whole people decide about peace and but the magistrates regulate everywar and hold thing by vote or by and they are elected —there scrutinies,

either

else,

lot

an aristocracy or polity. And if some questions are decided by magistrates elected by vote, and others by magistrates elected by lot, either absolutely or out pf select candidates, or elected both by vote and by lot these practices are partly characteristic of an aristocratical government, and partly of a pure constitutional government. These are the various forms of the deliberative body; they correspond to the various forms of government. And the government of each State is administered according to one or other of the principles which have been laid down. Now it is for the interest of democracy, according to the most prevalent notion of it (I am speaking of that extreme form of democracy, in which the people are supreme even over the laws), with a view to better deliberation to adopt the custom the form of government

of oligarchies respecting courts of law. For in oligarchies the rich who are wanted to be judges are compelled to attend under

pain of a

whereas

democracies the poor are paid to should be adopted by democracies in their public assemblies, for they will advise better if they all deliberate together the people with the notables and the notables with the people. It is also a good plan that those who deliberate should be elected by vote or by lot in equal numbers out of the different classes and that if the people greatly exceed in number those who have political training, pay should not be given to all, but only to as many as would balance the number of the notables, or that the number in excess should be eliminated by lot. But in oligarchies, either certain persons should be chosen out of the mass, or a class of officers should be appointed such as exist in some States, who are termed probuli and guardians of the law; and the citizens should occupy themselves exclusively with matters on which these have previously deliberated for so the people will have a share in the deliberations of the State, but will not be able to disturb the principles of the constitution. Again, in oligarchies either the people ought to accept the measures of attend.

fine,

And

this practice of oligarchies

—

;

ARISTOTLE

IIO

the government, or not to pass anything contrary to them; allowed to share in counsel, the decision should

or, if all are

rest

with the magistrates.

The

opposite of

what

governments should be the rule

constitutional

done

in oligarchies;

the veto of the majority should be final, their assent not final, but the proposal should be referred back to the magistrates. Whereas in constitutional governments they take the contrary course; the few have the negative not the affirmative power; the affirmation of everything rests with the multitude. These, then, are our conclusions respecting the deliberative, that

is,

the supreme element in States.

Next we

will proceed to consider the distribution of offices being a part of politics concerning which many quesWhat shall their number be? Over what shall tions arise: they preside, and what shall be their duration? Sometime* they last for six months, sometimes for less; sometimes they are annual, whilst in other cases offices are held for still longer Shall they be for life or for a long term of years; periods. or, if for a short term only, shall the same persons hold them over and over again, or once only? Also about the appointment to them from whom are they to be chosen, by whom, and how? should first be in a position to say what are the possible varieties of them, and then we may proceed to determine which are suited to different forms of government. But what are to be included under the term " offices " ? That is a question not quite so easily answered. For a political community requires many officers and not everyone who is chosen by vote or by lot is to be regarded as a ruler. In the first place there are the priests, who must be distinguished from political officers; masters of choruses and heralds, even ambassadors, are elected by vote [but still they are not political officers]. Some duties of superintendence again are political, extending either to all the citizens in a single sphere of action, like the office of the general who superintends them when they are in the field, or to a section of them only, like the inspectorships of women or of youth. Other offices are concerned with household management, like that of the corn measurers who this, too,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

many

States and are elected officers. There are also which the rich have executed by their slaves. Speaking generally, they are to be called offices to which the duties are assigned of deliberating about certain measures and exist in

menial

offices

THE POLITICS

of judging and commanding, especially the last;

mand

the especial duty of a magistrate.

for to comBut the question is

not of any importance in practice; no one has ever brought into court the meaning of the word, although such problems

have a speculative

interest.

What

kinds of offices, and how many, are necessary to the existence of a State, and which, if not necessary, yet conduce to its well-being, are much more important considerations, affecting all States, but more especially small ones. For in it is possible, and indeed necessary, that every should have a special function; where the citizens are numerous, many may hold office. And so it happens that vacancies occur in some offices only after long intervals, or the office is held once only; and certainly every work is better done which receives the sole, and not the divided, attention of the worker. But in small States it is necessary to combine many offices in a few hands, since the small number of citizens does not admit of many holding office for who will there be to succeed them? And yet small States at times require the same offices and laws as large ones the difference is that the one want them often, the others only after long intervals. Hence there is no reason why the care of many offices should

great States

office

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

not be imposed on the same person, for they will not interfere

with each other. When the population is small, offices should be like the spits which also serve to hold a lamp. We must first ascertain how many magistrates are necessary in every State, and also how many are not exactly necessary, but are nevertheless useful, and then there will be no difficulty in should also judging what offices can be combined in one. know when local tribunals ought to have jurisdiction over

many

different matters,

ized

for example, should one person keep order in the market

and when authority should be

central-

in some other place, or should the same person be responsible everywhere? Again, should offices be divided according to the subjects with which they deal, or according to the persons with whom they deal I mean to say, should one person see to good order in general, or one look after the boys, another after the women, and so on ? Further, under different constitutions, should the magistrates be the same or different? For example, in democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, monarchy, should there be the same magistrates, although they are elected,

and another

ARISTOTLE

not out of equal or similar classes of citizens, but differently under different constitutions in aristocracies, for example, they are chosen from the educated, in oligarchies from the wealthy, and in democracies from the free or are there differ-

—

ent offices proper to different constitutions, and be suitable to some, but unsuitable to others? States

may

be convenient that the same

may

the

For

office

same some

should have

extensive, in other States a narrower sphere.

—

Special

forms of government: for example [to oligarchies] that of probuli, which is not a demoThere must be cratic office, although a boule, or council, is. some body of men whose duty is to prepare measures for the people in order that they may not be diverted from their business; when these ar° few in number, the State inclines to an oligarchy: or rather the probuli must always be few, and are therefore an oligarchical element. But when both institutions exist in a State, the probuli are a check on the council for the counsellor is a democratic element, but the probuli are olioffices are peculiar to certain

;

garchical. Even the power of the council disappears when democracy has taken that extreme form, in which the people themselves are always meeting and deliberating about everything. This is the case when the members of the assembly are wealthy or receive pay; for they have nothing to do and are always holding assemblies and deciding everything for themselves. A magistracy which controls the boys or the women, or any similar office, is suited to an aristocracy rather than to a democracy; for how can the magistrates prevent the wives of the poor from going out of doors ? Neither is it an oligarchical office; for the wives of the oligarchs are too fine to

be controlled.

Enough

of these matters.

I will

now

inquire into the ap-

pointment of offices. There are three questions to be answered, and the combinations of answers give all possible differences first,

who

Each of

appoints ? secondly, from these three

may

whom ?

and

thirdly,

further differ in three ways:

how ? (i)

All the citizens, or only some, appoint;

(2) Either the magisor out of some who are distin-

trates are chosen out of all guished either by a property qualification, or by birth, or merit, or for some special reason, as at Megara only those were eligible who had returned from exile and fought together against the democracy; (3) They may be appointed either by vote or

;

THE POLITICS

Again, these several modes may be combined, I mean officers may be elected by some, others by all, and some again out of some, and others out of all, and some by vote and others by lot. Each of these differences admits of four variations. ( I ) Either all may elect out of all by vote, 01 all out of all by lot; and either out of all collectively or by sections, as, for example, by tribes, and wards, and phratries, until all the citizens have been gone through; or the citizens may be in all cases eligible indiscriminately, and in some cases they may be elected by vote, and in some by lot. Again (2), if only some appoint, they may appoint out of all by vote, or out of all by lot; or out of some by vote, out of some by lot, and some officers may be appointed in one way and some in another, I mean if they are appointed by all they may be ap-

lot.

that

some

pointed partly by vote and partly by lot. Thus there will be twelve forms of appointment without including the two combinations in the mode of election. Of these varieties two are democratic forms, namely, when the choice is made by all the all by vote or by lot, or by both, that is to say, and some by vote. The cases in which they do not all appoint at one time, but some appoint out of all or out of some by vote or by lot or by both (I mean some by lot and some by vote), or some out of all and others out of some both by lot and vote, are characteristic of a polity or constitutional government. That some should be appointed out of all by vote or by lot or by both, is oligarchical, and still more oligarchical when some are elected from all and some from some. That some should be elected out of all and some out of some, or again some by vote and others by lot, is characteristic of a constitutional government, which inclines to an aristocracy. That some should be chosen out of some, and some taken by lot out of some, is oligarchical though not equally oligarchical oligarchical, too, is the appointment of some out of some in both ways, and of some out of all. But that all should elect by vote out of some is aristocratical. These are the different ways of constituting magistrates, and in this manner officers correspond to different forms of government :â&#x20AC;&#x201D;which are proper to which, or how they ought

people out of

some by

lot

when we determine the nature mean such power as a magistrate

to be established, will be evident

of their powers.

By powers

exercises over the revenue or in defence of the country;

for

ARISTOTLE

1I4

the power of the general, not the same with that which regulates con-

there are various kinds of power: for example,

tracts in the market.

the three parts of government, the judicial remains to be

we shall divide on the same principle. There are three points on which the varieties of law courts depend: The persons from whom they are appointed, 'the matters with which they are concerned, and the manner of their appointment. I mean, (i) are the judges taken from all, or from some only? (2) how many kinds of law courts are there? (3) are the judges chosen by vote or by lot? First, let me determine how many kinds of law courts there considered, and this

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

are.

They

are eight in

number

One

the court of audits or

scrutinies; a second takes cognizance of

[ordinary]

offences

concerned with treason against the government; the fourth determines disputes respecting penalthe ties, whether raised by magistrates or by private persons fifth decides the more important civil cases the sixth tries cases against the State

;

a third

;

of homicide, which are of various kinds, (1) premeditated, (2) unpremeditated, (3) cases in which the guilt is confessed but is disputed; and there may be a fourth court (4) in which murderers who have fled from justice are tried after their return; such as the Court of Phreatto is said to be at Athens. But cases of this sort rarely happen at all even in large The different kinds of homicide may be tried either by cities. the same or by different courts. (7) There are courts for subdivisions, (1) for the are two there strangers: of these settlement of their disputes with one another, (2) for the settlement of disputes between them and the citizens. And besides all these there must be (8) courts for small suits about sums of a drachma up to five drachmas, or a little more, which have to be determined, but they do not require many judges. Nothing more need be said of these small suits, nor of the I would rather speak courts for homicide and for strangers of political cases, which, when mismanaged, create division and disturbances in States. Now if all the citizens judge, in all the different cases which I have distinguished, they may be appointed by vote or by lot, or sometimes by lot and sometimes by vote. Or when a certain class of causes are tried, the judges who decide them may be appointed, some by vote, and some by lot. These then are

the justice

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

THE POLITICS the four

115

modes of appointing judges from the whole

there will be likewise four modes,

people,

and

they are elected from a part only; for they may be appointed from some by vote and judge in all causes or they may be appointed from some by lot and judge in all causes; or they may be elected in some cases if

;

some cases taken by lot, or some courts, even same causes, may be composed of members some appointed by vote and some by lot. These then are the ways in which the aforesaid judges may be appointed. Once more, the modes of appointment may be combined, I mean, that some may be chosen out of the whole people, others out of some, some out of both for example, the same tribunal may be composed of some who were elected out of all, and of others who were elected out of some, either by vote or by lot or by

vote,

and

when judging

the

;

by both. In how many forms law courts can be established has now been considered. The first form, viz., that in which the judges are taken from all the citizens, and in which all causes are tried, is democratical the second, which is composed of a few only who try all causes, oligarchical the third, in which some courts are taken from all classes, and some from certain ;

;

classes only, aristocratical

and

constitutional.

;

BOOK V

THE

design which

completed.

we proposed

to ourselves

now

nearly

in order follow the causes of revolu-

tion in States, how many, and of what nature they are what elements work ruin in particular States, and out of what, and into what they mostly change also what are the elements of preservation in States generally, or in a particular State, and by what means each State may be best preserved these ques;

tions remain to be considered.

place we assume as our starting-point that in the of government which have sprung up there has always been an acknowledgment of justice and proportionate

In the

first

many forms

equality, although mankind fail in attaining them, as indeed I have already explained. Democracy, for example, arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal. Oligarchy is based on the notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal being unequal, that is, in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely. The democrats think that as they are equal they ought to be equal in all things while the oligarchs, under the idea that they are unequal, claim too much, which is one form of inequality. All these forms of government have a kind of justice, but, tried by an absolute standard, they are faulty and, therefore, both parties, whenever their share in the government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution. Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel (for they alone can with reason be deemed ;

;

absolutely unequal), but then they are of

There

clined to do so.

all

also a superiority

men

the least in-

which

claimed

by men of rank for they are thought noble because they spring from wealthy and virtuous ancestors. Here then, so to speak, are opened the very springs and fountains of revolution; and hence arise two sorts of changes in governments; the one ;

116

;

THE POLITICS

117

when men seek to change from an some other, for example, from democracy into oligarchy, and from oligarchy into democracy, or from either of them into constitutional government or aristocracy, and conversely the other not affecting the constitution, when, without disturbing the form of government, whether oligarchy, or monarchy, or any other, they try to get the administration affecting the constitution,

existing form into

;

into their own hands. Further, there is a question of degree an oligarchy, for example, may become more or less oligarchical, and a democracy more or less democratical and in like manner the characteristics of the other forms of government may be more or less strictly maintained. Or, the revolution may be ;

directed against a portion of the constitution only, e.g. the establishment or overthrow of a particular office as at Sparta :

Lysander attempted to overthrow the monarchy, and King Pausanias, the ephoralty. At Epidamnus, too, the change was partial. For instead of phylarchs or heads of tribes, a council was appointed but to this day the magistrates are the only members of the ruling class who are compelled to go to the Heliaea when an election takes place, and the office of the single archon [survives, which] is another oligarchical feature. Everywhere inequality is a cause of revolution, but an inequality in which there is no proportion, for instance, a perpetual monarchy among equals; and always it is the desire of equality which rises in rebellion. Now equality is of two kinds, numerical and proportional; by the first I mean sameness or equality in number or size by the second, equality of ratios. For example, the excess of three over two is equal to the excess of two over one whereas four exceeds two in the same ratio in which two exceeds one, for two is the same part of four that one is of two, namely, the it is

said that

;

half.

was saying

before,

men

agree about justice

abstract, but they differ about proportion;

some think

in the

that

they are equal in any respect they are equal absolutely, others that if they are unequal in any respect they are unequal in all. Hence there are two principal forms of government, democracy and oligarchy; for good birth and virtue are rare, but

wealth and numbers are more common. In what city shall we find a hundred persons of good birth and of virtue? whereas the poor everywhere abound. That a State should be ordered, simply and wholly, according to either kind of equality, is not

ARISTOTLE

a good thing the proof is the fact that such forms of government never last. They are originally based on a mistake, and, as they begin badly, cannot fail to end badly. The inference is that both kinds of equality should be employed; numerical in ;

and proportionate in others. democracy appears to be safer and less liable to revoluFor in oligarchies there is the double tion than oligarchy. danger of the oligarchs falling out among themselves and also with the people; but in democracies there is only the danger of a quarrel with the oligarchs. No dissension worth men-

some

cases,

Still

among

tioning arises

oligarchy,

and

arise,

we must

composed of the democracy than to

middle class more nearly approximates to ment. In considering

And we may

the people themselves.

further remark that a government which

the safest of the imperfect forms of govern-

how

first

dissensions and all

political

ascertain the beginnings

revolutions

and causes

They may be

of them which affect constitutions generally.

number and we have now to give an outline want to know (i) what is the feeling? and (2) what are the motives of those who make them? (3) whence arise political disturbances and quarrels? The universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling has been already mensaid to be three in

of each.

;

when men think that they are than themselves or, again, the desire of inequality and superiority, when conceiving themselves to be superior they think that they have not more but the same or less than their inferiors; pretensions which may and may not be just. Inferiors revolt in order that they may

tioned

;

viz. the desire

of equality,

who have more

equal to others

;

be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions. The motives for making them are the desire of gain and honor, or the fear of dis-

honor and loss the authors of them want to divert punishment or dishonor from themselves or their friends. The causes and ;

reasons of these motives and dispositions which are excited in men, about the things which I have mentioned, viewed in one way, may be regarded as seven, and in another as more than seven. Two of them have been already noticed but they act in a different manner, for men are excited against one another by the love of gain and honor not, as in the case which I have just supposed, in order to obtain them for themselves, but at ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

THE POLITICS seeing others, justly or unjustly,

119

Other

engrossing them.

causes are insolence, fear, love of superiority, contempt, disproportionate increase in some part of the State causes of another sort are election intrigues, carelessness, neglect about ;

trifles,

dissimilarity of elements.

What

share insolence and avarice have in creating revoluand how they work, is plain enough. When the magistrates are insolent and grasping they conspire against one another and also against the constitution from which they derive their power, making their gains either at the expense of indiIt is evident, again, what an influence viduals or of the public. honor exerts and how it is a cause of revolution. Men who are themselves dishonored and who see others obtaining honors rise in rebellion the honor or dishonor when undeserved is unjust and just when awarded according to merit. Again, superiority is a cause of revolution when one or more persons have a power which is too much for the State and the power of the government; this is a condition of affairs out of which there And, therefore, in arises a monarchy, or a family oligarchy. some places, as at Athens and Argos, they have recourse to ostracism. But how much better to provide from the first that there should be no such pre-eminent individuals instead of letting them come into existence and then finding a remedy ? Another cause of revolution is fear. Either men have committed wrong, and are afraid of punishment, or they are expecting to suffer wrong and are desirous of anticipating their enemy. Thus at Rhodes the notables conspired against the people through fear of the suits that were brought against them. Contempt is also a cause of insurrection and revolution for example, in oligarchies when those who have no share in the tions,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

State are the majority, they revolt, because they think that they

Or, again, in democracies, the rich despise at Thebes, for example, where, after the battle of CEnophyta, the bad administration of are the stronger.

the disorder and anarchy of the State

;

the democracy led to its ruin. At Megara the fall of the democracy was due to a defeat occasioned by disorder and anarchy. And at Syracuse the democracy was overthrown before the tyranny of Gelo arose at Rhodes before the insurrection. Political revolutions also spring from a disproportionate inFor as a body is made up of crease in any part of the State. many members, and every member ought to grow in propor;

;

ARISTOTLE

126 tion, that

symmetry may be preserved; but

loses its nature

the foot be four cubits long and the rest of the body two spans

and, should the abnormal increase be one of quality as well as of quantity, may even take the form of another animal even so a State has many parts of which some one may often grow imperceptibly; for example, the number of poor in democracies :

in constitutional States. And this disproportion may sometimes happen by an accident, as at Tarentum, from a defeat in which many of the notables were slain in a battle with the Iapygians just after the Persian War, the constitutional government

and

in consequence becoming a democracy or, as was the case at Argos, where, after the battle at Hebdome, the Argives, after their army had been cut to pieces by Cleomenes the Lacedaemonian, were compelled to admit to citizenship some of their Perioeci and at Athens, when, after frequent defeats of their infantry in the times of the Peloponnesian War, the notables were reduced in number, because the soldiers had to be taken from the roll of citizens. Revolutions arise from this cause in democracies as well as in other forms of government, but not When the rich grow numerous or propto so great an extent. erties increase, the form of government changes into an oligarchy or a government of families. Forms of government also change sometimes even without revolution, owing to election contests, as at Heraea (where, instead of electing their magistrates, they took them by lot, because the electors were in the habit of choosing their own partisans) or owing to carelessness, when disloyal persons are allowed to find their way into the highest offices, as at Oreus, where, upon the accession of Heracleodorus to office the oligarchy was overthrown, and changed by him into a constitutional and democratical government. Again, the revolution may be accomplished by small degrees I mean that a great change may sometimes slip into the constitution through neglect of a small matter; at Ambracia, for ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

first, was eventuFor the Ambraciots thought that a small qualification was much the same as none at all. Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do

instance, the qualification for office, small at ally

reduced to nothing.

not at once acquire a

common

spirit; for a State is not the a multitude brought together by the reception of strangers in colonies, either

growth of a day, neither accident.

Hence

is it

at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally

THE POLITICS

121

produced revolution for example, the Achseans who joined the ;

Troezenians in the foundation of Sybaris, being the more numerous, afterwards expelled them; hence the curse fell upon Sybaris. At Thurii the Sybarites quarrelled with their fellowcolonists ; thinking that the land belonged to them, they wanted too much of it and were driven out. At Byzantium the new colonists

were detected

a conspiracy, and were expelled by

force of arms; the people of Antissa,

who had

received the

fought with them, and drove them out; and the Zancleans, after having received the Samians, were driven by them out of their own city. The citizens of Apollonia on the Euxine, after the introduction of a fresh body of colonists, had a revolution; the Syracusans, after the expulsion of their tyrants, having admitted strangers and mercenaries to the rights of citizenship, quarrelled and came to blows the people of Amphipolis, having received Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by them. Now, in oligarchies the masses make revolution under the idea that they are unjustly treated, because, as I said before, they are equals, and have not an equal share, and in democracies the notables revolt, because they are not equals, and yet have only an equal share. Again, the situation of cities is a cause of revolution when the country is not naturally adapted to preserve the unity of the State. For example, the Chytrians at Clazomenae did not agree with the people of the island and the people of Colophon quarrelled with the Notians at Athens, too, the inhabitants oÂŁ the Piraeus are more democratic than those who live in the city. For just as in war, the impediment of a ditch, though ever so small, may break a regiment, so every cause of difference, however slight, makes a breach in a city. The greatest opposition is confessedly that of virtue and vice next comes that of wealth and poverty and there are other antagonistic elements, greater or less, of which one is this difference of place. In revolutions the occasions may be trifling, but great interests are at stake. Trifles are most important when they concern the rulers, as was the case of old at Syracuse for the Syracusan constitution was once changed by a love-quarrel of two young men, who were in the government. The story is that while one of them was away from home his beloved was gained over by his companion, and he to revenge himself seduced the other's

Chian

exiles,

;

ARISTOTLE

122 wife.

