The Portable Plato - Protagoras Symposium Phaedo The Republic

by Plato

  These, he said, and none other; for what can be more ridiculous than for them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only and not to act in the spirit of them?

  Then in our city the language of harmony and concord will be more often heard than in any other. As I was describing before, when any one is well or ill, the universal word will be “with me it is well” or “it is ill.”

  Most true.

  And agreeably to this mode of thinking and speaking, were we not saying that they will have their pleasures and pains in common?

  Yes, and so they will.

  And they will have a common interest in the same thing which they will alike call “my own,” and having this common interest they will have a common feeling of pleasure and pain?

  Yes, far more so than in other States.

  And the reason of this, over and above the general constitution of the State, will be that the guardians will have a community of women and children?

  That will be the chief reason.

  And this unity of feeling we admitted to be the greatest good, as was implied in our own comparison of a well-ordered State to the relation of the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or pain?

  That we acknowledged, and very rightly.

  Then the community of wives and children among our citizens is clearly the source of the greatest good to the State?

  Certainly.

  And this agrees with the other principle which we were affirming,—that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any other property; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receive from the other citizens, and they were to have no private expenses; for we intended them to preserve their true character of guardians.

  Right, he replied.

  Both the community of property and the community of families, as I am saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will not tear the city in pieces by differing about “mine” and “not mine”; each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house of his own, where he has a separate wife and children and private pleasures and pains; but all will be affected as far as may be by the same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion about what is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towards a common end.

  And as they have nothing but their persons which they can call their own, suits and complaints will have no existence among them; they will be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or children or relations are the occasion.

  Of course they will.

  Neither will trials for assault or insult ever be likely to occur among them. For that equals should defend themselves against equals we shall maintain to be honourable and right; we shall make the protection of the person a matter of necessity.

  That is good, he said.

  Yes; and there is a further good in the law; viz. that if a man has a quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then and there, and not proceed to more dangerous lengths.

  Certainly.

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

  Clearly.

  Nor can there be a doubt that the younger will not strike or do any other violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him; nor will he slight him in any way. For there are two guardians, shame and fear, mighty to prevent him: shame, which makes men refrain from laying hands on those who are to them in the relation of parents; fear, that the injured one will be succoured by the others who are his brothers, sons, fathers.

  That is true, he replied.

  Then in every way the laws will help the citizens to keep the peace with one another?

  Yes, there will be no want of peace.

  And as the guardians will never quarrel among themselves there will be no danger of the rest of the city being divided either against them or against one another.

  None whatever.

  I hardly like even to mention the little meannesses of which they will be rid, for they are beneath notice: such, for example, as the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy necessaries for their household borrowing and then repudiating, getting how they can, and giving the money into the hands of women and slaves to keep—the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer in this way are mean enough and obvio is enough, and not worth speaking of.

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

  And from all these evils they will be delivered, and their life will be blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more blessed.

  How so?

  The Olympic victor, I said, is deemed happy in receiving a part only of the blessedness which is secured to our citizens, who have won a more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance at the public cost. For the victory which they have won is the salvation of the whole State; and the crown with which they and their children are crowned is the fulness of all that life needs; they receive rewards from the hands of their country while living, and after death have an honourable burial.

  Yes, he said, and glorious rewards they are.

  Do you remember, I said, how in the course of the previous discussion106 some one who shall be nameless accused us of making our guardians unhappy—they had nothing and might have possessed all things—to whom we replied that, if an occasion offered, we might perhaps hereafter consider this question, but that, as at present advised, we would make our guardians truly guardians, and that we were fashioning the State with a view to the greatest happiness, not of any particular class, but of the whole?

  Yes, I remember.

  And what do you say, now that the life of our protectors is made out to be far better and nobler than that of Olympic victors—is the life of shoemakers, or any other artisans, or of husbandmen, to be compared with it?.

  Certainly not.

  At the same time I ought here to repeat what I have said elsewhere, that if any of our guardians shall try to be happy in such a manner that he will cease to be a guardian, and is not content with this safe and harmonious life, which, in our judgment, is of all lives the best, but infatuated by some youthful conceit of happiness which gets up,into his head shall seek to appropriate the whole State to himself, then he will have to learn how wisely Hesiod spoke, when he said, “half is more than the whole.”

  If he were to consult me, I should say to him: Stay where you are, when you have the offer of such a life.

  You agree then, I said, that men and women are to have a common way of life such as we have described —common education, common children; and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether abiding in the city or going out to war; they are to keep watch together, and to hunt together like dogs; and always and in all things, as far as they are able, women are to share with the men? And in so doing they will do what is best, and will not violate, but preserve the natural relation of the sexes.

  I agree with you, he replied.

  The enquiry, I said, has yet to be made, whether such a community will be found possible—as among other animals, so also among men—and if possible, in what way possible?

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

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

  How?

  ‘Why, of course they will go on expeditions together; and will take with them any of their children who are strong enough, that, after the manner of the artisan’s child, they may look on at the work which they will have to do when they are grown up; and besides looking on they will have to help and be of use in war, and to wait upon their fathers and mothers. Did you never observe in the arts how the potters’ boys look on and help, long before they touch the wheel?