They then drew all the members of the ruling and made a revolution. We learn from

their quarrel

that

class into this story

evils,

should be on our guard against the beginnings of such and should put an end to the quarrels of chiefs and mighty

the beginningâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; men. The mistake â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Well begun half do ne so an error

as the proverb says

lies in

;

at the beginning,

though quite small, has the proportion of a half to the whole In general, when the notables quarrel, the whole city matter. is involved, as happened in Hestiaea after the Persian War. The occasion was the division of an inheritance; one of two brothers refused to give an account of their father's property and the treasure which he had found so the poorer of the two quarrelled with him and enlisted in his cause the popular party, :

the other,

who was

very

rich, the

wealthy classes.

Delphi, again, a quarrel about a marriage

was the begin-

ning of all the troubles which followed. In this case the bridegroom, fancying some occurrence to be of evil omen, came to the bride, and went away without taking her. Whereupon her relations, thinking that they were insulted by him, put some of the sacred treasure [among his offerings] while he was sacrificing, and then slew him, pretending that he had been robbing the temple. At Mitylene, too, a dispute about heiresses was the beginning of many misfortunes, and led to the war with wealthy the Athenians in which Paches took their city. citizen, named Timophanes, left two daughters ; Doxander, another citizen, wanted to obtain them for his sons but he was rejected in his suit, whereupon he stirred up a revolution, and instigated the Athenians (of whom he was proxenus) to intersimilar quarrel about an heiress arose at Phocis befere. tween Mnaseas the father of Mnason, and Euthycrates the father of Onomarchus this was the beginning of the Sacred War. A marriage-quarrel was also the cause of a change in A certain man betrothed his the government of Epidamnus. daughter secretly to a person whose father, having been made a magistrate, fined the father of the girl, and the latter, stung by the insult, conspired with the unenfranchised classes to over-

;

throw the State. Governments also change into oligarchy or into democracy or into a constitutional government because the magistrates, or some other section of the State, increase in power or renown. Thus at Athens the reputation gained by the court of the Areop-

THE POLITICS

123

agus, in the Persian War, seemed to tighten the reins of government. On the other hand, the victory of Salamis, which was gained by the common people who served in the fleet, and won for the Athenians the empire of the sea, strengthened the democracy. At Argos, the notables, having distinguished themselves against the Lacedaemonians in the battle of Mantinea, attempted to put down the democracy. At Syracuse, the people having been the chief authors of the victory in the war with the Athenians, changed the constitutional government into democracy. At Chalcis, the people, uniting with the notables, killed Phoxus the tyrant, and then seized the government. At

Ambracia, the people, in like manner, having joined with the conspirators in expelling the tyrant Periander, transferred the government to themselves. And generally, it should be re-

membered

that those

whether private

who have

secured power to the State,

citizens, or magistrates, or tribes, or

any other For

part or section of the State, are apt to cause revolutions.

either envy of their greatness draws others into rebellion, or they themselves, in their pride of superiority, are unwilling to remain on a level with others. Revolutions break out when opposite parties, e.g., the rich and the poor, are equally balanced, and there is little or nothing between them for, if either party were manifestly superior, And, for this the other would not risk an attack upon them. ;

who are eminent in virtue do not stir up insurrecbeing always a minority. Such are the beginnings and causes of the disturbances and revolutions to which every form reason, those

tions,

of government

is liable.

Revolutions are effected in two ways, by force and by fraud. Force may be applied either at the time of making the revoluFraud, again, is of two kinds; for (1) tion or afterwards. sometimes the citizens are deceived into a change of government, and afterwards they are held in subjection against their will.

This was what happened in the case of the Four Hun-

deceived the people by telling them that the King would provide money for the war against the Lacedaemonians, and when the deception was over, still endeavored to retain the government. (2) In other cases the people are persuaded at dred,

who

and afterwards, by a repetition of the persuasion, their goodwill and allegiance are retained. The revolutions which affect constitutions generally spring from the above-mentioned

first,

causes.

ARISTOTLE

i2 4

And now, taking each constitution separately, we must see what follows from the principles already laid down. Revolutions in democracies are generally caused by the intemperance of demagogues, who either in their private capacity lay information against rich men until they compel them to combine (for a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies), or coming forward in public they stir up the people against them. The truth of this remark is proved by a variety of examples. At Cos the democracy was overthrown because wicked demagogues arose, and the notables combined. At Rhodes the demagogues not only provided pay for the multitude, but prevented them from making good to the trierarchs the sums which had been expended by them; and they, in consequence of the suits which were brought against them, were compelled to combine and put down the democracy. The democracy at Heraclea was overthrown shortly after the foundation of the colony by the injustice of the demagogues, which drove out the notables, who came back in a body and put an end to the democracy. Much in the same manner the democracy at Megara was overturned there the demagogues drove out many of the notables in order that they might be At length the exiles, beable to confiscate their property. coming numerous, returned, and engaging and defeating the people, established an oligarchy. The same thing happened with the democracy of Cyme which was overthrown by Thrasymachus. And we may observe that in most States the changes have been of this character. For sometimes the demagogues, in order to curry favor with the people, wrong the notables and so force them to combine; either they make a division of their property, or diminish their incomes by the imposition of public services, and sometimes they bring accusations against the rich that they may have their wealth to confiscate. Of old, the demagogue was also a general, and then democracies changed into tyrannies. Most of the ancient tyrants were originally demagogues.** They are not so now, but they were then and the reason is that they were generals and not orators, for oratory had not yet come into fashion. Whereas ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

our day, when the art of rhetoric has made such progress,

the orators lead the people, but their ignorance of military

matters prevents them from usurping power; o Plato, Rep.

viii.

565

any rate

THE POLITICS

125

few and slight. Formerly tyranwere more common than they now are, because great power was often placed in the hands of individuals thus a tyranny arose at Miletus out of the office of the Prytanis, who had supreme authority in many important matters. Moreover, in those days, when cities were not large, the people dwelt in the fields, busy at their work; and their chiefs, if they possessed any military talent, seized the opportunity, and winning the confidence of the masses by professing their hatred of instances to the contrary are

nies

;

the wealthy, they succeeded in obtaining the tyranny.

Thus

Athens Pisistratus led a faction against the men of the plain,* and Theagenes at Megara slaughtered the cattle of the wealthy, which he found by the riverside where they had put them to graze. Dionysius, again, was thought worthy of the tyranny because he denounced Daphnaeus and the rich; his enmity to the notables won for him the confidence of the people. Changes also take place from the ancient to the latest form of democracy; for where there is a popular election of the magistrates and no property qualification, the aspirants for office get hold of the people, and contrive at last even to set them above the laws. A more or less complete cure for this State of things is for the separate tribes, and not the whole at

people, to elect the magistrates.

These are the principal causes of revolutions in democracies. There are two patent causes of revolutions in oligarchies [one coming from without, the other from within the govern( I ) First, when the oligarchs oppress the people, for ment] then anybody is good enough to be their champion, especially if he is himself a member of the oligarchy, as Lygdamis at Naxos, who afterwards came to be tyrant. But revolutions which commence outside the governing class may be further Sometimes, when the government is very exsubdivided. clusive, the revolution is brought about by persons of the wealthy class who are excluded, as happened at Massalia and Istros and Heraclea, and other cities. Those who had no share in the government created a disturbance, until first the elder for in some brothers, and then the younger, were admitted places father and son, in others elder and younger brothers, do not hold office together. At Massalia the oligarchy became :

;

a constitutional government, but at Istros ended in b See Herod,

59.

ARISTOTLE

i2o

a democracy, and at Heraclea was enlarged to 600. At Cnidos, again, the oligarchy underwent a considerable change.

the notables

fell

For

out amongst themselves, because only a few

shared in the government there existed among them the rule already mentioned, that father and son could not hold office together, and, if there were several brothers, only the eldest was admitted. The people took advantage of the quarrel, and choosing one of the notables to be their leader, attacked and conquered the oligarchs, who were divided, and division is always a source of weakness. The city of Erythrae, too, in old times was ruled, and ruled well, by the Basilidae, but the people took offence at the narrowness of the oligarchy and changed the government. ;

(2) Of internal causes of revolutions in oligarchies one is the personal rivalry of the oligarchs, which leads them to play the

demagogue.

Now,

the oligarchical

demagogue

two

sorts

he practises upon the oligarchs themselves (for, although the oligarchy are quite a small number, there may be a demagogue among them, as at Athens the party of Charicles predominated among the Thirty, that of Phrynichus in the either (1)

Four Hundred) or ;

(2) the oligarchs

may

play the

demagogue

with the people. This was the case at Larissa, where the guardians of the citizens endeavored to gain over the people because they were elected by them; and such is the fate of all oligarchies in which the magistrates are elected, as at Abydos, not by the class to which they belong, but by the heavyarmed or by the people, although they may be required to have or, a high qualification, or to be members of a political club again, where the law courts are independent of the government, the oligarchs flatter the people in order to obtain a decision this in their own favor, and so they change the constitution happened at Heraclea in Pontus. Again, oligarchies change whenever any attempt is made to narrow them for then those who desire equal rights are compelled to call in the people. Changes in the oligarchy also occur when the oligarchs waste their private property by extravagant living; for then they want to innovate, and either try to make themselves tyrants, or install someone else in the tyranny, as Hipparinus did Dio;

;

nysius at Syracuse, and as at Amphipolis a man named Cleotiintroduced Chalcidian colonists, and when they arrived,

mus

stirred

them up against the

rich.

For a

reason in

^gina

THE POLITICS

127

the person who carried on the negotiation with Chares endeavored to revolutionize the State. Sometimes a party among the oligarchs try to create a political change; sometimes they

rob the treasury, and then, either the other oligarchs quarrel with the thieves, as happened at Apollonia in Pontus, or they with the other oligarchs. But an oligarchy which is at unity with itself is not easily destroyed from within of this we may see an example at Pharsalus, for there, although the rulers ;

are few in number, they govern a large city, because they have a good understanding among themselves. Oligarchies, again, are overthrown when another oligarchy is created within the original one, that is to say, when the

whole governing body

in the highest offices.

Thus

small and yet they do not all share at Elis the governing body was

a small Senate; and very few ever found their way into it, because, although in number ninety, the Senators were elected for

life

and out

of certain families in a

Oligarchy

the Lacedaemonian elders. alike in

war and

peace

;

manner

similar to

liable to revolutions

war because, not being

able to

trust the people, the oligarchs are compelled to hire mercena-

and the general who is in command of them often ends becoming a tyrant, as Timophanes did at Corinth; or if there are more generals than one they make themselves into a company of tyrants. Sometimes the oligarchs, fearing this danger, give the people a share in the government because their And in time of peace, from services are necessary to them. mutual distrust, the two parties hand over the defence of the State to the army and to an arbiter between the two factions ries,

who often ends the master of both. This happened at Larissa when Simos and the Aleuadae had the government, and at Abydos

in the

days of Iphiades and the political clubs. Revolu-

which lead to the overthrow of one party among the oligarchs by another. Of quarrels about marriages I have already mentioned some instances; another occurred at Eretria, where Diagoras overturned the oligarchy of the knights because he had been wronged about a marriage. A revolution at Heraclea, and another at Thebes, both arose out of decisions of law courts upon a charge of adultery in both cases the punishment was just, but executed in the spirit of the party, at Heraclea upon Eurytion, and at Thebes upon Archias; for their enemies

tions also arise out of marriages or lawsuits

;

ARISTOTLE

i 28

were jealous of them and so had them pilloried in the agora. oligarchies have been destroyed by some members of

Many

the ruling class taking offence at their excessive despotism;

example the oligarchy at Chidus and at Chios. Changes of constitutional governments, and also of oligarchies which limit the office of counsellor, judge, or other for

money

magistrate to persons having a certain often occur by accident.

The

qualification

qualification,

may have been

originally fixed according to the circumstances of the time,

such a manner as to include in an oligarchy a few only, or government the middle class. But after a time of prosperity, whether arising from peace or some other good fortune, the same property becomes many times as large, and then everybody participates in every office; this happens sometimes gradually and insensibly, and sometimes quickly. These are the causes of changes and revolutions in oligarchies. We must remark generally, both of democracies and oligarchies, that they sometimes change, not into the opposite forms of government, but only into another variety of the in

in a constitutional

same

class

;

mean

to say,

from those forms of democracy and

oligarchy which are regulated by law into those which are arbitrary, and conversely.

In aristocracies revolutions are stirred up share in the honors of the State;

shown

when a few

only

a cause which has been

an aristocracy is a the government of a few, although the few are the virtuous and not the wealthy hence the two are often confounded. And revolutions will be most likely to happen, and must happen, when the majority of the people are high-spirited, and have a notion that they are as good as their rulers. Thus at Lacedaemon the so-called Parthenise, who were the [illegitimate] sons of the Spartan peers, attempted a revolution, and, being detected, were sent away to colonize Tarentum. Again, revolutions already

to affect oligarchies;

for

sort of oligarchy, and, like an oligarchy,

occur when great men who are at least of equal merit are dishonored by those higher in office, as Lysander was by the kings of Sparta: or, when a brave man is excluded from the honors of the State, like Cinadon, who conspired against the Spartans under Agesilaus or, again, when some are very ;

poor and others very

rich, a state of society

which

most

often the result of war, as at Lacedaemon in the days of the

;

THE POLITICS Messenian War;

129

proved from the poem of Tyrtaeus, for he speaks of certain citizens who were ruined by the war and wanted to have a redistribution of the land. Again, revolutions arise when an individual who is great, and might be greater, wants to rule alone, as at Lacedaemon, Pausanias, who was general in the Persian entitled

War, or

this is "

Good Order

Hanno

;

at Carthage.

Constitutional governments and aristocracies are commonly overthrown owing to some deviation from justice in the constitution itself; the cause of the downfall is, in the former, the ill-mingling of the two elements, democracy and oligarchy in the latter, of the three elements, democracy, oligarchy, and

virtue, but especially

bine these

democracy and oligarchy.

For

the endeavor of constitutional governments

;

comand

most of the so-called aristocracies have a like aim, but differ from polities by the addition of virtue; hence some of them are more and some less permanent. Those which incline more to oligarchy are called aristocracies, and those which incline to democracy constitutional governments. And therefore the for the greater the number, the latter are the safer of the two greater the strength, and when men are equal they are contented. But the rich, if the government gives them power, are and, in general, whichever apt to be insolent and avaricious ;

;

the constitution inclines, in that direction it changes as either party gains strength, a constitutional government becoming a democracy, an aristocracy, an oligarchy. But the

way

may be reversed, and aristocracy may change into democracy. This happens when the poor, under the idea that they are being wronged, force the constitution to take an opposite form. In like manner constitutional governments change The only stable principle of government is into oligarchies. equality according to proportion, and for every man to enjoy process

his

own.

I have just mentioned actually happened at Thurii, where the qualification for office, though at first high, was The reduced, and the magistrates increased in number. conland the of whole the acquired notables had previously trary to law; for the government tended to oligarchy, and But the people, who had been they were able to encroach. trained by war, soon got the better of the guards kept by the oligarchs, until those who had too much gave up their land,

What

;

ARISTOTLE

130

Again, since

all

aristocratical

governments

incline to oli-

garchy, the notables are apt to be grasping; thus at Lacedaemon, where property has passed into few hands, the notables

can do too much as they like, and are allowed to marry whom they please. The city of Locri was ruined by a marriage connection with Dionysius, but such a thing could never have happened in a democracy, or in a well-balanced aristocracy. I have already remarked that in all States revolutions are occasioned by trifles. In aristocracies, above all, they are of The citizens begin by a gradual and imperceptible nature. giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater

ease the government change something else which

little

more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the State. At Thurii there was a law that generals should only be re-elected after an interval of five years, and some highspirited young men who were popular with the soldiers of the guard, despising the magistrates and thinking that they would wanted

easily gain their purpose,

to abolish this law

commands; people would be glad enough

their generals to hold perpetual

knew that the Whereupon the magistrates who had charge and who are

and allow

for they well to elect them.

of these matters,

called councillors, at first determined to resist,

if only this one law was changed, no further inroad would be made on the constitution. But other changes soon followed which they in vain attempted to oppose and the State passed into the hands of the revolutionists who established a dynastic oligarchy. All constitutions are overthrown either from within or from without; the latter, when there is some government close at hand having an opposite interest, or at a distance, but powerful. This was exemplified in the old times of the Athenians and the Lacedaemonians the Athenians everywhere put down the oligarchies, and the Lacedaemonians the democracies. I have now explained what are the chief causes of revolu-

but they afterwards consented, thinking that,

;

and dissensions in States. have next to consider what means there are of preserving States in general, and also in particular cases. In the first place it is evident that if we know the causes which destroy States, we shall also know the causes which preserve them for opposites produce opposites, and destruction is the oppotions

site

of preservations c Cp. Nic. Eth. v.

ยง 4.

;

THE POLITICS

In all well-attempered governments there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the State, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune. The change does not take place all at once, and therefore is not observed; the mind is deceived, as in the fallacy which says that " if each part is little, then the whole is little." And this is true in one way, but not in another, for the whole and the all are not little, although they are made up of littles. In the first place, then, men should guard against the beginning of change, and in the second place they should not ;

upon the political devices of which I have already spoken, invented only to deceive the people, for they are proved by

rely

experience to be useless. well as aristocracies

may

Further last,

note that oligarchies as

not from any inherent stability

in such forms of government, but because the rulers are on good terms both with the unenfranchised and with the governing classes, not maltreating any who are excluded from

the government, but introducing into

among them.

the leading spirits

They should never wrong

the ambitious in a matter of honor, or the common people in a matter of money and they should treat one another and their fellow-citizens in a spirit of equality. The equality which the friends of democracy seek to establish for the multitude is not only just but likewise expedient among equals. Hence, if the governing class are numerous, many democratic institutions are useful for example, the restriction of the tenure of offices to six months, that all those who are of equal rank may share in them. Indeed, equals or peers when they are numerous become a kind of democracy, and therefore demagogues are very likely to arise among them, as I have already remarked. The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into the hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies. For the aspirants to tyranny are either the principal men of the State, who in democracies are demagogues and in oligarchies members of ruling houses, or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure of them. States are preserved

when

their destroyers are at a distance,

ARISTOTLE

and sometimes also because they are near, for the fear of them makes the government keep in hand the State. Wherefore the ruler

who

has a care of the State should invent terrors,

and bring distant dangers near, in order that the citizens may be on their guard, and, like sentinels in a night-watch, never relax their attention. He should endeavor too by help of the laws to control the contentions and quarrels of the notables, and to prevent those who have not hitherto taken part in them from being drawn in. No ordinary man can discern the beginning of

evil,

but only the true statesman.

change produced in oligarchies and constitutional governments by the alteration of the qualification, when this arises, not out of any variation in the census, but only out of the increase of money, it is well to compare the general valuato the

tion of property with that of past years, annually in those

which the census is taken annually, and in larger cities every third or fifth year. If the whole is many times greater or many times less than when the rates were fixed at the previous census, there should be power given by law to raise or lower the qualification as the amount is greater or less. Where in the absence of any such provision the standard is raised, a constitutional government passes into an oligarchy, and an olicities in

is narrowed to a rule of families; where the standard lowered, constitutional government becomes democracy, and

garchy is

oligarchy either constitutional government or democracy. Tt is a principle common to democracy, oligarchy, and every other form of government not to allow the disproportionate increase of any citizen, but to give moderate honor for a long time rather than great honor for a short time. For men are

not everyone can bear prosperity. But if this not observed, at any rate the honors which are given all at once should be taken away by degrees and not all at Especially should the laws provide against anyone once. having too much power, whether derived from friends or easily spoilt;

rule

money;

he has, he and his followers should be sent out And since innovations creep in through the private life of individuals, there ought to be a magistracy which will have an eye to those whose life is not in harmony with the government, whether oligarchy or democracy or any other. And for a like reason an increase of prosperity in any part of the State should be carefully watched. The proper if

of the country.

;

THE POLITICS

I33

remedy for this evil is always to give the management of and offices of state to opposite elements such opposites are the virtuous and the many, or the rich and the poor. Another way is to combine the poor and the rich in one body, or

affairs

;

to increase the middle class:

thus an end will be put to the

revolutions which arise from inequality.

But above

every State should be so administered and its magistrates cannot possibly make money. In oligarchies special precautions should be used against this evil. For the people do not take any great offence indeed they are rather at being kept out of the government pleased than otherwise at having leisure for their private business but what irritates them is to think that their rulers are stealing the public money; then they are doubly annoyed; all

so regulated by law that

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

for they lose both honor and profit. If office brought no profit, then and then only could democracy and aristocracy be combined; for both notables and people might have their wishes gratified. All would be. able to hold office, which is the aim of

democracy, and the notables would be magistrates, which is And this result may be accomplished

the aim of aristocracy.

making money out of the want to have them when there they would rather be is nothing to be gained from them attending to their own concerns; and the rich, who do not want money from the public treasury, will be able to take them and so the poor will keep to their work and grow rich, and

when

there

offices;

possibility of

for the poor will not

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

the notables will not be governed by the lower class. In order to avoid peculation of the public money, the transfer of the revenue

should be

made

a general assembly of the

citizens,

and dupli-

cates of the accounts deposited with the different brotherhoods,

companies, and

tribes.

And

honors should be given by law

who have

the reputation of being incorruptible. not only should In democracies the rich should be spared their property not be divided, but their incomes also, which in some States are taken from them imperceptibly, should be pro-

to magistrates

;

It is a good thing to prevent the wealthy citizens, even willing, from undertaking expensive and useless are if they public services, such as the giving of choruses, torch-races, and the like. In an oligarchy, on the other hand, great care

tected.

should be taken of the poor, and lucrative offices should go them ; if any of the wealthy classes insult them, the offender

;

ARISTOTLE

should be punished more severely than one of their own class Provisions should be made that estates for a like offence. pass by inheritance and not by gift, and no person should have more than one inheritance; for in this way properties will be equalized, and more of the poor rise to competency. It is also expedient both in democracy and in an oligarchy to assign to those who have less share in the government (for example, to the rich in a democracy and to the poor in an oligarchy) an equality or preference in all but the principal offices of state. The latter should be entrusted chiefly or only to members of the governing class.

There are three to

fill

qualifications required in those

the highest offices

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

(i)

first

all,

who have

loyalty to the estab-

(2) the greatest administrative capacity; (3) virtue and justice of the kind proper to each form of government; for, if what is just is not the same in all govern-

lishevl constitution;

ments, the quality of justice must also differ. There may be a doubt however, when all these qualities do not meet in the same person, how the selection is to be made; suppose, for

example, a good general is a bad man and not a friend to the and another man is loyal and just, which should we choose? In making the election ought we not to consider

constitution,

two points? what qualities are common, and what are rare. Thus in the choice of a general, we should regard his skill rather than his virtue; for few have military skill, but many have virtue. In keeping watch or in any office of stewardship, on the other hand, the opposite rule should be observed for more virtue than ordinary is required in the holder of such an office, but the necessary knowledge is of a sort which all

men

possess.

may, however, be asked what a man wants with virtue if he have political ability and is loyal, since these two qualities alone will make him do what is for the public interest. But may not men have both of them and yet be deficient in selfcontrol? If, knowing and loving their own interests, they do not always attend to them, may they not be equally negIt

ligent of the interests of the public?

Speaking generally, we may say that whatever legal enactments are held to be for the interest of States, all these preserve States. And the great preserving principle is the one which has been repeatedly mentioned to have a care that the

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

THE POLITICS

135

outnumber the disloyal. Neither should forget the mean, which at the present day is lost sight of in perverted forms of government ; for many practices which appear to be democratical are the ruin of democracies, and loyal citizens should

many which appear to be oligarchical are the ruin of oligarchies. Those who think that all virtue is to be found in their own party principles push matters to extremes; they do not consider that disproportion destroys a State. nose which varies from the ideal of straightness to a hook or snub may still be of good shape and agreeable to the eye; but if the excess

be very great, all symmetry is lost, and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all on account of some excess in one direction and this is true of every other part of or defect in the other the human body. The same law of proportion equally holds in States. Oligarchy or democracy, although a departure from the most perfect form, may yet be a good enough government, but if anyone attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme, he will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all. Wherefore the legislator and the statesman ought to know what democratical measures save and what destroy a democracy, and what oligarchical measures For neither the one nor the save or destroy an oligarchy. other can exist or continue to exist unless both rich and poor If equality of property is introduced, the are included in it. for when by laws State must of necessity take another form ;

;

carried to excess one or other element in the State

the constitution

ruined,

ruined.

common

both to oligarchies and to democdemagogues, when the multitude are above the law, are always cutting the city in two by quarrels with the rich, whereas they should always profess to be main-

There

racies

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

an error

in the latter the

just as in oligarchies, the oligarchs should profess to maintain the cause of the people, and should take For there oaths the opposite of those which they now take. are cities in which they swear " I will be an enemy to the

taining their cause

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and will devise all the harm against them which I can " but they ought to exhibit and to entertain the very opposite in the form of their oath there should be an express feeling " I will do no wrong to the people." declaration But of all the things which I have mentioned that which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the people,

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ARISTOTLE

136

adaptation of education to the form of government, and yet

own day this principle is universally neglected. The best though sanctioned by every citizen of the State, will be of no avail unless the young are trained by habit and educa-

our

laws,

tion in the spirit of the constitution,

democratically, or oligarchically,

the laws are democratical, the laws are oligarchical.

For there may be a want of self-discipline in States as well as in Now, to have been educated in the spirit of the constitution is not to perform the actions in which oligarchs or democrats delight, but those by which the existence of an oligarchy or of a democracy is made possible. Whereas among ourselves the sons of the ruling class in an oligarchy live in luxury, but the sons of the poor are hardened by exercise and toil, and hence they are both more inclined and better able individuals.

to make a revolution.^ And in democracies of the more extreme type there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is

contradictory to the true interests of the State. ciples are characteristic of

For two prin-

democracy, the government of the

Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom and equality mean the doing what a man likes.

majority and freedom.

In such democracies everyone lives as he pleases, or in the

words of Euripides, " according to his fancy." But this is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution I

;

for

it is

their salvation.

have now discussed generally the causes of the revolution

and destruction of States, and the means of their preservation and continuance. I have still to speak of monarchy, and the causes of its destruction and preservation. What I have said already respecting other forms of government applies almost equally to royal and to tyrannical rule. For royal rule is of the nature of an aristocracy, and a tyranny is a compound of oligarchy and democracy in their most extreme forms; it is therefore most injurious to its subjects, being made up of two evil forms of government, and having the perversions and errors of both. These two forms of monarchy differ in their very origin. The appointment of a king is the resource of the better classes against the people, and he is elected by them out of their own number, because either he himself or his family excel in virtue d Cp.

PI.

Rep.

viii.

556

;

THE POLITICS

and virtuous actions; whereas a tyrant is chosen from the people to be their protector against the notables, and in order to prevent them from being injured. History shows that almost all tyrants have been demagogues who gained the favor of the people by their accusation of the notables.* At any rate this

was the manner in which the tyrannies arose in the cities had increased in power. Others which were

days when

older originated in the ambition of kings wanting to overstep the limits of their hereditary power and become despots. Others

again grew out of the class which were chosen to be chief for in ancient times the people who elected them ;

magistrates

gave the magistrates, whether civil or religious, a long tenure. Others arose out of the custom which oligarchies had of making some individual supreme over the highest offices. In any of these ways an ambitious man had no difficulty, if he desired, in creating a tyranny, since he had the power in his hands already, either as king or as one of the officers of state. Thus Pheidon at Argos and several others were originally kings, and ended by becoming tyrants Phalaris, on the other hand, and the Ionian tyrants, acquired the tyranny by holding great Whereas Panaetius at Leontini, Cypselus at Corinth, offices. Pisistratus at Athens, Dionysius at Syracuse, and several others who afterwards became tyrants, were at first demagogues. And so, as I was saying, royalty ranks with aristocracy, for it is based upon merit, whether of the individual or of his family, or on benefits conferred, or on these claims with power added to them. For all who have obtained this honor have benefited, or had in their power to benefit, States and nations some, like Codrus, have prevented the State from being enslaved in war; others, like Cyrus, have given their country freedom, or have settled or gained a territory, like the Lacedaemonian, Macedonian, and Molossian kings. The idea of a ;

is to be a protector of the rich against unjust treatment, of the people against insult and oppression. Whereas a tyrant, as has often been repeated, has no regard to any public interest,

king

but only to his private ends; his aim is pleasure, the aim of a king, honor. Wherefore also in their desires they differ: the tyrant is desirous of riches, the king, of what brings honor. And the guards of a king are citizens, but of a tyrant mercenaries. e Plato, Rep. 565

ARISTOTLE

138

That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms. Both agree too in injuring the people and driving them out of the city and dispersing them. From democracy tyrants have borrowed the art of making war upon the notables and destroying them secretly or openly, or of exiling them because they are rivals and stand in the way of their power; and also because plots against them are contrived by men of this class, who either want to rule or to escape subjection. Hence Periander advised Thrasybulus to cut off the tops of the tallest ears of corn, meaning that he must always put out of the way the citizens who overtop the rest. And so, as I have already intimated, the beginnings of change are the same in monarchies as in other forms of government; subjects attack their sovereigns out of fear or contempt, or because they have been unjustly treated by them. And of injustice, the most common form is insult, another is

confiscation of property.

The ends sought by

conspiracies against monarchies, whether

tyrannies or royalties, are the same as the ends sought by conspiracies against other forms of government. Monarchs

have great wealth and honor which are objects of desire to all mankind. The attacks are made sometimes against their lives, sometimes against the office; where the sense of insult is the motive, against their lives. Any sort of insult (and there are

many) may stir up anger, and when men are angry, they commonly act out of revenge, and not from ambition. For example, the attempt made upon the Pisistratidae arose out of the public dishonor offered to the sister of Harmodius and the insult to himself.

attacked the tyrant for his sister's sake,

and Aristogeiton joined in the attack for the sake of Harmodius. A conspiracy was also formed against Periander, the tyrant of Ambracia, because, when drinking with a favorite youth, he asked him whether by this time he was not with child by him. Philip, too, was attacked by Pausanias because he permitted him to be insulted by Attalus and his friends, and Amyntas the little, by Derdas, because he boasted of having enjoyed his youth. Evagoras of Cyprus, again, was slain by the eunuch to revenge an insult; for his wife had been carried off by

;

THE POLITICS Evagoras's son.

Many

conspiracies have originated in shamesovereigns on the persons of their subSuch was the attack of Crataeus upon Archelaus; he

ful attempts jects.

made by

had always hated the connection with him, and so, when Archelaus, having promised him one of his two daughters in marriage, did not give him either of them, but broke his word and married the elder to the King of Elymaea, when he was hard pressed in a war against Sirrhas and Arrhibaeus, and the younger to his own son Amyntas, under the idea that he would

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

then be less likely to quarrel with the son of Cleopatra Crataeus made this slight a pretext for attacking Archelaus, though even a less reason would have sufficed, for the real cause of the estrangement was the disgust which he felt at his connection with the King. And from a like motive Hellanocrates of Larissa conspired with him; for when Archelaus, who was his lover, did not fulfil his promise of restoring him to his country, he thought that the connection between them had originated, not in affection, but in the wantonness of power. Parrhon, too, and Heracleides of ^Enos, slew Cotys in order to avenge their father, and Adamas revolted from Cotys in revenge for the wanton outrage which he had committed in mutilating him when a child. Many, too, irritated at blows inflicted on the person which they deemed an insult, have either killed or attempted to kill officers of state and royal princes by whom they have been injured. Thus, at Mitylene, Megacles and his friends attacked and slew the Penthalidae, as they were going about and striking people with clubs. At a later date Smerdis, who had been beaten and torn away from his wife by Penthilus, slew him. In the conspiracy against Archelaus, Decamnichus stimulated the fury of the assassins and led the attack he was enraged because Archelaus had delivered him to Euripides to be scourged for the poet had been irritated at some remark made by Decamnichus on the foulness of his breath. Many other examples might be cited of murders ,and conspiracies which have arisen ;

from similar causes. Fear is another motive which has caused conspiracies as well in monarchies as in more popular forms of government. Thus Artapanes conspired against Xerxes and slew him, fearing that he would be accused of hanging Darius against his orders he being under the impression that Xerxes would

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

ARISTOTLE

1/f.O

what he had

forget

said in the middle of a meal,

and that the

offence would be forgiven.

Another motive is contempt, as in the case of Sardanapalus, someone saw carding wool with his women, if the storytellers say truly; and the tale may be true, if not of him, of someone else. Dion attacked the younger Dionysius because he despised him, and saw that he was equally despised by Even the his own subjects, and that he was always drunk. friends of a tyrant will sometimes attack him out of contempt for the confidence which he reposes in them breeds contempt, and they think that they will not be found out. The expecta-

whom

tion of success

likewise a sort of contempt;

the assailants

are ready to strike, and think nothing of the danger, because

they seem to have the power in their hands. Thus generals of armies attack monarchs; as, for example, Cyrus attacked life, and believing Thus, again, Seuthes the Thracian conspired against Amadocus, whose general he was. And sometimes men are actuated by more than one motive,

Astyages, despising the effeminacy of his that

his

power was worn

like Mithridates,

who

out.

conspired against Ariobarzanes, partly

out of contempt and partly from the love of gain. Bold natures, placed by their sovereigns in a high military position, are

most

likely to

make

the attempt in the expecta-

emboldened by power, and the union of the two inspires them with the hope of an easy victory. Attempts of which the motive is ambition arise from other causes. There are men who will not risk their lives in the hope of gains and rewards however great, but who nevertheless regard the killing of a tyrant simply as an extraordinary action which will make them famous and honorable in the world they wish to acquire, not a kingdom, but a name. It is rare, however, to find such men he who would kill a tyrant must be prepared to lose his life if he fail. He must have the resolution of Dion, who, when he made war upon Dionysius, took with him very few troops, saying " that whatever measure of success he might attain would be enough for him, even if he were to die the moment he landed such a death would be welcome to him." But this is a temper to which few can

tion of success

;

for courage

;

attain.

Once more, tyrannies, like all other governments, are destroyed from without by some opposite and more powerful form

;

THE POLITICS

I4 ,

of government.

That such a government will have the will them is clear for the two are opposed in principle men, if they can, do what they will. Democracy is

to attack

and

all

;

also antagonistic to tyranny, on the principle of Hesiod, " Potter hates potter," because they are nearly akin, for the extreme

form of democracy is tyranny; and royalty and aristocracy are both alike opposed to tyranny, because they are constitutions of a different type. And therefore the Lacedaemonians put down most of the tyrannies, and so did the Syracusans during the time when they were well-governed. Again, tyrannies are destroyed from within, when the reigning families are divided among themselves, as that of Gelo was, and more recently that of Dionysius in the case of Gelo because Thrasybulus, the brother of Hiero, flattered the son of Gelo and led him into excesses in order that he might rule ;

name. Whereupon the family conspired to get rid of Thrasybulus and save the tyranny; but the party who conspired with them seized the opportunity and drove them all out. In the case of Dionysius, Dion, his own relative, attacked and expelled him with the assistance of the people ; he afterin his

wards perished himself. There are two chief motives which induce men to attack tyrannies hatred and contempt. Hatred of tyrants is inevitable, and contempt is also a frequent cause of their destruction. Thus we see that most of those who have acquired, have retained their power, but those who have inherited/ have lost

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

almost at once;

it,

for living in luxurious ease, they have

become contemptible, and offer many opportunities to their assailants. Anger, too, must be included under hatred, and produces the same effects. It is oftentimes even more ready to strike the angry are more impetuous in making an attack, for they do not listen to reason. And men are very apt to give

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

way

to their passions

Hatred by pain, which others.

when they

is is

are insulted.

this cause

and of many more reasonable, but anger is accompanied an impediment to reason, whereas hatred

to be attributed the

fall

of the Pisistratidse

painless.g

In a word, all the causes which I have mentioned as destroying the last and most unmixed form of oligarchy, and the extreme form of democracy, may be assumed to affect tyranny; /

Cp. Plato, Laws,

iii.

695.

g Cp. Rhetoric,

ii.

Â§ 31.

;

ARISTOTLE

i 42

indeed the extreme forms of both are only tyrannies distributed among several persons. Kingly rule is little affected by external causes, and is, therefore, lasting; it is generally destroyed from within. And there are two ways in which the destruction may come about; (i) when the members of the royal family quarrel among themselves, and (2) when the kings

attempt to administer the State too much after the fashion of a tyranny, and to extend their authority contrary to the law. There are now no royalties; monarchies, where they exist, are tyrannies. For the rule of a king is over voluntary subjects, and he is supreme in all important matters; but in our

own day men

are more upon an equality, and no one is so immeasurably superior to others as to represent adequately the greatness and dignity of the office. Hence mankind will not, if they can help, endure it, and anyone who obtains power by force or fraud is at once thought to be a tyrant. In hereditary monarchies a further cause of destruction is the fact that kings often fall into contempt, and, although possessing not tyrannical but only royal power, are apt to outrage others. Their overthrow is then readily effected; for there is an end to the king when his subjects do not want to have him, but the tyrant lasts, whether they like him or not. The destruction of monarchies is to be attributed to these and the like causes. And they are preserved, to speak generally, by the opposite causes or, if we consider them separately, ( 1 ) royalty is preserved by the limitation of its powers. The more restricted the functions of kings, the longer their power will last unimpaired for then they are more moderate and not so despotic in their ways and they are less envied by their subjects. This is ;

;

the reason

why the kingly office has lasted so long among the And for a similar reason it has continued among

Molossians.

it was always divided between two, and afterwards further limited by Theopompus in various respects, more particularly by the establishment of the

the Lacedaemonians, because there

ephoralty.

diminished the power of the kings, but estab-

on a more lasting basis the kingly

which was There is a story that when his wife once asked him whether he was not ashamed to leave to his sons a royal power which was less than he had inherited from his father, " No indeed," he lished

thus

made

office,

in a certain sense not less, but greater.

;

THE POLITICS replied, " for the

power which

I43

I leave to

them

will be

lasting."

to (2) tyrannies, they are preserved in

ways.

One

them

the old traditional

most tyrants administer Periander of Corinth

two most opposite method in which

their government. Of such arts said to have been the great master,

and many similar devices may be gathered from the Persians in the administration of their government. There are also the ancient prescriptions for the preservation of a tyranny, in is possible; viz., that the tyrant should lop off

so far as this

those who are too high he must put to death men of spirit he must not allow common meals, clubs, education, and the like; he must be upon his guard against anything which is likely to inspire either courage or confidence among his subjects he must prohibit literary assemblies or other meetings for discussion, and he must take every means to prevent people from knowing one another (for acquaintance begets mutual confidence). Further he must compel the inhabitants to appear in public and live at his gates then he will know what they are doing: if they are always kept under, they will learn to be humble. In short he should practice these and the like Persian and barbaric arts which all have the same object. A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the " female detectives " at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out. Another ;

;

art of the tyrant

sow quarrels amongst the

citizens;

friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the

and the rich with one another. Also he should imhe thus provides money for the support of his guards, and the people, having to keep hard at The Pyramids of work, are prevented from conspiring. Egypt afford an example of this policy; also the offerings of the family of Cypselus, and the building of the temple of Olympian Zeus by the Pisistratidse, and the great Polycratean monuments at Samos; all these works were alike intended to occupy the people and keep them poor. Another practice notables,

poverish his subjects;

of tyrants

at Syracuse,

to multiply taxes, after the

who

manner of Dionysius

contrived that within five years his subjects

)

ARISTOTLE

i 44

should bring into the treasury their whole property. The is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader. And whereas the power of a king is preserved by his friends, the characteristic of a tyrant is to distrust his friends, because he knows that all men want to overthrow him, and they above all have the power. Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time. For the people too would fain be a monarch, and therefore by them, as well as by the tyrant, the flatterer is held in honor in democracies he is the tyrant

;

demagogue; and the tyrant

who

flatter

Hence in

hk humble companions

him.

tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they

love to be flattered, but no

man

also has

him

will

man who

demean himself by do not

has the

spirit of

a free-

good men love Moreover the bad

flattery;

anybody. knocks out nail," as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike everyone who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but anyone who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power. Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the others enter into no rivalry with him. Such are the notes of the tyrant and the arts by which he preserves his power there is no wickedness too great for him. All that we have said may be summed up under three heads, which answer to the three aims of the tyrant. These are, ( I the humiliation of his subjects he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody: (2) the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another; and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good they are under others, but they

flatter

are useful for bad purposes

" nail

;

THE POLITICS

145

the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are loyal to one another, and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men: (3) the tyrant desires that his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible, and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny, if they are powerless. Under these

may be summed up, one or other of them all his ideas may be referred: (1) he sows distrust among his subjects; (2) he takes away their power; (3) he humbles them. This then is one of the two methods by which tyrannies are preserved; and there is another which proceeds upon a difthree heads the whole policy of a tyrant

and

The nature

ferent principle of action.

of this latter method

may

be gathered from a comparison of the causes which destroy kingdoms, for as one mode of destroying kingly power

make

more tyrannical, so the salvation more like the rule of a king. But of one thing the tyrant must be careful he must keep power enough to rule over his subjects, whether they like him or not, for if he once gives this up he gives up his tyranny. But though power must be retained as the foundation, in all else is

the office of king

of a tyranny

make

;

the tyrant should act or appear to act in the character of a In the first place he should pretend a care of the public

king.

revenues and not waste money in making presents of a sort which the common people get excited when they see their miserable earnings taken from them and lav^hed on courtesans and strangers and artists. He should give an account of what he receives and of what he spends (a practice which has been adopted by some tyrants) for then he will seem to be the manager of a household rather than a tyrant; nor need he fear that, while he is the lord of the city, he will ever be in want of money. Such a policy is much more advantageous for the tyrant when he goes from home, than to leave behind him a hoard, for then the garrison who remain in the city will be less likely to attack his power; and a tyrant, when he is absent from home, has more reason to fear the guardians of his treasure than the citizens, for the one accompany him, but the others remain behind. In the second place, he should appear to collect taxes and to require public services only for state purposes, and that he may form a fund in case of war, at

;

ARISTOTLE

i 46

he ought to make himself the guardian and treasurer of them, as if they belonged, not to him, but to the public. He should appear, not harsh, but dignified, and when men meet him they should look upon him with reverence, and not with fear. Yet it is hard for him to be respected if he inspires no respect, and therefore whatever virtues he may neglect, at least he should maintain the character of a statesman, and produce the impression that he is one. Neither he nor any of his associates should ever be guilty of the least offence against modesty towards the young of either sex who are his subjects, and the women of his family should observe a like selfcontrol towards other women; the insolence of women has In the indulgence of pleasures he ruined many tyrannies. should be the opposite of our modern tyrants, who not only begin at dawn and pass whole days in sensuality, but want other men to see them, that they may admire their happy and blessed lot. In these things a tyrant should be especially moderate or at any rate should not parade his vices to the world; for a drunken and drowsy tyrant is soon despised and attacked; not so he who is temperate and wide awake. His conduct should be the very reverse of nearly everything which has been said before about tyrants. He ought to adorn and improve his city, as though he were not a tyrant, but the guardian of the State. Also he should appear to be particularly earnest in the service of the gods; for if men think that a ruler is religious and has a reverence for the gods, they are less afraid of suffering injustice at his hands,

and they are less disposed to conspire against him, because they believe him to have the very gods fighting on his side. At the same time his religion must not be thought foolish. And he should honor men of merit, and make them think that they would not be held in more honor by the citizens if they had a free government. The honor he should distribute himself, but the punishment should be inflicted by officers and courts of law. It is a precaution which is taken by all monarchs but if one, then two or more not to make one person great ;

should be raised, that they may look sharply after one another. If after all some one has to be made great, he should not be a man of bold spirit for such dispositions are ever most inclined to strike. And if anyone is to be deprived of his power, let it be diminished gradually, not taken from him all at once. ;

THE POLITICS

147

The tyrant should abstain from all outrage in particular from personal violence and from wanton conduct towards the young. He should be especially careful of his behaviour to men who ;

are lovers of honor ; for as the lovers of money are offended when their property is touched, so are the lovers of honor and the virtuous when their honor is affected. Therefore a tyrant

ought either not to use force at all ; or he should be thought only to employ fatherly correction, and not to trample upon others and his acquaintance with youth should be supposed to arise from affection, and not from the insolence of power, and in general he should compensate the appearance of dishonor by the increase of honor.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Of those who attempt assassination they are the most dangerous, and require to be most carefully watched who do not if they effect their purpose. Therefore special precaution should be taken about any who think that either

care to survive,

they or their relatives have been insulted; for led

away by passion

themselves.

anger;

when men

are

to assault others they are regardless of

As Heracleitus says, " It is difficult to man will buy revenge with life."

fight against

for a

And whereas States consist of two classes, of poor men and of rich, the tyrant should lead both to imagine that they are preserved and prevented from harming one another by his rule, and whichever of the two is stronger he should attach to his

government

;

for,

having

this advantage,

he has no need

either to emancipate slaves or to disarm the citizens;

party added to the force which he already has, will stronger than his assailants. But enough of these details;

either

make him

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;what

should be the general ought to show himself to his subjects in the light, not of a tyrant, but of the master of a household and of a king. He should not appropriate what is theirs, but should be their guardian; he should be moderate, not extravagant in his way of life he should be the companion of the notables, and the hero of the multitude. For then his rule will of necessity be nobler and happier, because he will rule policy of a tyrant

obvious.

;

over better men whose spirits are not crushed, over men to he himself is not an object of hatred, and of whom he is not afraid. His power, too, will be more lasting. Let his disposition be virtuous, or at least half virtuous and if he must be wicked, let him be half wicked only.

whom

;

ARISTOTLE

148

Yet no forms of government are so short-lived as oligarchy and tyranny. The tyranny which lasted longest was that of Orthagoras and his sons at Sicyon; this continued for a hundred years. The reason was that they treated their subjects with moderation, and to a great extent observed the laws and in various ways gained the favor of the people by the care which they took of them. Cleisthenes, in particular, was respected for his military ability. If report may be believed, he crowned the judge who decided against him in the games and, as some ;

;

Agora of Sicyon

say, the sitting statue in the this person.

similar story

the likeness of

who is summoned

told of Pisistratus,

said on one occasion to have allowed himself to be

and tried before the Areopagus.) Next in duration to the tyranny of Orthagoras was that of the Cypselidse at Corinth, which lasted seventy-three years and six months: Cypselus reigned thirty years, Periander fortyfour, and Psammetichus the son of Gordius three. Their continuance was due to similar causes: Cypselus was a popular man, who during the whole time of his rule never had a bodyguard; and Periander, although he was a tyrant, was a great soldier. Third in duration was the rule of the Pisistratidae at for Pisistratus was twice Athens, but it was interrupted driven out, so that during three and thirty years he reigned only seventeen and his sons reigned eighteen altogether thirty-five years. Gf other tyrannies, that of Hiero and Gelo at Syracuse was the most lasting. Even this, however, was short, not more ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

than eighteen years in

all

;

for Gelo continued tyrant for seven

and died in the eighth Hiero reigned for ten years, and Thrasybulus was driven out in the eleventh month. In fact, tyrannies generally have been of quite short duration. I have now gone through all the causes by which constitutional governments and monarchies are either destroyed or years,

;

preserved. In the " Republic " of Plato,^ Socrates treats of revolutions,

but not well, for he mentions no cause of change which peculiarly affects the first or perfect State. He only says that nothing is abiding, but that all things change in a certain cycle and ;

a base of numbers which are in the ratio of four to three, and this when combined with a figure (he means when the number of of five gives two harmonies that the origin of the change

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

h Rep.

viii.

546.

THE POLITICS

149

becomes solid) he conceives that nature will then produce bad men who will not submit to education; in which latter particular he may very likely be not far wrong, for there may well be some men who cannot be educated and made virtuous. But why is such a cause of change peculiar to his ideal State, and not rather common to all States, nay, to everything which comes into being at all ? Or how is the State specially changed by the agency of time, which, as he declares, makes all things change? And things which did not begin together, change together, for example, if something has come into being the day before the completion of the cycle, it will change with Further, why should the perfect state change into the Sparit. tan ? For governments more often take an opposite form than one akin to them. The same remark is applicable to the other changes he says that the Spartan constitution changes into an oligarchy, and this into a democracy, and this again into a tyranny. And yet the contrary happens quite as often for a democracy is even more likely to change into an oligarchy than Further, he never says whether tyranny is, into a monarchy. or is not, liable to revolutions, and if it is, what is the cause of them, or into what form it changes. And the reason is, that he could not very well have told for there is no rule according to him it should revert to the first and best, and then there would be a complete cycle. But in point of fact a tyranny often changes into a tyranny, as that at Sicyon changed from the tyranny of Myron into that of Cleisthenes into oligarchy, as the tyranny of Antileon did at Chalcis into democracy, as that of Gelo did at Syracuse into aristocracy, as at Carthage, and the tyranny of Charilaus at Lacedaemon. Often an oligarchy changes into a tyranny, like most of the ancient oligarchies in Sicily for example, the oligarchy at Leontini changed into the tyranny of Panaetius; that at Gela into the tyranny of Cleander; that at Rhegium into the tyranny of Anaxilaus; the same thing has happened in many other States. And it is absurd to suppose that the State changes into oligarchy merely because, [as Plato says,*] the ruling class are lovers and makers of money, and not because the very rich think it unfair that the very poor should have an equal share in the government with themselves. this figure

;

Moreover

money

many

in trade.

oligarchies there are laws against

But

at Carthage, i

Rep.

viii.

which

550

making

a democracy, there

ARISTOTLE

150

is no such prohibition; and yet to this day the Carthaginians have never had a revolution. It is absurd, too, for him to say that an oligarchy is two cities, one of the rich, and the other of the poor./ Is not this just as much the case in the Spartan constitution, or in any other in which either all do not possess equal property, or in which all are not equally good men? Nobody need be any poorer than he was before, and yet the oligarchy may change all the same into a democracy, if the poor form the majority; and a democracy may change into an oligarchy, if the wealthy class are stronger than the people, and the one are energetic, the other indifferent. Once more, although the causes of revolutions are very numerous, he mentions only one,fe which is, that the citizens become poor through dissipation and debt, as though he thought that all, or the majority of them, were originally rich. This is not true: though it is true that when any of the leaders lose their property they are ripe for revolution but, when anybody else, it is no great matter. And an oligarchy does not more often pass into a democracy than Again, if men are deinto any other form of government. prived of the honors of State, and are wronged, and insulted, they make revolutions, and change forms of government, even although they have not wasted their substance because they might do what they liked of which extravagance he declares excessive freedom to be the cause./ Finally, although there are many forms of oligarchies and democracies, Socrates speaks of their revolutions as though there were only one form of either of them. ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

/Rep.

viii.

551

Ibid.,

555

/Ibid., 564.

BOOK

have now considered the varieties of the deliberative or supreme power in States, and the various arrange-

ments of law courts and State offices, and which of them are adapted to different forms of government. We have also spoken of the destruction and preservation of States, how and from what causes they arise. Of democracy and all other forms of government there are many kinds and it will be well to assign to them severally the modes of organization which are proper and advantageous to each, adding what remains to be said about them. Moreover, we ought to consider the various combinations of these modes ;

themselves; for such combinations

make

constitutions overlap

one another, so that aristocracies have an oligarchical character, and constitutional governments incline to democracies. When I speak of the combinations which remain to be considered, and thus far have not been considered by us, I mean such as these: when the deliberative part of the government and the election of officers is constituted oligarchically, and the law courts aristocratically, or when the courts and the deliberative part of the State are oligarchical, and the election to offices aristocratical, or when in any other way there is a want of harmony in the composition of a State. I have shown already what forms of democracy are suited

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and what of oligarchy to particular peoples, each of the other forms of government is suited.

to particular cities,

and to

whom

Further, is

we must

not only show which of these governments

the best for each State, but also briefly proceed to consider

how

these and other forms of government are to be established.

First of

all let

us speak of democracy, which will also bring

form of government commonly called For the purposes of this inquiry we need to ascerthe elements and characteristics of democracy, since

to light the opposite

oligarchy. tain all

from the combinations of these the iSi

varieties of democratic

ARISTOTLE

There are several of these differing from arise. each other, and the difference is due to two causes. One (i) has been already mentioned differences of population; for the popular element may consist of husbandmen, or of mechanics, or of laborers, and if the first of these be added to the second, or the third to the two others, not only does the democracy become better or worse, but its very nature is changed. second cause (2) remains to be mentioned: the various properties and characteristics of democracy, when variously combined, make a difference. For one democracy will have less and another will have more, and another will have all of these characteristics. There is an advantage in knowing them all, whether a man wishes to establish some new form of democracy, or only to remodel an existing one. Founders of States try to bring together all the elements which accord with the ideas of the several constitutions but this is a mistake of theirs, as I have already remarked when speaking of the destruction and presergovernment

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

vation of States. acteristics,

The to the

State;

will

now

and aims of such

set forth the principles, char-

States.

basis of a democratic State

is liberty which, according opinion of men, can only be enjoyed in such a this they affirm to be the great end of every democ;

common

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

racy.**

in turn,

One

principle of liberty

and indeed democratic

for all to rule

justice

and be ruled

the application of

numerical not proportionate equality; whence it follows that the majority must be supreme, and that whatever the majority approve must be the end and the just. Every citizen, it is said, must have equality, and therefore in a democracy the poor have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their State. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, and, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it coincides with the freedom based upon equality [which was the first

characteristic].

Such being our foundation and such the nature a Cp. Plato, Rep.

viii.

557

foil.

of democracy,

THE POLITICS

I53

characteristics are as follows:â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the election of officers by out of all and that all should rule over each, and each in his turn over all that the appointment to all offices, or to all but its

all

;

those which require experience and skill, should be made by lot; that no property qualification should be required for offices, or only a very low one; that no one should hold the

same

or not often except in the case of military all offices, or of as many as possible, should be brief; that all men should sit in judgment, or that judges selected out of all should judge in all matters, or in most, or in the greatest and most important such as the office twice,

offices

that the tenure of

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

scrutiny of accounts, the constitution, and private contracts; that the assembly should be supreme over all causes, or at

any rate over the most important, and the magistrates over none or only over a very few. Of all institutions, a council is the most democratic when there is not the means of paying

all

its

the citizens, but

power

;

when they

for the people then

are paid even this

draw

said in the previous discussion.

democracy

payment for

when

it is

not to be had for

all,

robbed

cases to themselves,

The next

services;

magistrates, everybody receives pay,

all

characteristic of assembly, law courts,

when

then

is to be had; given to the law

it is

courts and to the stated assemblies, to the council and to the

who are compelled have their meals together. And whereas oligarchy is characterized by birth, wealth, and education, the notes of democracy appear to be the opposite of these low birth, poverty, mean employment. Another note is that no magistracy is perpetual, but if any such have survived some ancient change in the constitution it should be stripped of its power, and the holders should be elected by lot and no longer by vote. These but democracy and are points common to all democracies demos in their truest form are based upon the recognized prinmagistrates, or at least to any of them

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

ciple of democratic justice, that all should count equally;

equality implies that the rich should have

no more share

for in

the government than the poor, and should not be the only rulers, but that all should rule equally according to their numbers.

And

in this

way men

think that they will secure equality

and freedom in their State. Next comes the question, how Is the qualification to be

this equality to be obtained?

so distributed that five hundred

— ARISTOTLE

154

rich shall be equal to a thousand poor? and shall we give the thousand a power equal to that of the five hundred ? or, if this is not to be the mode, ought we, still retaining the same ratio, to take equal numbers from each and give them the control of the elections and of the courts? Which, according to the

—

democratical notion,

the juster form of the constitution

one based on numbers only? Democrats say that justhat to which the majority agree, oligarchs that to which the wealthier class in their opinion the decision should be given according to the amount of property. In both printhis or tice

;

ciples there is

some

inequality

and

injustice.

For

justice

who

has more wealth than all the rest of his class put together, ought, upon the oligarchical principle, to have the sole power but this would or if justice is the will of the majority, as I was be tyranny before saying, they will unjustly confiscate the property of is

the will of the few, any one person

—

;

To find a principle of equality in which we must inquire into their respective ideas

the wealthy minority.

they both agree of justice.

Now they agree in saying that whatever is decided by the majority of the citizens is to be deemed law. Granted: but not without some reserve; since there are two classes out of which a State is composed the poor and the rich that is to be deemed law, on which both or the greater part of both

—

agree;

and

—

they disagree, that which

greater number, and by those

who have

approved by the

the higher qualifica-

For example, suppose that there are ten rich and twenty some measure is approved by six of the rich and is disapproved by fifteen of the poor, and the remaining four of the rich join with the party of the poor, and the remaining

tion.

poor, and

five of the

poor with that of the rich

of those whose qualifications,

;

when both

are the greatest, should prevail.

such a case the will sides are

added up,

If they turn out to be equal,

there is no greater difficulty than at present, when, if the assembly or the courts are divided, recourse is had to the lot, or to some similar expedient. But, although it may be difficult in theory to know what is just and equal, the practical difficulty of inducing those to forbear who can, if they like, encroach, is far greater, for the weaker are always asking for equality and justice, but the stronger b care for none of these things. b Or, " care nothing for the weaker."

THE POLITICS Of

the four kinds of democracy, as

discussion, the best also the oldest of

that

them

155

was

which comes I

all.

said in the previous

order; it is speaking of them according first in

For the best an agricultural population; there is no difficulty in forming a democracy where the mass of the people live by agriculture or tending of cattle. Being poor, they have no leisure, and therefore do not often attend the assembly, and not having the necessaries of life they are always at work, and do not covet the property of others. Indeed, they find their employment pleasanter than the cares of government or office where no great gains can be made out to the natural classification of their inhabitants.

material of democracy

of them, for the

many

are

more desirous of gain than of honor.

were patiently enendure oligarchies, if they are allowed to work and are not deprived of their property; for proof

that even the ancient tyrannies

dured by them, as they

still

some of them grow quickly rich and the others are well enough Moreover they have the power of electing the magistrates and calling them to account their ambition, if they have any, is thus satisfied; and in some democracies, although they do

off.

;

not

all

share in the appointment of

offices,

except through

representatives elected in turn out of the whole people, as at

Mantinea;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

yet, if

they have the power of deliberating, the

Even this form of government may be regarded as a democracy, and was such at Mantinea. Hence it is -both expedient and customary in such a democracy that all should elect to offices, and conduct scrutinies, and sit in the law courts, but that the great offices should be filled up by the greater election and from persons having a qualification requiring a greater qualification, or, if there be no offices for which a qualification is required, then those who are marked out by special ability should be appointed. Under such a form of government the citizens are sure to be gov-

many

are contented.

;

always be held by the best persons; the people are willing enough to elect them and are not jealous of the good). The good and the notables will then be satisfied, for they will not be governed by men who

erned well (for the

offices will

are their inferiors, and the persons elected will rule justly, because others will call them to account. Every man should be responsible to others, nor should anyone be allowed to do just as he pleases; for where absolute freedom is allowed

ARISTOTLE

156

nothing to restrain the evil which is inherent in every But the principle of responsibility secures that which is the greatest good in States the right persons rule and are prevented from doing wrong, and the people have their due. It is evident that this is the best kind of democracy, and why ? because the people are drawn from a certain class. The ancient laws of many States which aimed at making the people husbandmen were excellent. They provided either that no one there

man.

;

should possess more than a certain quantity of land, or that, if he did, the land should not be within a certain distance from the town or the acropolis. Formerly in many States there was a law forbidding anyone to sell his original allotment of land. There is a similar law attributed to Oxylus, which is to the effect that there should be a certain portion of every man's property on which he could not borrow money. A useful corrective to the evil of which I am speaking would be the law of the Aphytseans, who, although they are numerous, and do not possess

much

land, are all of

them husbandmen.

For

their properties are reckoned in the census, not entire, but

only in such small portions that even the poor

may have more

than the amount required.

and in many respects similar, by their flocks; they are the best trained of any for war, robust in body and able to camp

best to an agricultural,

are a pastoral people,

out.

who

live

The people of whom other democracies

inferior to them, for their life

inferior;

consist are far

there

no room

for moral excellence in any of their employments, whether

they be mechanics or traders or laborers. Besides, people of this class can readily come to the assembly, because they are

moving about in the city and in the agora; whereas husbandmen are scattered over the country and do not meet, or equally feel the want of assembling together. Where the territory extends to a distance from the city, there is no difficulty in making an excellent democracy or constitutional gov-

continually

ernment for the people are compelled to settle in the country, and even if there is a town population the assembly ought not to meet when the country people cannot come. We have thus explained how the first and best form of democracy should be constituted it is clear that the other or inferior sorts will deviate in a regular order, and the population which is excluded will at each stage be of a lower kind. ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; THE POLITICS

157

The

last form of democracy, that in which all share alike, one which cannot be borne by all States, and will not last long unless well regulated by laws and customs. The more general causes which tend to destroy this or other kinds of government have now been pretty fully considered. In order to constitute such a democracy and strengthen the people, the leaders have been in the habit of including as many as they is

and making citizens not only of those who are legitimate, but even of the illegitimate, and of those who have only one parent a citizen, whether father or mother; for nothing of this sort comes amiss to such a democracy. This is the way

can,

which demagogues proceed. Whereas the right thing would make no more additions when the number of the commonalty exceeds that of the notables or of the middle class beyond this not to go. When in excess of this point the State becomes disorderly, and the notables grow excited and impatient of the democracy, as in the insurrection at Cyrene; for no notice is taken of a little evil, but when it increases it strikes the eye. Measures like those which Cleisthenes passed when he wanted to increase the power of the democracy at Athens, or such as were taken by the founders of popular government at Cyrene, are useful in the extreme form of democracy. Fresh tribes and brotherhoods should be established the private rites of families should be restricted and converted into in

be to

;

in short, every contrivance should be adopted mingle the citizens with one another and get rid of old connections. Again, the measures which are taken by tyrants appear all of them to be democratic such, for instance, as the license permitted to slaves (which may be to a certain extent advantageous) and also that of women and children, and the allowing everybody to live as he likes. Such a government

public ones;

which

will

;

have many supporters, for most persons would rather live than in a sober manner. The mere establishment of a democracy is not the only or principal business of the legislator, or of those who wish to create such a state, for any State, however badly constituted, may last one, two, or three days; a far greater difficulty is will

in a disorderly

The legislator should therefore enthe preservation of it. deavor to have a firm foundation according to the principles already laid down concerning the preservation and destruction of States; he should guard against the destructive elements,

ARISTOTLE

I S8

and should make laws, whether written or unwritten, which He must not think the truly democratical or oligarchical measure to be that which will give the greatest amount of democracy or oligarchy, but that which will make them last longest. The demagogues of our own day often get property confiscated in the law courts in order to please the people. But those who have the welfare of the State at heart should counteract them, and make a law that the property of the condemned which goes into the will contain all the preservatives of States.

treasure should not be public but sacred.

be as

much

Thus

offenders will

afraid, for they will be punished all the same,

and

the people, having nothing to gain, will not be so ready to condemn the accused. Care should also be taken that State trials are as few as possible, and heavy penalties should be inflicted

on those who bring groundless accusations; practice to indict, not

members of

ought to be

notables, although the citizens

any

to the State, or at

for

the

the popular party, but the all

equally attached

rate should not regard their rulers as

enemies.

Now,

and worst form of democracy the numerous, and can hardly be made to assemble unless they are paid, and to pay them when there are no revenues presses hardly upon the notables (for the money must be obtained by a property tax and confiscations and corrupt practices of the courts, things which have before now overthrown many democracies) where, I say, there are no revenues, the government should hold few assemblies, and the law courts should consist of many persons, but sit for a few days only. This system has two advantages: first, the rich do not fear the expense, even although they are unpaid themand secondly, causes are better selves when the poor are paid tried, for wealthy persons, although they do not like to be long absent from their own affairs, do not mind going for a few days to the law courts. Where there are revenues the demagogues should not be allowed after their manner to disthe poor are always receiving and always tribute the surplus wanting more and more, for such help is like water poured Yet the true friend of the people should into a leaky cask. see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures also should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity and as this is equally since in the last

citizens are very

;

THE POLITICS

159

all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among them, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a

the interest of

little

farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade and husAnd if this benevolence cannot be extended to all,

bandry.

money should be

distributed in turn according to tribes or

other divisions, and in the mean time the rich should pay the fee for the attendance of the poor at the necessary assemblies in return be excused from useless public services. administering the State in this spirit the Carthaginians retain the affections of the people ; their policy is from time to

and should

time to send some of them into their dependent towns, where they grow rich. It is also worthy of a generous and sensible nobility to divide the poor amongst them, and give them the

means of going to work. The example of the people of Tarentum is also well deserving of imitation, for, by sharing the use of their own property with the poor, they gain their good Moreover, they divide all their offices into two classes, will. the one-half of them being elected by vote, the other by lot latter, that the people may participate in them, and the former, ;

like result may may be better administered. have two classes to as offices, so same the dividing be gained by lot. other by the vote, by chosen one magistrates, of Enough has been said of the manner in which democracies

that the State

ought to be constituted.

From these considerations there will be no difficulty in seehave ing what should be the constitution of oligarchies. of form each compare and only to reason from opposites democracy. of form corresponding oligarchy with the The first and best attempered of oligarchies is akin to a conIn this there ought to be two standstitutional government. the one high, the other lowâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the lower ards of qualification

;

qualifying for the humbler yet indispensable offices and the higher for the superior ones. He who acquires the prescribed qualification should have the rights of citizenship. The nature govof those admitted should be such as will make the entire the and excluded, are who those than stronger body

erning

always taken out of the better class of The principle, narrowed a little, gives another the people. cliquish form of oligarchy until at length we reach the most democextreme the to tyrannical of them all, answering

new

citizen should be

;

and

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

ARISTOTLE

i6o

racy, which, being the worst, requires vigilance in proportion to its badness.

For as healthy bodies and ships well provided

with sailors may undergo many mishaps and survive them, whereas sickly constitutions and rotten ill-manned ships are ruined by the very least mistake, so do the worst forms of government require the greatest care. The populousness of democracies generally preserves them (for number is to dewhereas in the place of justice based on proportion) the preservation of an oligarchy clearly depends on an op-

mocracy

posite principle, viz.,

;

good order.

there are four chief divisions of the

husbandmen, mechanics,

are four kinds of military forces

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the

people

so also there

;

cavalry, the heavy in-

fantry, the light-armed troops, the navy. is

common

retail traders, laborers

When

adapted for cavalry, then a strong oligarchy

the country likely to

For the security of the inhabitants depends upon a force of this sort, and only rich men can afford to keep The second form of oligarchy prevails when there horses. are heavy infantry; for this service is better suited to the rich than to the poor. But the light-armed and the naval element are wholly democratic; and nowadays, when they are so numerous, if the two parties quarrel, the oligarchy are A remedy for this often worsted by them in the struggle. state of things may be found in the practice of generals who combine a proper contingent of light-armed troops, with cavAnd this is the way in which the alry and heavy-armed. established.

poor get the better of the rich in civil contests being lightly armed, they fight with advantage against cavalry and heavy infantry. An oligarchy which raises such a force out of the lower classes raises power against itself. And therefore, since the ages of the citizens vary and some are older and some younger, the fathers should have their own sons, while they are still young, taught the agile movements of light-armed troops and some, when they grow up, should be selected out of the youth, and become light-armed warriors in reality. The oligarchy should also yield a share in the government to the people, either, as I said before, to those who have a property qualification, or, as in the case of Thebes, to those who have abstained for a certain number of years from mean employments, or, as at Massalia, to men of merit who are selected for their worthiness, whether [previously] citizens or not. ;

;

THE POLITICS

l6l

The magistracies of the highest rank, which ought to be i__ in the hands of the governing body, should have expensive duties attached to them, and then the people will not desire them and will take no offence at the privileges of their rulers when they see that they pay a heavy fine for their dignity. It is fitting also that the magistrates

on entering office should offer magnificent sacrifices or erect some public edifice, and then the people who participate in the entertainments, and like to see the city decorated with votive offerings and buildings, an alteration in the government, and the notables

will not desire

will have memorials of their munificence. This, however, is anything but the fashion of our modern oligarchs, who are as covetous of gain as they are of honor; oligarchies like theirs may be well described as petty democracies. Enough of the manner in which democracies and oligarchies should be organized. Next in order follows the right distribution of offices, their

number, their nature, their duties, of which indeed we have No State can exist not having the necessary offices, and no State can be well administered not having the 6ffices which tend to preserve harmony and good order. In small States, as we have already remarked, there need not be

already spoken.

many of them, but in larger there must be a larger number, and we should carefully consider which offices may properly be united and which separated. First among necessary offices is that which has the care of the market; a magistrate should be appointed to inspect contracts and to maintain order. For in every State there must inevitably be buyers and sellers who will supply one another's wants; this is the readiest way to make a State self-sufficing and so fulfil the purpose for which men come together into one Stated A second office of a similar kind undertakes the supervision and embellishment of public and private buildings, the maintaining and repairing of houses and roads, the prevention of disputes about boundaries and other concerns This is commonly called the office of city warden, and has various departments, which, in more popuof a like nature.

lous towns, are shared among different persons, one, for example, taking charge of the walls, another of the fountains, a third of harbors. There is another equally necessary office, and c Nic. Eth. v. 6, ยง 4;

PL Rep.

ii.

369.

;

ARISTOTLE

162

of a similar kind, having to do with the same matters without the walls and in the country: the magistrates who hold this

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

office

are called wardens of the country, or inspectors of the

woods.

Besides these three there

a fourth office of receivers

who have under their charge the revenue which they distribute among the various departments; these are called

of taxes,

Another officer registers all private and decisions of the courts, all public indictments,

receivers or treasurers. contracts,

and also all preliminary proceedings. This office again is sometimes subdivided, in which case one officer is appointed over all the rest. These officers are called recorders or sacred and the like. comes an office of which the duties are the most necessary and also the most difficult, viz., that to which is committed the execution of punishments, or the exaction of fines from those who are posted up according to the registers and also the custody of prisoners. The difficulty of this office arises out of the odium which is attached to it; no one will undertake it unless great profits are to be made, and anyone recorders, presidents,

who sary

to these

does ;

loath to execute the law.

for judicial decisions are useless

the office is necesthey take no effect

Still if

if society cannot exist without them, neither can it exist without the execution of them. It is an office which, being so unpopular, should not be entrusted to one person, but divided among several taken from different courts. In like manner an effort should be made to distribute among different persons the writing up of those who are on the register of the condemned. Some sentences should be executed by officers who have other functions; penalties for new offences should be exacted by new offices; and as regards those which are not new, when one court has given judgment, another should exact the penalty for example, the wardens of the city should exact the fines imposed by the wardens of the agora, and others again should exact the fines imposed by them. For penalties are more likely to be exacted when less odium attaches to the exaction of them but a double odium is incurred when the judges who have passed also execute the sentence, and if they are always the executioners, they will be the enemies of all. In many places one magistracy has the custody of the prisoners, while another executes the sentence, as, for example,

and

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; THE POLITICS " the Eleven " at Athens. ship,

163

It is well to separate off the jailer-

and try by some device

to render the office less unpopular.

For it is quite as necessary as that of the executioner; but good men do all they can to avoid it, and worthless persons cannot safely be trusted with it; for they themselves require a guard, and are not fit to guard others. There ought not therefore to be a single or permanent officer set apart for this duty but it should be entrusted to the young, wherever they are organized into a band or guard, and different magistrates acting in turn should take charge of it. ;

These are the indispensable first:

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;next

officers,

and should be ranked

in order follow others, equally necessary, but of

higher rank, and requiring great experience and

Such

fidelity.

are the offices to which are committed the guard of the city, and other military functions. Not only in time of war but of

peace their duty will be to defend the walls and gates, and muster and marshal the citizens. In some States there are many such offices in others there are a few only, while small States are content with one these officers are called generals

;

or commanders.

Again, if a State has cavalry or light-armed troops or archers or a naval force, it will sometimes happen that each of these departments has separate officers, who are

And

called admirals, or generals of cavalry or of infantry.

there are subordinate officers called naval and military cap-

and captains of horse; having others under them:

tains,

Thus much command. But since many, not to say all, of these offices handle the public money, there must of necessity be another office which examines and audits them, and has no other functions. Such scrutineers, auditors, acofficers are called by various names all

these are included in the department of war.

of military

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

countants, controllers.

other which

Besides

all

these offices there

supreme over them, and

to this,

which

anin a

democracy presides over the assembly, is often entrusted both For that the introduction and the ratification of measures. be the necessity people must of the power which convenes head of the State. In some places they are called probuli, because they hold previous deliberations, but in a democracy

more commonly "

councillors."

These are the chief

political

offices.

Another

set of officers is

concerned with the maintenance

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ARISTOTLE

164 of religion

;

priests

and guardians see and

to the preservation

repair of the temples of the gods

and

to other matters of re-

One office of this sort may be enough in small places, but in larger ones there are a great many besides the priesthood; for example superintendents of sacrifices, guardians ligion.

of shrines, treasurers of the sacred revenues. Nearly connected with these there are also the officers appointed for the performance of the public sacrifices, except any which the law assigns to the priests; such officers derive their dignity from

They

the public hearth of the city.

are sometimes called

archons, sometimes kings, and sometimes prytanes.

These, then, are the necessary offices, which may be summed offices concerned with matters of religion, with war, with the revenue and expenditure, with the market, with the city, with the harbors, with the country; also with the courts of law, with the records of contracts, with execution of sentences with custody of prisoners, with audits and scrutilastly, there are those which nies and accounts of magistrates

up as follows:

;

preside over the public deliberations of the State.

There are

likewise magistracies characteristic of States which are peaceful and prosperous, and at the same time have a regard to good order: such as the offices of guardians of women, guardians of the laws, guardians of children, and directors of gymnastics; also superintendents of gymnastic and Dionysiac Some of these are contests, and of other similar spectacles.

clearly not democratic offices

women and

children

;

for example, the guardianships

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the poor, not having any

slaves,

employ both their women and children as servants. Once more: there are three forms of the highest

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

must

elective

guardians of the law, probuli, councillors of these, the guardians of the law are an aristocratical, the. probuli an oligarchical, the council a democratical institution. Enough of the different kinds of offices.

offices in States

BOOK

who would State

ought

eligible

life;

VII

duly inquire about the best form of a first to determine which is the most while this remains uncertain the best

form of the State must also be uncertain

;

for, in the natural

order of things, those may be expected to lead the best life who are governed in the best manner of which their circumstances admit. ought therefore to ascertain, first of all,

which is the most generally eligible life, and then whether the same life is or is not best for the State and for individuals. Assuming that enough has been already said in exoteric discourses concerning the best

life,

the statements contained in them.

will

now

only repeat

Certainly no one will dis-

pute the propriety of that partition of goods which separates into three classes,** viz., external goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soul, or deny that the happy man must have all three. For no one would maintain that he is happy who has not in him a particle of courage or temperance or

them

justice or prudence,

who

afraid of every insect which flutters

commit any crime, however great, in order to gratify his lust of meat or drink, who will sacrifice his dearest friend for the sake of half a farthing, and is as feeble and false in mind as a child or a madman. These propositions are universally acknowledged as soon as they are uttered, past him, and will

men

differ about the degree or relative superiority of this good. Some think that a very moderate amount of or that virtue is enough, but set no limit to their desires of wealth, To whom we property, power, reputation, and the like. reply by an appeal to facts, which easily prove that mankind do not acquire or preserve virtue by the help of external goods, but external goods by the help of virtue, and that happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often found with those who are most highly cultivated in

but

a Cp. N. Eth. 165

8, ยง 2.

ARISTOTLE

1 66

their

mind and

in their character,

share of external goods, than

and have only a moderate

among

who

those

possess ex-

goods to a useless extent but are deficient in higher qualities; and this is not only matter of experience, but, if reflected upon, will easily appear to be in accordance with For, whereas external goods have a limit, like any reason. other instrument, and all things useful are of such a nature that where there is too much of them they must either do harm, or at any rate be of no use, to their possessors, every good of the soul, the greater it is, is also of greater use, if ternal

the epithet useful as well as noble

jects.

proof

required to

thing in relation to another

show

appropriate to such subthat the best state of one

proportioned to the degree of

excellence by which the natures corresponding to those states

are separated from each other: so that, if the soul is more noble than our possessions or our bodies, both absolutely and in relation to us, it must be admitted that the best state of either has a similar ratio to the other. Again, if it is for the

sake of the soul that goods external and goods of the body all, and all wise men ought to choose them for the sake of the soul, and not the soul for the sake of them. Let us acknowledge then that each one has just so much of happiness as he has of virtue and wisdom, and of virtuous and wise action. God is a witness to us of this truth,& for are eligible at

he is happy and blessed, not by reason of any external good, but in himself and by reason of his own nature. And herein of necessity lies the difference between good fortune and happiness for external goods come of themselves, and chance is the author of them, but no one is just or temperate by or through chancer In like manner, and by a similar train of argument, the happy State may be shown to be that which is [morally] best and which acts rightly; and rightly it cannot act without doing right actions, and neither individual nor State can do right actions without virtue and wisdom. Thus the courage, justice, and wisdom of a State have the same form and nature as the qualities which give the individual who ;

them the name of just, wise, or temperate. suffice by way of preface for I could not avoid touching upon these questions, neither could I go

possesses

Thus much may

b N. Eth.

x. 8, ยง 7

;

Met.

xii. 7.

c Ethics

9, ยง 6.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; THE POLITICS

T67

through

all the arguments affecting them; these must be reserved for another discussion. Let us assume then that the best life, both for individuals and States, is the life of virtue, having external goods enough for the performance of good actions. If there are any who controvert our assertion, we will in this treatise pass them

and consider their objections hereafter. There remains to be discussed the question, Whether the happiness of the individual is the same as that of the State, or different? Here again there can be no doubt no one denies that they are the same. For those who hold that the wellover,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

being of the individual consists in his wealth, also think that riches make the happiness of the wealth, also think that riches make the happiness of the whole State, and those who value most highly the life of a tyrant deem that city the happiest which rules over the greatest number; while they who approve an individual for his virtue say that the more virtuous a city is, the happier it is. Two points here present themselves for consideration life,

that of a citizen

first

who

( I )

which

member

the

eligible

of a State, or that of

an alien who has no

political ties; and again (2), which is the form of constitution or the best condition of a State, either on the supposition that political privileges are given

best

all,

or that they are given to a majority only?

Since the

good of the State and not of the individual is the proper subject of political thought and speculation, and we are engaged in a political discussion, while the first of these two points has a secondary interest for us, the latter will be the main subject of our inquiry. Now it is evident that the form of government is best in which every man, whoever he is, can act for the best and live

But even those who agree in thinking that the life is the most eligible raise a question, whether the life of business and politics is or is not more eligible than one which is wholly independent of external goods, I mean than a contemplative life, which by some is maintained to be the only one worthy of a philosopher. For these two lives the life of the philosopher and the life of the statesman appear to have been preferred by those who have been most keen in the pursuit of virtue, both in our own and in other ages. Which is the better is a question of no small tooment; happily.

of virtue

ARISTOTLE

168

man, like the wise State, will necessarily reguaccording to the best end. There are some who think that while a despotic rule over others is the greatest injustice, to exercise a constitutional rule over them, even though not unjust, is a great impediment to a man's individual well-being. Others take an opposite view they maintain that for the wise

late his life

;

the true

life

man

the practical and political, and that

every virtue admits of being practised, quite as much by statesmen and rulers as by private individuals. Others, again, are of opinion that arbitrary and tyrannical rule alone consists with happiness; indeed, in some States the entire aim of the laws is to give men despotic power over their neighbors. And, therefore, although in most cities the laws may be said generally to be in a chaotic state, still, if they aim at anything, they aim at the maintenance of power: thus in Lacedaemon and Crete the system of education and the greater part of the laws are framed with a view to war.d And in all nations which are able to gratify their ambition military power is held in esteem, for example among the Scythians and Persians and Thracians and Celts. In some nations there are even laws tending to stimulate the warlike virtues, as at Carthage, where

are told that

men

obtain the honor of wearing as

many

There was once a law in Macedonia that he who had not killed an enemy should wear a halter, and among the Scythians no one who had not slain his man was allowed to drink out of the cup which was handed round at a certain feast. Among the Iberians, a warlike narings as they have served campaigns.

tion, the

number of enemies whom a man has

slain is indicated

by the number of obelisks which are fixed in the earth round and there are numerous practices among other nahis tomb tions of a like kind, some of them established by law and others by custom. Yet to a reflecting mind it must appear very strange that the statesman should be always considering how he can dominate and tyrannize over others, whether they How can that which is not even lawful be the will or not. business of the statesman or the legislator? Unlawful it cer;

tainly

to rule without regard to justice, for there

may

might where there is no right. The other arts and sciences offer no parallel; a physician is not expected to persuade or coerce his patients, nor a pilot the passengers in his ship. d Cp. Plato, Laws

633

ff.

THE POLITICS Yet many appear

169

to think that a despotic

true political form, and

own

inexpedient in their

what men

government

affirm to be unjust

case they are not

and

ashamed of prac-

towards others; they demand justice for themselves, but where other men are concerned they care nothing about tising

Such behavior is irrational unless the one party is born command, and the other born to serve, in which case men have a right to command, not indeed all their fellows, but

it.

;

who are intended to be subjects; just as we ought not to hunt mankind, whether for food or sacrifice, but only the animals which are intended for food or sacrifice, that is only those

to say, such wild animals as are eatable.

And

may

will

be a city happy in isolation, which

surely there

assume to be

well governed (for it is quite possible that a city thus isolated might be well administered and have good laws) but such a city would not be constituted with any view to war or the conquest of enemies all that sort of thing must be excluded. ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

Hence we

see very plainly that warlike pursuits, although

deemed honorable, are not the supreme end And the good lawgiver should inquire how States and races of men and communities may participate in a good life, and in the happiness which is attainable by them. His enactments will not be always the same; and where there are neighbors he will have to deal with them according to their characters, and to see what duties are to generally to be

all

things, but only means.

The end

be performed towards each. of government should aim

may

which the best form

be properly made a matter

of future consideration.

Let us of virtue tising

now is

it.

address those who, while they agree that the

life

manner of pracpower, and think that

the most eligible, differ about the

For some renounce

political

of a freeman is different from the life of the statesman and the best of all but others think the life of the statesman best. The argument of the latter is that he who does nothing cannot do well, and that virtuous activity is identical with the

life

;

To both we say " you are partly right and partly wrong/' The first class are right in affirming that the life for there of the freeman is better than the life of the despot is nothing grand or noble in having the use of a slave, in so or in issuing commands about necessary far as he is a slave things. But it is an error to suppose that every sort of rule

happiness.

;

ARISTOTLE

170

is despotic like that of a master over slaves, for there is as great a difference between the rule over freemen and the rule over slaves as there is between slavery by nature and freedom

have said enough

by nature, about which

ment of

And

inactivity

this treatise.

commence-

at the

equally a mistake to place

above action, for happiness is activity, and the acand wise are the realization of much that is

tions of the just

noble.

But perhaps someone, accepting these premises, may still maintain that supreme power is the best of all things, because the possessors of it are able to perform the greatest number of noble actions. If so, the man who is able to rule, instead of giving up anything to his neighbor, ought rather to take away his power and the father should make no account of his son, nor the son of his father, nor friend of friend; they should not bestow a thought on one another in comparison with this higher object, for the best is the most eligible and " doing well " is the best. There might be some truth in such a view if we assume that robbers and plunderers attain the chief good. ;

can never be; and hence we infer the view to be For the actions of a ruler cannot really be honorable, unless he is as much superior to other men as a husband

But

this

false.

a wife, or a father to his children, or a master to his And therefore he who violates the law can never recover by any success, however great, what he has already lost in departing from virtue. For equals share alike in the honorable and the just, as is just and equal. But that the unequal should be given to equals, and the unlike to those who are like, is contrary to nature, and nothing which is contrary to nature is good. If, therefore, there is anyone superior in virtue and in the power of performing the best actions, him we ought to follow and obey, but he must have the capacity is to

slaves.

for action as well as virtue. If

are right in our view,

and happiness

assumed

be the best, both for Not that a life of the city collectively, and for individuals. action must necessarily have relation to others, as some persons think, nor are those ideas only to be regarded as practical which are pursued for the sake of practical results, but much more the thoughts and contemplations which are independent be virtuous

activity, the active life will

and complete

in themselves

;

since virtuous activity,

and there-

THE POLITICS

an end, and even in the case of external actions is most truly said to act. Neither, again, necessary that States which are cut off from others and

fore action,

the directing is it

171

mind

alone should be inactive; for there may be acthere are many ways in which the members of a State act upon one another. The same thing is equally true of every individual. If this were otherwise, God

choose to

live

tivity also in the parts;

and the Universe, who have no external actions over and above their own energies, would be far enough from perfec-

Hence

it is evident that the same life is best for each and for States, and for mankind collectively. Thus far by way of introduction. In what has preceded I have discussed other forms of government in what remains the first point to be considered is what should be the conditions

tion.

individual,

;

of the ideal or perfect State; for the perfect State cannot exist without a due supply of the means of life. And therefore

we must presuppose many

purely imaginary conditions,

but nothing impossible. There will be a certain number of As citizens, a country in which to place them, and the like. the weaver or shipbuilder or any other artisan must have the material proper for his work (and in proportion as this is better prepared, so will the result of his art be nobler), so the statesman or legislator must also have the materials suited to him.

the materials required by the statesman is popuhe will consider what should be the number and character of the citizens, and then what should be the size and First

lation

among

Most persons think

that a State in if they are right, even but order to be happy ought they have no idea what is a large and what a small State. For they judge of the size of the city by the number of the inhabitants; whereas they ought to regard, not their number, city too, like an individual, has a work but their power.

character of the country.

to be large

;

which is best adapted to the fulfilment of its work is to be deemed greatest, in the same sense of the word great in which Hippocrates might be called greater, not as a man, but as a physician, than someone else who was And even if we reckon greatness by numbers, we ought taller. not to include everybody, for there must always be in cities a multitude of slaves and sojourners and foreigners but we to do;

and that

city

;

should include those only

who

are

members of the

State,

ARISTOTLE

The number of the essential part of it. proof of the greatness of a city; but a city which produces numerous artisans and comparatively few soldiers cannot be great, for a great city is not to be confounded with a populous one. Moreover, experience shows that a very popuand who form an latter is a

since all cities if ever, be well governed which have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. We may argue on grounds of reason, and the same result will follow. For law is order, and good law is good order; but a very great multitude cannot be orderly:

lous city can rarely,

;

is the work of a divine such a power as holds together the universe.

to introduce order into the unlimited

power

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; of

Beauty is realized in number and magnitude/ and the State which combines magnitude with good order must necessarily be the most beautiful. To the size of States there is a limit, is to other things, plants, animals, implements; for none of these retain their natural power when they are too

as there

large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, For example, a ship which is only a span or are spoiled. long will not be a ship at all, nor a ship a quarter of a mile long; yet there may be a ship of a certain size, either too large or too small, which will still be a ship, but bad for sailing.

manner a State when composed of too few is not as a when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, it is a nation and not a

State ought to be, self-sufficing; State, being almost

incapable of constitutional government.

For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he have the voice of a Stentor?

A it

when

State then only begins to exist

population sufficient for a good

may

life in

has attained a

the political

indeed somewhat exceed this number.

community was

But, as I

saying, there must be a limit. What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience. For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor are to command and to judge. But if the citizens of a State are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other's characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong. When the population is very large they are manifestly settled at haphazard, e Cp. Poet.

7, Â§ 4.

THE POLITICS

173

which

clearly ought not to be. Besides, in an overpopulous State foreigners and metics will readily acquire the rights of citizens, for who will find them out? Clearly then the best limit of the population of a State is the largest number which suffices for the

purposes of

life,

Enough concerning

view.

and can be taken

in at a single

the size of a city.

Much State:

most is

the same principle will apply to the territory of the everyone would agree in praising the State which is

entirely self-sufficing

;

and that must be the State which all things and to want nothing

all-producing, for to have

In size and extent it should be such as may is sufficiency. enable the inhabitants to live temperately and liberally in the enjoyment of leisure. Whether we are right or wrong in lay-

down this limit we will inquire more when we have occasion to consider what

ing

precisely hereafter, is

the right use of

a matter which is much disputed, because men are inclined to rush into one of two extremes, some into meanness, others into luxury.

property and wealth:

determine the general character of the there are, however, some points on which military authorities should be heard; they tell us that it should be difficult of access to the enemy, and easy of egress to the inhabitants. Further, we require that the land as well as the inhabitants of whom we were just now speaking should be taken in at a single view, for a country which is It is

not

territory

difficult to

which

required;

easily seen can be easily protected. city, if

we could have what we

in regard

both to sea or land.

wish,

As it

to the position of the

should be well situated

This then

one principle, that

should be a convenient centre for the protection of the whole country: the other is, that it should be suitable for receiving the fruits of the soil, and also for the bringing in of timber it

and any other products. Whether a communication with the sea is beneficial to a well-ordered State or not is a question which has often been asked. It is argued that the introduction of strangers brought up under other laws, and the increase of population, will be adverse to good order (for a maritime people will always have a crowd of merchants coming and going) and that intercourse by sea is inimical to good government/ Apart from these considerations, it would be undoubtedly better, both with a / Cp. Plato, Laws iv. 704 ff,

;

ARISTOTLE

174

view to safety and to the provision of necessaries, that the and territory should be connected with the sea; the de-

city

fenders of a country, if they are to maintain themselves against an enemy, should be easily relieved both by land and by sea; and even if they are not able to attack by sea and land at once, they will have less difficulty in doing mischief to their assailants

both.

Moreover,

on one element, it is

if they themselves can use necessary that they should import from

abroad what is not found in their own country, and that they should export what they have in excess; for a city ought to be a market, not indeed for others, but for herself. Those who make themselves a market for the world only do so for the sake of revenue, and if a State ought not to desire profit of this kind it ought not to have such an emporium. Nowadays we often see in countries and cities dockyards and harbors very conveniently placed outside the city, but not too and they are kept in dependence by walls and similar far off ;

fortifications.

Cities thus situated manifestly reap the benefit

of intercourse with their ports

;

and any harm which

may

likely

be easily guarded against by the laws, which will pronounce and determine who may hold communication with one another, and who may not. There can be no doubt that the possession of a moderate naval force is advantageous to a city the citizens require such a force for their own needs, and they should also be formidable to their neighbors in certain cases, or, if necessary, able to assist them by sea as well as by land. The proper number or magnitude of this naval force is relative to the character of the State for if her function is to take a leading part in politics, her naval power should be commensurate with the scale of her enterprises. The population of the State need not be much increased, since there is no necessity that the sailors should be citizens: the marines who have the control and command and wherever will be freemen, and belong also to the infantry there is a dense population of Periceci and husbandmen, there Of this we see inwill always be sailors more than enough. stances at the present day. The city of Heraclea, for example, although small in comparison with many others, can man a Such are our conclusions respecting the considerable fleet. territory of the State, its harbor, its towns, its relations to the sea, and its maritime power. to accrue

;

THE POLITICS

Having spoken of the number of the citizens, we will proceed to speak of what should be their character. This is a subject which can be easily understood by anyone who casts his eye on the more celebrated States of Hellas, and generally on the distribution of races in the habitable world. Those

who live in a cold climate and in [northern] Europe are full of spirit, but wanting in intelligence and skill; and therefore they keep their freedom, but have no political organization, and are incapable of ruling over others. Whereas the natives of Asia are intelligent and inventive, but they are wanting in spirit, and therefore they are always in a state of subjection and slavery. But the Hellenic race, which is situated between them, is likewise intermediate in character, being highspirited

and

also intelligent.^

Hence

the best-governed of any nation, and, into

continues free, and

one State, would be able to rule the world.

There are

also similar differences in the different tribes of Hellas;

some of them are of a one-sided or courageous only, while in bination of both qualities.

most

lator will

could be formed

if it

for

and are intelligent others there is a happy com-

And

nature,

clearly those

whom

the legis-

may be expected to be Some [like Plato/*] say that

easily lead to virtue

both intelligent and courageous. the guardians should be friendly towards those whom they know, fierce towards whom they do not know. Now, passion is the quality of the soul which begets friendship and inspires affection; notably the spirit within us is more stirred against our friends and acquaintances than against those who are unknown to us, when we think that we are despised by them for which reason Archilochus, complaining of his friends, very naturally addresses his soul in these words,

"For wert

thou not plagued on account of friends?"

The power of command and the love of freedom are in all men based upon this quality, for passion is commanding and Nor is it right to say that the guardians should invincible. be fierce towards those whom they do not know, for we ought not to be out of temper with anyone and a lofty spirit is not by nature, but only when excited against evil-doers. And ;

fierce this,

as I

was saying

strongly towards

g Cp.

before,

a feeling which

men show most

their friends if they think they

Plato, Rep.

iv.

435

436

have received

h Rep.

ii.

375-

;

ARISTOTLE

I7 6

a wrong

at their

hands

as indeed

reasonable

;

for, besides

the actual injury, they seem to be deprived of a benefit by those who owe them one. Hence the saying, " Cruel

the strife of brethren "

and again, "

They who

love in excess also hate in excess."

Thus we have nearly determined

the

number and character

of the citizens of our State, and also the size and nature of their territory. I say " nearly," for we ought not to require the same

minuteness in theory as in

in other natural

fact.

compounds the conditions of a com-

posite whole are not necessarily organic parts of

it,

so in a

State or in any other combination forming a unity not every-

thing

a part, which

a necessary condition.

The members

of an association have necessarily some one thing the same

and common

which they share equally or unequally But where there are two things of which one is a means and the other an end, they have nothing in common except that the one reSuch, for example, is the ceives what the other produces. relation in which workmen and tools stand to their work the house and the builder have nothing in common, but the art of to

all,

for example, food or land or any other thing.

;

the builder

for the sake of the house.

And

so States require

property, but property, even though living beings are included in

it, is

no part of a State

living beings only, but a

best life possible.

;

for a State

community of

not a community of

equals,

Now, whereas happiness

aiming at the

the highest good,

being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some attain, while others have little or none of it, the various qualities of men are clearly the reason why there are various kinds of States and many forms of government; for different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government. We must see also how many things are indispensable to the existence of a State, for what we call the parts of a State will be found among them. Let us then enumerate the functions of a State, and we shall easily elicit what

we want First, there

must be food; secondly,

arts, for life requires

j'Eurip. Frag. 51 Dindorf.

THE POLITICS many

instruments

;

thirdly, there

177

must be arms,

for the

mem-

bers of a community have need of them in order to maintain authority both against disobedient subjects and against exterfourthly, there must be a certain amount of revenue, both for internal needs, and for the purposes of war; fifthly, or rather first, there must be a care of religion, which is

nal assailants

commonly

;

called worship; sixthly,

and most necessary of

all,

there must be a power of deciding what is for the public interest, and what is just in men's dealings with one another.

These are the things which every State may be said to need. For a State is not a mere aggregate of persons, but a union of them sufficing for the purposes of life; and if any of these things be wanting, it is simply impossible that the community can be self-sufficing. A State then should be framed with a view to the fulfilment of these functions. There must be husbandmen to procure food, and artisans, and a warlike and a wealthy class, and priests, and judges to decide what is just and expedient.

Having determined

these points,

we have

in the next place

to consider whether all ought to share in every sort of occupaShall every man be at once husbandman, artisan, countion.

judge, or shall we suppose the several occupations just mentioned assigned to different persons? or, thirdly, shall some employments be assigned to individuals and others common to all? The question, however, does not occur in every State as we were saying, all may be shared by all, or not all by all, but only some by some and hence arise the differences cillor,

;

of States, for in democracies all share in all, in oligarchies the opposite practice prevails. Now, since we are here speaking of the best form of government, and that under which the State will be most happy (and happiness, as has been already said, cannot exist without virtue), it clearly follows that in the State which is best governed the citizens who are absolutely and not merely relatively just men must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such a life is ignoble and inimical to virtue.; Neither must they be husbandmen, since leisure is necessary both for the development of virtue and the performance of political duties.

Again, there of councillors,

and another determine and expedient the about advise

in a State a class of warriors,

who

j Cp. Plato,

Laws

xi. 919.

ARISTOTLE

i 78

matters of law, and these seem in an especial manner parts of a State. Now, should these two classes be distinguished, or are both functions to be assigned to the same persons? Here again there is no difficulty in seeing that both functions will

one way belong to the same, in another, to different persons. different persons in so far as their employments are suited to different ages of life, for the one requires wisdcm, and the other strength. But on the other hand, since it is an imposin

sible thing that those who are able to use or to resist force should be willing to remain always in subjection, from this point of view the persons are the same; for those who carry arms can always determine the fate of the constitution. It remains therefore that both functions of government should be entrusted to the same persons, not, however, at the same time, but in the order prescribed by nature, who has given to

young men strength and

to older

men wisdom.

tribution of duties will be expedient

and

Such a disand is

also just,

founded upon a principle of proportion. Besides, the ruling owners of property, for they are citizens, and the citizens of a State should be in good circumstances; whereas mechanics or any other class whose art excludes the This follows from art of virtue have no share in the State. our first principle, for happiness cannot exist without virtue, and a city is not to be termed happy in regard to a portion of the citizens, but in regard to them all. And clearly property class should be the

should be in their hands, since the husbandmen will of necessity be slaves or barbarians or Periceci. Of the classes enumerated there remain only the priests, and

manner

which their office is to be regulated is obvious. or mechanic should be appointed to it; for the gods should receive honor from the citizens only. Now since the body of the citizens is divided into two classes, the warriors and the councillors; and it is beseeming that the worship of the gods should be duly performed, and also a rest provided in their service for those who from age have given up active life to the old men of these two classes should be

the

No husbandman

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

assigned the duties of the priesthood. have shown what are the necessary conditions, and what

husbandmen, craftsmen, and laborers of kinds are necessary to the existence of States, but the parts of the State are the warriors and councillors. And these are

the parts of a State all

THE POLITICS

179

distinguished severally from one another, the distinction being in some cases permanent, in others not. It

no new or recent discovery of

political philosophers

that the State ought to be divided into classes, and that the

warriors should be separated from the husbandmen. The system has continued in Egypt and in Crete to this day, and was

by a law of Sesostris

established, as tradition says,

and of Minos

in Crete.

The

institution of

common

Egypt

tables also

appears to be of ancient date, being in Crete as old as the reign of Minos, and in Italy far older. The Italian historians say that there was a certain Italus king of CEnotria, from whom the CEnotrians were called Italians, and who gave the name of Italy to the promontory of Europe lying between the Scylletic and Lametic gulfs, which are distant from one another only half-a-day's journey. They say that this Italus converted the CEnotrians from shepherds into husbandmen, and besides other laws which he gave them, was the founder of their com-

mon

meals; even in our day some

who

are derived from

and certain other laws of

his.

side of Italy towards Tyrrhenia dwelt the Opici,

who

retain this institution

him the

are now,

as of old, called Ausones; and on the side towards Iapygia and the Ionian Gulf, in the district called Syrtis, the Chones,

From this part of the world originally came the institution of common tables; the separation into castes [which was much older] from Egypt,

who

are likewise of CEnotrian race.

is of far greater antiquity than that indeed that these and many other things have been invented several times over k in the course of ages, or rather times without number for necessity may be supposed

for the reign of Sesostris

of Minos.

It is true

;

men the inventions which were absolutely reand when these were provided, it was natural that

to have taught

quired,

other things which would adorn and enrich

And we may

up by degrees. the same rule holds. Egypt

life

should grow

infer that in political institutions

witnesses to the antiquity of all all people the most

things, for the Egyptians appear to be of

ancient

;

and they have laws and a regular constitution

ing from time immemorial].

[exist-

make

should therefore

the

k Cp. Plato, Laws iii. 676; Aristotle, Metaph. xi. 8. 1074 b. 10; and _. ii. 5. ยง 16 (note). _, Timaeus /Cp. Meteph. i. c. 1. i 16; Meteor. 1. 14, 352 b. 19; Plato, '

Pol.

B Laws ;

ii.

656, 657.

ARISTOTLE

i8o

best use of what has been already discovered, and try to supply defects.

have already remarked that the land ought to belong to who possess arms and have a share in the government, and that the husbandmen ought to be a class distinct from them; and I have determined what should be the extent and nature of the territory. Let me proceed to discuss the disI

those

and the character of the agricultural do not think that property ought to be common, as some maintain, but only that by friendly consent there should be a common use of it and that no citizen should be in want tribution of the land,

class;

for I

;

of subsistence.

As to common meals, there is a general agreement that a well-ordered city should have them; and we will hereafter explain what are our own reasons for taking this view. They ought, however, to be open to all the citizens. And yet it is not easy for the poor to contribute the requisite sum out of their private means, and to provide also for their household. The expense of religious worship should likewise be a public charge. The land must therefore be divided into two parts,

one public and the other private, and each part should be subdivided, half of the public land being appropriated to the service of the gods, and the other half used to defray the cost

common meals; while of the private land, half should be near the border, and the other near the city, so that each citizen having two lots they may all of them have land in both places; there is justice and fairness in such a division,^ of the

and

among the people in their not this arrangement, some of

tends to inspire unanimity

Where

border wars.

there

them are too ready to come to blows with their neighbors, while others are so cautious that they quite lose the sense of honor. Wherefore there is a law in some places which forbids those who dwell near the border to take part in public delibwars with neighbors, on the ground that their judgment. For the reasons already mentioned then, the land should be divided in the manner described. The very best thing of all would be that the husbandmen should be slaves, not all of the same race n and not erations about

interests will pervert their

m Cp. totle, in

n Cp.

Plato,

Book Plato,

Laws ii.,

v. 745, where the same proposal is found. Ariscondemns the division of lots which he here adopts.

Laws

vi.

7J7.

THE POLITICS

181

have no spirit they will be better suited and there will be no danger of their making a revolution. The next best thing would be that they should be Periceci of foreign race, and of a like inferior nature some of them should be the slaves of individuals, and employed on spirited, for if they

for their work,

;

men of property, the remainder should be the property of the State and employed on the common land. I will hereafter explain what is the proper treatment of slaves, and why it is expedient that liberty should be always held out to them as the reward of their services. We have already said that the city should be open to the land and to the sea, and to the whole country as far as possible. In respect of the place itself our wish would be to find a situation for it, fortunate in four things. The first, health this cities which lie towards the east, and are blown is a necessity upon by winds coming from the east, are the healthiest next in healthfulness are those which are sheltered from the north wind, for they have a milder winter. The site of the city should likewise be convenient both for political administration and for war. With a view to the latter it should afford easy egress to the citizens, and at the same time be inaccessible and difficult of capture to enemies. There should be a natural abundance of springs and fountains in the town, or, if there is a deficiency of them, great reservoirs may be established for the collection of rain-water, such as will not fail when the inhabitants are cut off from the country by war. Special care should be taken of the health of the inhabitants, which will

the private estates of

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

depend chiefly on the healthiness of the locality and of the quarter to which they are exposed, and secondly, on the use of pure water this latter point is by no means a secondary con;

For the elements which we use most and oftenest body contribute most to health, and among these are water and air. Wherefore, in all wise States, if there is a 'want of pure water, and the supply is not all equally good, the drinking water ought to be separated from sideration.

for the support of the

that

which

used for other purposes.

what is suitable to different forms of government varies thus an acropolis is suited to an oligarchy or a monarchy, but a plain to a democracy; neither to an

to strongholds, :

aristocracy, but rather a

number of strong

rangement of private houses

places.

The

ar-

considered to be more agree-

;

ARISTOTLE

182

more convenient, if the streets are regularlymodern fashion which Hippodamus introduced, but for security in war the antiquated mode of building, which made it difficult for strangers to get out of a town and

able and generally laid out after the

for assailants to find their

way

in, is

preferable.

therefore adopt both plans of building

it is

husbandmen

the houses irregularly, as

what are

called " clumps."

city should

possible to arrange

plant their vines in

The whole town should

laid out in straight lines, but only certain quarters

not be

and regions

thus security and beauty will be combined.

to walls, those

who

say

that cities

making any

pre-

tension to military virtue should not have them are quite out

of date in their notions; and they may see the prided themselves of this fancy confuted by facts.

cities

which

True, there is little courage shown in seeking for safety behind a rampart when an enemy is similar in character and not much superior in number; but the superiority of the besiegers may be and often is beyond the power of men to resist, and too much for the valor of a few and if they are to be saved and to escape defeat and outrage, the strongest wall will be the best defence of the warrior, more especially now that catapults and siege engines have been brought to such perfection. To have no walls would be as foolish as to choose a site fpr a town in an exposed country, and to level the heights; or as if an individual were to leave his house unwalled, lest the inmates should become cowards. Nor must we forget that those who have their cities surrounded by walls may either take advantage of them or not, but cities which are unwalled ;

have no choice. If our conclusions are just, not only should cities have walls, but care should be taken to make them ornamental, as well as useful for warlike purposes, and adapted to resist modern inFor as the assailants of a city do all they can to ventions. gain an advantage, so the defenders should make use of any means of defence which have been already discovered, and should devise and invent others, for when men are well prepared no enemy even thinks of attacking them. As the walls are to be divided by guardhouses and towers built at suitable intervals, and the body of citizens must be distributed at

common

tables, the idea will naturally

o Cp. Plato,

Laws

vi. 778, 779.

occur that

THE POLITICS we

should establish some of the

houses.

common

The arrangement might be

183 tables in the guard-

as follows: the principal

common

tables of the magistrates will occupy a suitable place, and there also will be the buildings appropriated to religious worship except in the case of those rites which the law or

the Pythian oracle has restricted to a special locality./' The site should be a spot seen far and wide, which gives due elevation to virtue and towers over the neighborhood. Near this

spot should be established an agora, such as that which the Thessalians call the "freemen's agora"; from this all trade

should be excluded, and no mechanic, husbandman, or any such person allowed to enter, unless he be summoned by the magisIt would be a charming use of the place, if the gymtrates.

men were performed

nastic exercises of the elder

For and

there.

in this noble practice different ages should be separated,

some of the magistrates should stay with the boys, while the grown-up men remain with the magistrates [i.e. in the freeman's agora]

;

for the presence of the magistrates

the best

of inspiring true modesty and ingenuous fear. There should also be a traders' agora, distinct and apart from the other, in a situation which is convenient for the reception of

mode

goods both by sea and land. But in speaking of the magistrates we must not forget another section of the citizens, viz., the priests, for whom public tables should likewise be provided in their proper place near the temples. The magistrates who deal with contracts, indictments, summonses, and the like, and those who have the care of the agora and of the city respectively, ought to be established near the agora and in some public place of meeting the ;

neighborhood of the traders' agora will be a suitable spot the upper agora we devote to the life of leisure, the other is in;

tended for the necessities of trade. The same order should prevail in the country, for there too" inspectors of forests," and the magistrates, called by some " by others wardens of the country," must have guardhouses and common tables while they are on duty; temples should

some to also be scattered throughout the country, dedicated, heroes. to gods, and some But it would be a waste of time for us to linger over details like these.

The

difficulty is

p Cp. Plato, Laws

vi.

not in imagining but in carrying

778;

viii.

848;

738;

vi. 759-

ARISTOTLE

184

talk about them as much as we like, but them will depend upon fortune. Wherefore us say no more about these matters for the present.

them

out.

may

the execution of let

Returning to the constitution itself, let us seek to determine out of what and what sort of elements the State which is to be happy and well governed should be composed. There are two things in which all well-being consists, one of them is the choice of a right end and aim of action, and the other the dis-

covery of the actions which are means towards it; for the means and the end may agree or disagree. Sometimes the right end

set

before men, but in practice they

fail

to attain

means, but they propose to themselves a bad end, and sometimes they fail in both. Take, for example, the art of medicine; physicians do not always understand the nature of health, and also the means which they use may not effect the desired end. In all arts and sciences both the end and the means should be equally within our control. The happiness and well-being which all men manifestly desire, some have the power of attaining, but to others, from some accident or defect of nature, the attainment of them is not granted for a good life requires a supply of external goods, in a less degree when men are in a good state, in a greater degree when they are in a lower state. Others again, who possess it;

in other cases they are successful in all the

;

the condition of happiness, go utterly the pursuit of

it.

But

wrong from

since our object

the

first in

to discover the best

form of government, that, namely, under which a city will b§ and since the city is best governed which has

best governed,

the greatest opportunity of obtaining happiness, that

we must

evident

clearly ascertain the nature of happiness.

We have said in the " Ethics/'^ if the arguments there adduced are of any value, that happiness is the realization and perfect exercise of virtue, and this not conditional, but absolute. And I used the term " conditional " to express that which is indispensable, and " absolute " to express that which Take the case of just actions just punishis good in itself. ments and chastisements do indeed spring from a good principle, but they are good only because we cannot do without them it would be better that neither individuals nor States should need anything of the sort but actions which aim at ;

—

q Cp. Nic. Eth

§ 15

;

x. 6. § 2.

THE POLITICS

185

honor and advantage are absolutely the best. The conditional action is only the choice of a lesser evH whereas these are the foundation and creation of good. A good man may make the best even of poverty and disease, and the other ills of life but he can only attain happiness under the opposite conditions.** As we have already said in the " Ethics,"* the good man is he to whom, because he is virtuous, the absolute good is his good. It is also plain that his use of other goods must be virtuous and in the absolute sense good. This makes men fancy that external goods are the cause of happiness, yet we might as well say that a brilliant performance on the lyre was to be attributed to the instrument and not to the skill ;

;

of the performer. It follows then from what has been said that some things the legislator must find ready to his hand in a State, others he must provide. And therefore we can only say: May our State be constituted in such a manner as to be blessed with

the goods of which fortune disposes

(for we acknowledge her power) whereas virtue and goodness in the State are not a matter of chance, but the result of knowledge and purpose. city can be virtuous only when the citizens who have a share in the government are virtuous, and in our State, all :

the citizens share in the government

man becomes

virtuous.

the citizens to be virtuous,

would be

;

let

us then inquire

how

For even if we could suppose all and not each of them, yet the latter

better, for in the virtue of each the virtue of all is

involved.

There are three things which make men good and virtuous these are nature, habit, reason.*

In the

first place,

everyone

must be born a man and not some other animal in the second place, he must have a certain character, both of body and soul. But some qualities there is no use in having at birth, for they are altered by habit, and there are some gifts of nature which may be turned by habit to good or bad. Most animals lead a life of nature, although in lesser particulars some are influenced by habit as well. Man has reason, in addition, and man only. Wherefore nature, habit, reason must be in harmony with one another [for they do not always agree] men ;

;

rNic. Eth.

10.

§§ 12-14.

s Ibid. iii. c. 4. §5 4, 5 ; E. E. * Cp. N. Eth. x. 9. § 6.

vii. 15.

m § 4;

,,,,.. M. M.

11.

, 9. 5 3.

ARISTOTLE

186

do many things against habit and nature, if reason persuades them that they ought. We have already determined what natures are likely to be most easily moulded by the hands of the legislator. All else is the work of education; we learn some things by habit and some by instruction. Since every political society is composed of rulers and subjects, let us consider whether the relations of one to the other should interchange or be permanent. For the education of the citizens will necessarily vary with the answer given to this

Now, if some men excelled others in the same degree which gods and heroes are supposed to excel mankind in general, having in the first place a great advantage even in their bodies, and secondly in their minds, so that the superiority of the governors over their subjects was patent and undisputed, it would clearly be better that once for all the one class should rule and the other serve. But since this is unattainable, and kings have no marked superiority over their subjects, such as Scylax affirms to be found among the Indians, it is obviously necessary on many grounds that all the citizens alike should take their turn of governing and being governed. Equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons, and no government can stand which is not founded upon justice. For [if the government be unjust] everyone in the country unites with the governed in the desire to have a revolution, and it is an impossibility that the members of the government can be so numerous as to be stronger than all their enemies put together. Yet that governors should excel their subjects is undeniable. How all this is to be effected, and in what way they will respectively share in the government, the legislator question. in

has to consider. The subject has been already mentioned. Nature herself has given the principle of choice when she made a difference between old and

young (though they are

really the

whom she fitted the one to govern and the others to be governed. No one takes offence at being governed same

in kind), of

when he

young, nor does he think himself better than his if he will enjoy the same privilege when

governors, especially

he reaches the required age. We conclude that from one point of view governors and governed are identical, and from another different. And therefore their education must be the same and also different. For he who would learn to command well must, as men say, first

THE POLITICS

i§ 7

As I observed in the first part of this one rule which is for the sake of the rulers and another rule which is for the sake of the ruled the former is a despotic, the latter a free government. Some commands of

all

learn to obey.

treatise, there is

;

differ not in the thing commanded, but in the intention with which they are imposed. Wherefore, many apparently menial offices are an honor to the free youth by whom they are performed; for actions do not differ as honorable or dishonorable in themselves so much as in the end and intention of them. But since we say that the virtue of the citizen and ruler is the same as that of the good man, and that the same person must first be a subject and then a ruler, the legislator has to see that they become good men, and by what means this may be accomplished, and what is the end of the perfect life. Now the soul of man is divided into two parts, one of which has reason in itself, and the other, not having reason in itself, is able to obey reason.** And we call a man good because he has the virtues of these two parts. In which of them the end is more likely to be found is no matter of doubt to those who adopt our division; for in the world both of nature and of art the inferior always exists for the sake of the better or superior, and the better or superior is that which has reason. The reason too, in our ordinary way of speaking, is divided into two parts, for there is a practical and a speculative reason,*' and there must be a corresponding division of actions;

the actions of the naturally better principle are to be preferred by those who have it in their power to attain to both or to

always to everyone the most eligible which is The whole of life is further divided into two parts, business and leisure,^ war and peace, and all actions into those which are necessary and useful, and those which are honorable. And the preference given to one all,

for that

the highest attainable by him.

or the other class of actions must necessarily be like the preference given to one or other part of the soul and its actions over the other; there must be war for the sake of peace, business for the sake of leisure, things useful and necessary for the sake of things honorable. All these points the statesman should keep in view when he frames his laws he should consider the ;

parts of the soul and their functions, and above

«Cp.

Ibid. vi.

Nic. Eth.

§ 5

;

11. § 4.

13.

all

the better

§§ 18, 19. N. E. x. 7. I 6.

ARISTOTLE

188

and the end he should also remember the diversities of human For men must engage in business and go lives and actions. to war, but leisure and peace are better; they must do what In is necessary and useful, but what is honorable is better. such principles children and persons of every age which reWhereas even the Helquires education should be trained. ;

who are reputed to be best governed, who gave them their constitutions, do not

lenes of the present day,

and the

legislators

appear to have framed their governments with a regard to the them laws and education with a view, to all the virtues, but in a vulgar spirit have fallen back on those which promised to be more useful and profitable. Many modern writers have taken a similar view they commend the Lacedaemonian constitution, and praise the legislator for making conquest and war his sole aim,* a doctrine which may be refuted by argument and has long ago been refuted by facts. For most men desire empire in the hope of accumulating the goods of fortune and on this ground Thibron and all those who have written about the Lacedaemonian constitution have praised their legislator, because the Lacedaemonians, by a training in hardships, gained great power. But surely they are not a happy people now that their empire has passed away, nor was their legislator right. How ridiculous is the result, if, while they are continuing in the observance of his laws and no one interferes with them, they have lost the better part of life. These writers further err about the sort of government which the legislator should approve, for the government of freemen is noble, and implies more virtue than despotic government. Neither is a city to be deemed happy or a legislator to be praised because he trains his citizens to conquer and obtain dominion over their neighbors, for there is great

best end, or to have given

;

evil in this.

On a

similar principle

any

citizen

obviously try to obtain the power in his

own

who

could,

State

would

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;the crime

which the Lacedaemonians accuse King Pausanias of attempting, although he had so great honor already. No such principle and no law having this object is either statesmanlike or useful or right. For the same things are best both for individuals and for States, and these are the things which the legislator ought to implant in the minds of his citizens. Neither should men study war with a view to the enslavement of those 628, 638. x Plato, Laws i.

THE POLITICS

jS 9

who do not deserve to be enslaved but first of all they should provide against their own enslavement, and in the second place obtain empire for the good of the governed, and not for the sake of exercising a general despotism, and in the third place they should seek to be masters only over those who deserve ;

to be slaves.

Facts, as well as arguments, prove that the legislator should direct all his military and other measures to the

provision of leisure and the establishment of peace. For most of these military States are safe only while they are at war, but fall when they have acquired their empire; like unused iron they rust y in time of peace. And for this the legislator is to blame, he never having taught them how to lead the life of

peace.

Since the end of individuals and of States is the same, the end of the best man and of the best State must also be the same it is therefore evident that there ought to exist in both of them the virtues of leisure; for peace, as has been often repeated, is the end of war, and leisure of toil. But leisure and cultivation may be promoted, not only by those virtues which are practised in leisure, but also by some of those which are useful to business.^ For many necessaries of life have to be supplied before we can have leisure. Therefore a city must be temperate and brave, and able to endure: for truly, as the proverb says, " There is no leisure for slaves," and those who cannot face danger like men are the slaves of any invader. Courage and endurance are required for business and philosophy for leisure, temperance and justice for both, more especially in times of peace and leisure, for war compels men to be just and temperate, whereas the enjoyment of good fortune and the leisure which comes with peace tends to make them insolent. Those then, who seem to be the best-off and to be in the possession of every good, have special need of for example, those (if such there be, justice and temperance ;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

as the poets say)

above

and

all

will

the

who

dwell in the Islands of the Blest; they

need philosophy and temperance and

more the more

justice,

leisure they have, living in the

midst of abundance. There is no difficulty in seeing why the State that would be happy and good ought to have these virtues. y

Lit.

i.e.

" they lose their edge." " not only by some of the speculative but also by

practical virtues."

some of the

ARISTOTLE

be disgraceful in

life, it is

man

not to be able to use the goods

peculiarly disgraceful not to be able to use

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

them

time of peace to show excellent qualities in action and war, and when they have peace and leisure to be no better than slaves. Wherefore we should not practice virtue after For they, while agreethe manner of the Lacedaemonians. ing with other men in their conception of the highest goods, differ from the rest of mankind in thinking that they are to in

be obtained by the practice of a single virtue.

And

since these

goods and the enjoyment of them are clearly greater than the enjoyment derived from the virtues of which they are the end, we must now consider how and by what means they are to be attained.

We have already determined that nature and habit and reason are required, and what should be the character of the citizens has also been defined by us. But we have still to consider whether the training of early life is to be that of reason or habit, for these two must accord, and will then

takes and

when

in accord they

Reason may make misattaining the highest ideal of life, and there

form the best of harmonies. fail in

be a like evil influence of habit. Thus much is clear in the first place, that, as in all other things, birth implies some antecedent principle, and that the end of anything has a beginning in some former end. Now, in men reason and mind

may

are the end towards which nature strives, so that the birth and

moral discipline of the citizens ought to be ordered with a view to them. In the second place, as the soul and body are

we see that there are two parts of the soul, the rational and the irrational^ and two corresponding states reason and And as the body is prior in order of generation to appetite. two,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

the soul, so the irrational

and

The proof

prior to the rational.

and desire are implanted in children from their very birth, but reason and understanding are developed as they grow older. Wherefore, the care of the body ought to precede that of the soul, and the training of the appetitive part should follow; none the less our care of it must be for the sake of the reason, and our care of the body is

that anger

for the sake of the

will

soul.fc

Since the legislator should begin by considering how the frames of the children whom he is rearing may be as good as a Cp. N. Eth.

13. Â§

ff.

b Cp. Plato Rep.

iii.

410,

•

THE POLITICS

i9 i

—

possible, his first care will be about marriage at should his citizens marry, and who are fit to marry ?

what age

In legishe ought to consider the persons and their relative ages, that there may be no disproportion in them, and that they may not differ in their bodily powers, as will be the

lating

this subject

if the man is still able to beget children while the woman unable to bear them, or the woman able to bear while the man is unable to beget, for from these causes arise quarrels

case is

and differences between married persons. Secondly, he must consider the time at which the children will succeed to their parents; there ought not to be too great an interval of age, for then the parents will be too old to derive any pleasure their affection, or to be of any use to them. Nor ought

from

they to be too nearly of an age to youthful marriages there are many objections the children will be wanting in respect ;

—

to the parents, who will seem to be their contemporaries, and disputes will arise in the management of the household. Thirdly, and this is the point from which we digressed, the legislator must mould to his will the frames of newly born children. Almost all these objects may be secured by attention to one point. Since the time of generation is commonly limited within the age of seventy years in the case of a man, and of fifty in the case of a woman, the commencement of the union should conform to these periods. The union of male and female when too young is bad for the procreation of children in all other animals the offspring of the young are small and illdeveloped, and generally of the female sex, and therefore also in man, as is proved by the fact that in those cities in which men and women are accustomed to marry young, the people are small and weak; in childbirth also younger women suffer more, and more of them die some persons say that this was the meaning of the response once given to the Trcezenians [" Shear not the young field "] the oracle really meant that married too young; it had nothing many died because they ;

;

—

It also conduces to do with the ingathering of the harvest. to temperance not to marry too soon; for women who marry

early are apt to be

wanton

;

and

men

too the bodily frame

they marry while they are growing (for there is a time when the growth of the body ceases). Women should marry when they are about eighteen years of age, and men at seven and thirty; then they are in the prime of life, and is

stunted

;

ARISTOTLE

192

the decline in the powers of both will coincide. children,

Further, the

their birth takes place at the time that

may

rea-

sonably be expected, will succeed in their prime, when the fathers are already in the decline of life, and have nearly reached their term of three-score years and ten.

Thus much of the age proper for marriage: the season of the year should also be considered; according to our present custom, people generally limit marriage to the season of winter, and they are right. The precepts of physicians and natural philosophers about generation should also be studied by the parents themselves;

the physicians give good advice about the right age of the body, and the natural philosophers about

the winds;

What

of which they prefer the north to the south.

constitution in the parent

when make

most advantageous to

a subject which we will hereafter consider we speak of the education of children, and we will only a few general remarks at present. The temperament

the offspring

of an athlete

is not suited to the life of a citizen, or to health, or to the procreation of children, any more than the valetudinarian or exhausted constitution, but one which is in a mean

between them.

A man's constitution should be

but not to labor which as

inured to labor,

excessive or of one sort only, such

practised by athletes; he should be capable of

actions of a freeman.

all

the

These remarks apply equally to both

parents.

Women who afe with child should be careful of themselves they should take exercise and have a nourishing diet. The first of these prescriptions the legislator will easily carry into effect by requiring that they shall take a walk daily to some temple, where they can worship the gods who preside over birth.c Their minds, however, unlike their bodies, they ought to keep unexercised, for the offspring derive their natures from mothers as plants do from the earth. to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live, but where there are too many (for in our State population has a limit), when couples have children in excess, and the state of feeling is averse to the exposure of offspring, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and

their

;

sensation. c Cp. Plato,

Laws

vii.

789.

THE POLITICS

193

And now, having determined at what ages men and women are to begin their union, let us also determine how long they shall continue to beget and bear offspring for the State ; men who

are too old, like men who are too young, produce chilwho are defective in body and mind the children of very men are weakly. The limit, then, should be the age which

dren old is

;

the prime of their intelligence, and this in most persons,

according to the notion of some poets who measure life by periods of seven years, is about fifty ;d at four or five years later, they should cease from having families; and from that time forwards only cohabit with one another for the sake of health, or for some similar reason.

be held disgraceful for any man or when they are married, and called If during the time of bearing children any-

to adultery, let

woman

to be unfaithful

husband and wife.

thing of the sort occur, let the guilty person be punished with a loss of privileges in proportion to the offence.? After the children have been born, the manner of rearing

them may be supposed to have a great effect on their bodily strength. It would appear from the example of animals, and of those nations

who

desire to create the military habit, that

the food which has most milk in

best suited to

human

wine the better, if they would escape diseases. Also all the motions to which children can be subBut in order to prejected at their early age are very useful. serve their tender limbs from distortion, some nations have had recourse to mechanical appliances which straighten their bodies. To accustom children to the cold from their earliest years is also an excellent practice, which greatly conduces to health, and hardens them for military service. Hence many barbarians have a custom of plunging their children at birth others, like the Celts, clothe them in a light into a cold stream wrapper only. For human nature should be early habituated but to endure all which by habit it can be made to endure the process must be gradual. And children, from their natural warmth, may be easily trained to bear cold. Such care should attend them in the first stage of life. The next period lasts to the age of five; during this no beings;

but the

less

;

demand should be made upon lest

its

the child for study or labor,

growth be impeded; and there should be

d Cp. Solon, Fragm. 25 Bergk. 13

e Cp.

Laws

viii.

sufficient 841.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ARISTOTLE

194

motion to prevent the limbs from being inactive. This can be secured, among other ways, by amusement, but the amusement should not be vulgar or tiring or riotous. The directors of education, as they are termed, should be careful what tales or stories the children hear/ for the sports of children are designed to prepare the way for the business of later life, and should be for the most part imitations of the occupations which they will hereafter pursue in earnest.^ Those are

wrong who

[like

Plato]

in the

Laws attempt

to check the

loud crying and screaming of children, for these contribute

towards their growth, and, in a manner, exercise their bodies./* Straining the voice has an effect similar to that produced by the retention of the breath in violent exertions. duties, the directors of education should

Besides other

have an eye to their

bringing up, and should take care that they are left as little For until they are seven years old as possible with slaves. they must live at home and therefore, even at this early age, all that is mean and low should be banished from their sight and hearing. Indeed, there is nothing which the legislator should be more careful to drive away than indecency of speech ;

;

for the light utterance of shameful actions.

The young

words

akin to shameful

especially should never be allowed to

repeat or hear anything of the sort.

freeman who

found

saying or doing what is forbidden, if he be too young as yet to have the privilege of a place at the public tables, should be disgraced and beaten, and an elder person degraded as his slavish conduct deserves. And since we do not allow improper

we should also banish pictures or tales which Let the rulers take care that there be no image or picture representing unseemly actions, except in the temples of those gods at whose festivals the law permits even ribaldry, and whom the law also permits to be worshipped by persons of mature age on behalf of themselves, their children, and their wives. But the legislator should not allow youth to be hearers of satirical Iambic verses or spectators of comedy until they are of an age to sit at the public tables and to drink strong wine; by that time education will have armed them against the evil influences of such representations. We have made these remarks in a cursory manner they language, clearly are indecent.

/ Plato,

Rep.

ii.

377

ff.

Plato,

Ibid. vii. 792.

Laws

643

;

vii.

799.

THE POLITICS

arc enough for the present occasion; but hereafter we will return to the subject and after a fuller discussion determine whether such liberty should or should not be granted, and in what way granted, if at all. Theodorus, the tragic actor, was

would not allow any other actor, not even if he were quite second-rate, to enter before himself, because the spectators grew fond of the voices which they first heard. And the same principle of association apquite right in saying that he

plies universally to things as well as persons, for like best

whatever comes

first.

And

we always

therefore youth should

be kept strangers to all that is bad, and especially to things which suggest vice or hate. When the five years have passed away, during the two following years they must look on at the There are two pursuits which they are hereafter to learn. periods of life into which education has to be divided, from seven to the age of puberty, and onwards to the age of one and twenty. [The poets] who divide ages by sevens are not always right: we should rather adhere to the divisions actu-

made by nature; for the deficiencies of nature are what and education seek to fill up. Let us then first inquire if any regulations are to be laid down about children, and secondly, whether the care of them

ally

art

should be the concern of the State or of private individuals, which latter is in our own day the common custom, and in the third place, what these regulations should be.

BOOK

VIII

one will doubt that the legislator should direct his attention above all to the education of youth, or that

the neglect of education does

harm

to States.

The

moulded to suit the form of government under which he lives.o For each government has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. The character of democracy creates democracy, and the character of oligarchy creates oligarchy; and always citizen should be

the better the character, the better the government.

Now for the exercise of any faculty or art a previous training and habituation are required; clearly therefore for the practice of virtue. And since the whole city has one end, it manifest that education should be one and the same for all, that it should be public, and not private not as at present, when everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best; the training in things which are of common interest is

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

and

should be the same for all. Neither must we suppose that anyone of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the State, and are each of them a part of the State, and the care of each part is inseparable from the care of the whole. In this particular the Lacedaemonians are to be praised, for they take the greatest pains about their children, and make education the business of the State. That education should be regulated by law and should be an affair of state is not to be denied, but what should be the character of this public education, and how young persons

should be educated, are questions which remain to be considered. For mankind are by no means agreed about the things to be taught, whether we look to virtue or the best life. Neither it is clear whether education is more concerned with intellectual or

with moral virtue. aCp.

The

existing practice

Nic. Eth. x. 9. Â§ 13.

196

per-

THE POLITICS

197

plexmg; no one knows on what

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;should

the useful in

life,

principle we should proceed or should virtue, or should the

higher knowledge, be the aim of our training; all three opinions have been entertained. Again, about the means there is no agreement; for different persons, starting with different ideas about the nature of virtue, naturally disagree about the practice of it. There can be no doubt that children should be taught those useful things which are really necessary, but not all things; for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal and to young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those ;

which tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments, for they absorb and degrade the mind.

arts vulgar

There are also some

proper for a freeman and if he attend to them too closely, in order to attain perfection in them, the liberal arts quite

to acquire, but only in a certain degree,

same

evil effects will follow.

The

object also which a

before him makes a great difference

man

sets

he does or learns anything for his own sake or for the sake of his friends, or with but a view to excellence, the action will not appear illiberal if done for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of an illiberal character. The customary branches of education are in number four; they are (1) reading and writing, (2) gymnastic exercises, music, to which is sometimes added (4) drawing. Of (3) these, reading and writing and drawing are regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of ways, and gymnastic Concerning music exercises are thought to infuse courage. a doubt may be raised in our own day most men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it was included in education, because nature herself, as has been often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and again,& the first Both are required, but principle of all action is leisure. ;

;

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

leisure is better than occupation; b

and therefore the question

in Nic. Eth. x. 6.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; ARISTOTLE

t 9S

good earnest, what ought we to do when at we ought not to be amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and from the pleasure we obtain rest. Leisure of itself gives pleasure and happiness and enjoyment of life, which are experienced, not by the busy man, but by those who have leisure. For he who is occupied has in view some end which he has not attained but happiness is an end which all men deem to be accompanied with pleasure and not with pain. This pleasure, however, is regarded differently by different persons, and varies according to the must be asked

Clearly

leisure?

;

habit of individuals

;

the pleasure of the best

man

the best,

and springs from the noblest sources. It is clear then that there are branches of learning and education which we must study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are to be valued for their own sake whereas those kinds of knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed necessary, and ;

And therefore our fathers exist for the sake of other things. admitted music into education, not on the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management of a household, in the acquisition of knowledge and in political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic, which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure as Homer says ;

How

good

is it

to invite

men

to the pleasant feast,"

and afterwards he speaks of others

whom

he describes as

viting " The bard

who would

delight

them alt"

in-

THE POLITICS And

in another place

passing

than

life

Odysseus says there is no better way of " Men's hearts are merry and the ban-

when

queters in the hall, sitting minstrel." tion in

useful or necessary, but because

a sort of educa-

train their sons, not as being it is

liberal or noble.

Whether

one kind only, or of more than one, and if so, what and how they are to be imparted, must hereafter be

they are, determined.

Thus much we are now

the ancients witness to us

from the

order, hear the voice of the

It is evident, then, that there is

which parents should

this is of

i$ 9

fact that

music

;

in a position to say that

may be gathered one of the received and traditional for their opinion

branches of education. Further, it is clear that children should be instructed in some useful things for example, in reading and writing not only for their usefulness, but also because

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

many

other sorts of knowledge are required through them.

With a like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles, but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty

human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not become free and exalted souls.d Now it is clear that in education habit must go before reason, and the body before the mind; and therefore boys should be handed over to the trainer, who creates in them the proper habit of body, and to

of the

the wrestling-master,

who

teaches them their exercises.

those States which in our

own day seem

some aim

to take the

producing in them an athletic habit, but they only injure their forms and stunt their growth. Although the Lacedaemonians have not fallen into this mistake, yet they brutalize their children by laborious exBut in ercises which they think will make them courageous. truth, as we have often repeated, education should not be exAnd even clusively directed to this or to any other single end. if we suppose the Lacedaemonians to be right in their end, they do not attain it. For among barbarians and among animals courage is found associated, not with the greatest ferocity, but with a gentle and lion-like temper. There are many races who are ready enough to kill and eat men, such as the Achaeans and Heniochi, who both live about the Black Sea ;e and there are other inland tribes, as bad or worse, who all live by greatest care of children,

c Od.

ix. 7.

d Cp. Plato Rep.

vii.

525

ff.

e Cp. N. Eth.

vii. 5. Â§ 2.

ARISTOTLE

2oo

It is notorious that the Laplunder, but have no courage. cedaemonians, while they were themselves assiduous in their laborious drill, were superior to others, but now they are beaten

both in war and gymnastic exercises. For their ancient superiority did not depend on their mode of training their youth, but only on the circumstance that they trained them at a time when others did not. Hence we may infer that what is noble, not what is brutal, should have the first place; no wolf or other wild animal will face a really noble danger ; such dangers are for the brave man/ And parents who devote their children to gymnastics while they neglect their necessary education, in reality vulgarize them ; for they make them useful to the State in one quality only, and even in this the argument proves them to be inferior to others. We should judge the Lacedaemonians not from what they have been, but from what they are; for now they have rivals who compete with their education; formerly they had none. It is an admitted principle that gymnastic exercises should be employed in education, and that for children they should be of a lighter kind, avoiding severe regimen or painful toil, The evil of excessive lest the growth of the body be impaired. training in early years is strikingly proved by the example of the Olympic victors; for not more than two or three of them have gained a prize both as boys and as men their early training and severe gymnastic exercises exhausted their constitutions. When boyhood is over, three years should be spent in other studies; the period of life which follows may then be devoted to hard exercise and strict regimen. Men ought not to labor at the same time with their minds and with their bodies; gfor the two kinds of labor are opposed to one another, the labor of the body impedes the mind, and the labor of the mind the body. Concerning music there are some questions which we have already raised; these we may now resume and carry further; and our remarks will serve as a prelude to this or any other It is not easy to determine the discussion of the subject. nature of music, or why anyone should have a knowledge of ;

it.

Shall

amusement and relaxation, which are not good in themselves, but the same time " make care to cease," as

say, for the sake of

like sleep or drinking,

are pleasant, and at / Cp. Nic. Eth.

iii.

ยง 8.

g Cp.

Plato, Rep.

vii.

537 B.

THE POLITICS

Euripides h says ? And therefore men rank them with music, and make use of all three sleep, drinking, music to which some add dancing. Or shall we argue that music conduces

—

on the ground that it can form our minds and habituate us to true pleasures as our bodies are made by gymnastic to be of a certain character? Or shall we say that it contributes to virtue,

enjoyment of leisure and mental cultivation, which is a third alternative? Now obviously youth are not to be instructed with a view to their amusement, for learning is no pleasure, but is accompanied with pain. Neither is intellectual enjoyment suitable to boys of that age, for it is the end, and that which is imperfect cannot attain the perfect or end. But perhaps it may be said that boys learn music for the sake of the amusement which they will have when they are grown up, If so, why should they learn themselves, and not, like the Persian and Median kings, enjoy the pleasure and instruction which are derived from hearing others? (for surely skilled persons who have made music the business and profession of their lives will be better performers than those who practise only to learn) If they must learn music, on the same principle they should learn cookery, which is absurd. And even granting that music may form the character, the objection still holds: why should we learn ourselves? Why cannot we attain true pleasure and form a correct judgment from hearing others, for they, without learning music, like the Lacedaemonians? nevertheless can correctly judge, as they say, of good and bad melodies. Or again, if music should be used to promote cheerfulness and refined intellectual enjoyment, the objection still remains why should we learn ourselves instead of enjoying the performances of others? We may illustrate what we are saying by our conception of the gods; for in the poets Zeus does not himself sing or play on the lyre. Nay, we call professional performers vulgar; no freeman would play or sing unless he were intoxicated or in jest. But these matters may to the

—

the present.

left for

The

first

question

of education.

which

ment, for

whether music

—Education

it? it

share in the

not to be a part

the three things mentioned in our discussion,

or amusement or intellectual enjoy-

may be reckoned under all three, and seems to nature of all of them. Amusement is for the sake /iBacchae, 380.

ARISTOTLE

202

of relaxation, and relaxation is of necessity sweet, for it is the remedy of pain caused by toil, and intellectual enjoyment is universally acknowledged to contain an element not only of the noble but of the pleasant, for happiness is made up of All men agree that music is one of the pleasantest things, whether with or without song; as Musaeus says,

both.

" Song

to mortals of all things the sweetest."

Hence and with good reason

introduced into social gather-

it is

ings and entertainments, because

makes the hearts of men

so that on this ground alone we may assume that the young ought to be trained in it. For innocent pleasures are not only in harmony with the perfect end of life, but they glad:

also provide relaxation.

And whereas men

end, but often rest by the

way and amuse

rarely attain the

themselves, not only

with a view to some good, but also for the pleasure's sake, it be well for them at times to find a refreshment in music. It sometimes happens that men make amusement the end, for the end probably contains some element of pleasure, though not any ordinary or lower pleasure; but they mistake the lower for the higher, and in seeking for the one find the other, since every pleasure has a likeness to the end of action.* For the end is not eligible, nor do the pleasures which we have described exist, for the sake of any future good but of tha past, that is to say, they are the alleviation of past toils and pains. And we may infer this to be the reason why men seek happiness from common pleasures. But music is pursued, not only as an alleviation of past toil, but also as providing recreaAnd who can say whether, having this use, it may not tion. also have a nobler one ? In addition to this common pleasure, felt and shared in by all (for the pleasure given by music is

may

natural, it

and therefore adapted to

all

ages and characters),

may

not have also some influence over the character and the soul

must have such an influence

And

characters are affected by

it.

proved by the power which others exercise for beyond question they inspire enthusiasm, and enthusiasm is an emotion of the ethical part of the soul. Besides, when men hear imitations, even unaccompanied by melody or rhythm, their feelings move in sympathy. Since then music is a pleasure, and virtue that they are so affected

the songs of

Olympus and of many

Cp. N. Eth.

vii. 13. ยง 6.

;

THE POLITICS consists in rejoicing

nothing which

and loving and hating

203 aright, there

much concerned

clear-

and to cultivate as the power of forming right judgments, and of taking delight in good dispositions and noble actions./ Rhythm and melody supply imitations of anger and gentleness, and also of courage and temperance and of virtues and vices in general, which hardly fall short of the actual affections, as we know from our own experience, for in listening to such strains our souls undergo a change. The habit of feeling pleasure or pain at mere representations is not far removed from the same feeling about realities k for example, if anyone delights in the sight of a statue for its beauty only, it ly

are so

to acquire

;

necessarily follows that the sight of the original will be pleasant

No other sense, such as taste or touch, has any resemblance to moral qualities; in sight only there is a little, for figures are to some extent of a moral character, and [so far]

to him.

all participate in

the feeling about them.

Again, figures and

colors are not imitations, but signs of moral habits, indications

which the body gives of states of feeling. The connection of them with morals is slight, but in so far as there is any, young men should be taught to look, not at the works of Pauson, but at those of Polygnotus,* or any other painter or statuary who expresses moral ideas. On the other hand, even in mere melodies m there is an imitation of character, for the musical modes differ essentially from one another, and those who hear them are differently affected by each. Some of them make men sad and grave, like the so-called Mixolydian, others enfeeble the mind, like the

relaxed harmonies, others, again,

produce a moderate and settled temper, which appears to be the peculiar effect of the Dorian; the Phrygian inspires enthusiasm. The whole subject has been well treated by philosophical writers on this branch of education, and they confirm their arguments by facts. The same principles apply to rhythms :Âť some have a character of rest, others of motion,

and of these latter again, some have a more vulgar, others a nobler movement. Enough has been said to show that music has a power of forming the character, and should therefore be introduced into the education of the young.

The study

/Cp. Plato, Rep. iii. 401, 402; Laws ii. 658, 659. k Cp. Plato, Rep. iii. 395. / Cp. Poet. 2. Â§ 2 6. Â§ 15. Cp. Plato, Rep. iii. 398, 399. w Rep. iii. 399 e, 400.

;

ARISTOTLE

204

suited to the stage of youth, for young persons will not, if they can help, endure anything which is not sweetened by There seems to pleasure, and music has a natural sweetness.

be in us a sort of affinity to harmonies and rhythms, which makes some philosophers say that the soul is a harmony, others,

harmony. have to determine the question which has been already raised, whether children should be themselves taughf to sing and play or not. Clearly there is a considerable difference made in the character by the actual practice of the art. It is difficult, if not impossible, for those who do not perform Besides, to be good judges of the performance of others. children should have something to do, and the rattle of archytas, which people give to their children in order to amuse them and prevent them from breaking anything in the house, was a capital invention, for a young thing cannot be quiet. The rattle is a toy suited to the infant mind, and [musical], education is a rattle or toy for children of a larger growth. We conclude then that they should be taught music in such a way as to become not only critics but performers. that she possesses

And now we

The

question what is or is not suitable for different age. be easily answered; nor is there any difficulty in meeting the objection of those who say that the study of music reply (i) in the first place, that they who are is vulgar. to be judges must also be performers, and that they should begin to practise early, although when they are older they may be spared the execution they must have learned to appreciate what is good and to delight in it, thanks to the knowledge which they acquired in their youth. As to (2) the vulgarizing effect which music is supposed to exercise, this is a question [of degree], which we shall have no difficulty in determining, when we have considered to what extent freemen who are being trained to political virtue should pursue the art, what melodies and what rhythms they should be allowed to use, and what instruments should be employed in teaching them to play, for even the instrument makes a difference. The answer to the objection turns upon these distinctions; for it is quite possible that certain methods of teaching and learning music do It is evident then that the really have a degrading effect. learning of music ought not to impede the business of riper years, or to degrade the body or render it unfit for civil or

may

;

THE POLITICS

205

military duties, whether for the early practice or for the later

study of them.

The

right measure will be attained

students of music

stop short of the arts which are practised in professional contests, and do not seek to acquire those fantastic marvels of

execution which are now the fashion in such contests, and from these have passed into education. Let the young pursue their studies until they are able to feel delight in noble melodies

and rhythms, and not merely in that common part of music in which every slave or child, and even some animals find pleasure.

From these principles we may also infer what instruments should be used. The flute, or any other instrument which requires great skill, as for example the harp, ought not to be admitted into education, but only such as will make intelligent students of music or of the other parts of education. Besides, the flute is not an instrument which has a good moral effect; The proper time for using it is when the it is too exciting. performance aims not at instruction, but at the relief of the passions. And there is a further objection; the impediment which the flute presents to the use of the voice detracts from The ancients therefore were right in forits educational value. bidding the flute to youths and freemen, although they had once allowed it. For when their wealth gave them greater leisure, and they had loftier notions of excellence, being also elated with their success, both before and after the Persian War, with more zeal than discernment they pursued every kind of knowledge, and so they introduced the flute into education. At Lacedsemon there was a choragus who led the chorus with a flute, and at Athens the instrument became so popular that most freemen could play upon it. The popularity is shown by, the tablet which Thrasippus dedicated when he furnished the chorus to Ecphantides. Later experience enabled men to judge what was or was not really conducive to virtue, and they rejected both the flute and several other old-fashioned instruments, such as the Lydian harp, the many-stringed lyre, the heptagon, triangle, sambuca, and the like which are intended only to give pleasure to the hearer, and require extraordinary There is a meaning also in the myth of the skill of hand.o ancients, which tells how Athene invented the flute and then

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

o Cp. Plato, Rep.

iii.

399 D.

;

ARISTOTLE

io6

threw

away.

was not a bad

disliked the instrument because

with

still

idea of theirs, that the goddess it

more reason may we say

made

the face ugly;

that she rejected

but because

the acquirement of flute-playing contributes nothing to the

mind, since to Athene we ascribe both knowledge and art. Thus then we reject the professional instruments and also the professional mode of education in music and by professional we mean that which is adopted in contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this reason the execution of such music is not the part of a freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is bad./* The vulgarity of the spectator tends to lower the character of the music and therefore of the performers they look to him he makes them what they are, and fashions even their bodies by the movements which he

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

;

expects them to exhibit.

have also to consider rhythms and harmonies. Shall all in education or make a distinction ? and shall the distinction be that which is made by those who are engaged in education, or shall it be some other? For we see that music is produced by melody and rhythm, and we ought to know what influence these have respectively on education and whether we should prefer excellence in melody or excellence in rhythm. But as the subject has been very well treated b; many musicians of the present day, and also by philosophers who have had considerable experience of musical education, to these we would refer the more exact student of the subject we shall only speak of it now after the manner of the legislator, having regard to general principles. We accept the division of melodies proposed by certain philosophers into ethical melodies, melodies of action, and passionate or inspiring melodies, each having, as they say, a mode or harmony corresponding to it. But we maintain further that music should be studied, not for the sake of one, but of many benefits, that is to say, with a view to (i) education, (2)

use them

word " purification " we use at present withwhen hereafter we speak of poetry,? we music may also subject with more precision)

purification (the

out explanation, but will treat the

p Cp. Plato, Laws

;

iii.

700.

q Cp. Poet.

c. 6.

THE POLITICS

207

serve (3) for intellectual enjoyment, for relaxation and for recreation after exertion. It is clear, therefore, that all the

harmonies must be employed by us, but not all of them in same manner. In education ethical melodies are to be preferred, but we may listen to the melodies of action and passion when they are performed by others. For feelings such as

the

pity

some

and

fear, or, again, enthusiasm, exist very strongly in

souls,

persons

and have more or

fall into

less influence

a religious frenzy,

whom we

over

all.

Some

see disenthralled

by the use of mystic melodies, which bring healing and purification to the soul. Those who are influenced by pity or fear and every emotional nature have a like experience, others in their degree are stirred by something which specially affects them, and all are in a manner purified and their souls lightened and delighted. The melodies of purification likewise give an innocent pleasure to mankind. Such are the harmonies and the melodies in which those who perform music at the theatre should be invited to compete. But since the spectators are of two kinds the one free and educated, and the other a vulgar crowd composed of mechanics, laborers, and the like there ought to be contests and exhibitions instituted for the relaxation of the second class also. And the melodies will correspond to their minds; for as their minds are perverted from the natural state, so there are exaggerated and corrupted harmonies which are in like manner a perversion. A man receives pleasure from what is natural to him, and therefore professional musicians may be allowed to practise this lower sort of music before an audience of a lower type. But, for the purposes of education, as I have already said, those modes and melodies should be employed which are ethical, such as the Dorian; though we may include any others which are approved by philosophers who have had a musical education.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

n Socrates of the " Republic r is wrong in retaining only the Phrygian mode along with the Dorian, and the more so because he rejects the flute; for the Phrygian is to the modes

The

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

both of them are Poetry proves this, for Bacchic frenzy and all similar emotions are most suitably expressed by the flute, and are better set to the Phrygian than to any other harmony. The dithyramb, for example, is acknowledged to

what the

flute is to

musical instruments

exciting and emotional.

r Plato, Rep.

iii.

399-

ARISTOTLE

208

be Phrygian, a fact of which the connoisseurs of music offer many proofs, saying, among other things, that Philoxenus. having attempted to compose his Tales s as a dithyramb in the Dorian mode, found it impossible, and fell back into the more appropriate Phrygian. All men agree that the Dorian music is the gravest and manliest. And whereas we say that the extremes should be avoided and the mean followed, and whereas the Dorian is a mean between the other harmonies [the Phrygian and the Lydian], it is evident that our youth should be taught the Dorian music. Two principles have to be kept in view, what is possible, what is becoming at these every man ought to aim. But even these are relative to age the old who have lost their powers cannot very well sing the severe melodies, and nature herself seems to suggest that their songs should be of the more relaxed kind. Wherefore the musicians likewise blame Socrates, and with justice, for rejecting the relaxed harmonies in :

;

education under the idea that they are intoxicating, not in the ordinary sense of intoxication (for wine rather tends to exAnd cite men), but because they have no strength in them. so, with a view to a time of life when men begin to grow old, they ought to practise the gentler harmonies and melodies as well as the others. And if there be any harmony, such as the Lydian above all others appears to be, which is suited to children of tender age, and possesses the elements both of order

and of education, clearly [we ought to use it, for] education should be based upon three principles the mean, the possible,

â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

the becoming, these three.

sCp. Poet.

c. 2.

Â§

B 358

.J8 1900 SMC

Plato.

Dialogues of Plato containing The apology AWT-5312 (sk) :