  Yes, I have.

  And shall potters be more careful in educating their children and in giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their duties than our guardians will be?

  The
idea is ridiculous, he said.

  There is also the effect on the parents, with whom, as with other animals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest incentive to valour.

  That is quite true, Socrates; and yet if they are defeated, which may often happen in war, how great the danger is! the children will be lost as well as their parents, and the State will never recover.

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

  I am far from saying that.

  Well, but if they are ever to run a risk should they not do so on some occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the better for it?

  Clearly.

  Whether the future soldiers do or do not see war in the days of their youth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some risk may fairly be incurred.

  Yes, very important.

  This then must be our first step,—to make our children spectators of war; but we must also contrive that they shall be secured against danger; then all will be well.

  True.

  Their parents may be supposed not to be blind to the risks of war, but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions are safe and what dangerous?

  That may be assumed.

  And they will take them on the safe expeditions and be cautious about the dangerous ones?

  True.

  And they will place them under the command of experienced veterans who will be their leaders and teachers?

  Very properly.

  Still, the dangers of war cannot be always foreseen; there is a good deal of chance about them?

  True.

  Then against such chances the children must be at once furnished with wings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away and escape.

  What do you mean? he said.

  I mean that we must mount them on horses in their earliest youth, and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see war: the horses must not be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable and yet the swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an excellent view of what is hereafter to be their own business; and if there is danger they have only to follow their elder leaders and escape.

  I believe that you are right, he said.

  Next, as to war; what are to be the relations of your soldiers to one another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to propose that the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or is guilty of any other act of cowardice, should be degraded into the rank of a husbandman or artisan. What do you think?

  By all means, I should say.

  And he who allows himself to be taken prisoner may as well be made a present of to his enemies; he is their lawful prey, and let them do what they like with him.

  Certainly.

  But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done to him? In the first place, he shall receive honour in the army from his youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crown him. What do you say?

  I approve.

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

  To that too, I agree.

  But you will hardly agree to my next proposal.

  What is your proposal?

  That he should kiss and be kissed by them.

  Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say: Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valour.

  capital, I said. That the brave man is to have more wives than others has been already determined: and he is to have first choices in such matters more than others, in order that he may have as many children as possible?

  Agreed.

  Again, there is another manner in which, according to Homer, brave youths should be honoured; for he tells how Ajax,107 after he had distinguished himself in battle, was rewarded with long chines, which seems to be a compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower of his age, being not only a tribute of honour but also a very strengthening thing.

  Most true, he said.

  Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our teacher; and we too, at sacrifices and on the like occasions, will honour the brave according to the measure of their valour, whether men or women, with hymns and those other distinctions which we were mentioning; also with“seats of precedence, and meats and full cups”;108

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

  That, he replied, is excellent.

  Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say, in the first place, that he is of the golden race?

  To be sure.

  Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for affirming that when they are dead“They are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters of evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men”?109

  Yes; and we accept his authority.

  We must learn of the god how we are to order the sepulture of divine and heroic personages, and what is to be their special distinction; and we must do as he bids?

  By all means.

  And in ages to come we will reverence them and kneel before their sepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but any who are deemed pre-eminently good, whether they die from age, or in any other way, shall be admitted to the same honours.

  That is very right, he said.

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

  In what respect do you mean?

  First of all, in regard to slavery. Do you think it right that Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave them, if they can help? Should not their custom be to spare them, considering the danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the barbarians?

  To spare them is infinitely better.

  Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave; that is a rule which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe.

  Certainly, he said; they will in this way be united against the barbarians and will keep their hands off one another.

  Next as to the slain; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anything but their armour? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy afford an excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the dead, pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army before now has been lost from this love of plunder.

  Very true.

  And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanish-ness in making an enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear behind him,—is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him instead?

  Very like a dog, he said.

  Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their burial?

  Yes, he replied, we most certainly must.

  Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good feeling with other Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offering of spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded by the god himself?

  Very true.

  Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burning of houses, what is to be the practice?

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

  Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I would take the annual produce and no more. Shall I tell you why?

  Pray do.

  Why, you see, there is a difference in the names “discord” and “war,” and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures; the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of what is external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed discord, and only the second, war.

  That is a very proper distinction, he replied.

  And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Hellen
ic race is all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alien and strange to the barbarians?

  Very good, he said.

  And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war; but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in a state of disorder and discord, they being by nature friends; and such enmity is to be called discord.

  I agree.

  Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to be discord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy the lands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strife appear! No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear in pieces his own nurse and mother: There might be reason in the conqueror depriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they would have the idea of peace in their hearts and would not mean to go on fighting for ever.

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

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

  It ought to be, he replied.

  Then will not the citizens be good and civilized?

  Yes, very civilized.

  And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as their own land, and share in the common temples?

  Most certainly.

  And any difference which arises among them will be regarded by them as discord only—a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called a war?

  Certainly not.

  Then they will quarrel as those who Intend some day to be reconciled?

  Certainly.

  They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroy their opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies?

  Just so.

  And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas, nor will they burn houses, nor even suppose that the whole population of a city—men, women, and children—are equally their enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few persons and that the many are their friends. And for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and rase their houses; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction?