Republic ? Book 1

Republic - Book 4
[419a] Socrates
And Adeimantus broke in and said, "What will be your defence, Socrates, if
anyone objects that you are not making these men very happy,1 and that
through their own fault? For the city really belongs to them and yet they
get no enjoyment out of it as ordinary men do by owning lands and building
fine big houses and providing them with suitable furniture and winning the
favor of the gods by private sacrifices2 and entertaining guests and
enjoying too those possessions which you just now spoke of, gold and silver
and all that is customary for those who are expecting to be happy? But they
seem, one might say, to be established in idleness in the city,
[420a] exactly like hired mercenaries, with nothing to do but keep guard."
"Yes," said I, "and what is more, they serve for board-wages and do not
even receive pay in addition to their food as others do,3 so that they will
not even be able to take a journey4 on their own account, if they wish to,
or make presents to their mistresses, or spend money in other directions
according to their desires like the men who are thought to be happy. These
and many similar counts of the indictment you are omitting." "Well," said
he, "assume these counts too.5 " [420b] "What then will be our apology you
ask?" "Yes." "By following the same path I think we shall find what to
reply. For we shall say that while it would not surprise us if these men
thus living prove to be the most happy, yet the object on which we fixed
our eyes in the establishment of our state was not the exceptional
happiness of any one class but the greatest possible happiness of the city
as a whole. For we thought6 that in a state so constituted we should be
most likely to discover justice as we should injustice [420c] in the worst
governed state, and that when we had made these out we could pass judgement
on the issue of our long inquiry. Our first task then, we take it, is to
mold the model of a happy state--we are not isolating7 a small class in it
and postulating their happiness, but that of the city as a whole. But the
opposite type of state we will consider presently.8 It is as if we were
coloring a statue and someone approached and censured us, saying that we
did not apply the most beautiful pigments to the most beautiful parts of
the image, since the eyes,9 which are the most beautiful part, have not
been painted with purple but with black-- [420d] we should think it a
reasonable justification to reply, 'Don't expect us, quaint friend, to
paint the eyes so fine that they will not be like eyes at all, nor the
other parts. But observe whether by assigning what is proper to each we
render the whole beautiful.10 ' And so in the present case you must not
require us to attach to the guardians a happiness that will make them
anything but guardians. [420e] For in like manner we could11 clothe the
farmers in robes of state and deck them with gold and bid them cultivate
the soil at their pleasure, and we could make the potters recline on
couches from left to right12 before the fire drinking toasts and feasting
with their wheel alongside to potter with when they are so disposed, and we
can make all the others happy in the same fashion, so that thus the entire
city may be happy. But urge us not to this, [421a] since, if we yield, the
farmer will not be a farmer nor the potter a potter, nor will any other of
the types that constitute state keep its form. However, for the others it
matters less. For cobblers13 who deteriorate and are spoiled and pretend to
be the workmen that they are not are no great danger to a state. But
guardians of laws and of the city who are not what they pretend to be, but
only seem, destroy utterly, I would have you note, the entire state, and on
the other hand, they alone are decisive of its good government and
happiness. If then we are forming true guardians [421b] and keepers of our
liberties, men least likely to harm the commonwealth, but the proponent of
the other ideal is thinking of farmers and 'happy' feasters as it were in a
festival and not in a civic community, he would have something else in
mind14 than a state. Consider, then, whether our aim in establishing the
guardians is the greatest possible happiness among them or whether that is
something we must look to see develop in the city as a whole, but these
helpers and guardians [421c] are to be constrained and persuaded to do what
will make them the best craftsmen in their own work, and similarly all the
rest. And so, as the entire city develops and is ordered well, each class
is to be left, to the share of happiness that its nature comports.
"Well," he said, "I think you are right." "And will you then," I said,
"also think me reasonable in another point akin to this?" "What pray?"
"Consider whether [421d] these are the causes that corrupt other15
craftsmen too so as positively to spoil them.16 " "What causes?" "Wealth
and poverty,"17 said I. "How so?" "Thus! do you think a potter who grew
rich would any longer be willing to give his mind to his craft?" "By no
means," said he. "But will he become more idle and negligent than he was?"
"Far more." "Then he becomes a worse potter?" "Far worse too." "And yet
again, if from poverty he is unable to provide himself with tools and other
requirements of his art, [421e] the work that he turns out will be worse,
and he will also make inferior workmen of his sons or any others whom he
teaches." "Of course." "From both causes, then, poverty and wealth, the
products of the arts deteriorate, and so do the artisans?" "So it appears."
"Here, then, is a second group of things it seems that our guardians must
guard against and do all in their power to keep from slipping into the city
without their knowledge." "What are they?" [422a] "Wealth and poverty,"
said I, "since the one brings luxury, idleness and innovation, and the
other illiberality and the evil of bad workmanship in addition to
innovation." "Assuredly," he said; "yet here is a point for your
consideration, Socrates, how our city, possessing no wealth, will be able
to wage war, especially if compelled to fight a large and wealthy state."
"Obviously," said I, "it would be rather difficult to fight one such,
[422b] but easier to fight two.18 " "What did you mean by that?" he said.
"Tell me first," I said, "whether, if they have to fight, they will not be
fighting as athletes of war19 against men of wealth?" "Yes, that is true,"
he said. "Answer me then, Adeimantus. Do you not think that one boxer
perfectly trained in the art could easily fight two fat rich men who knew
nothing of it?" "Not at the same time perhaps," said he. "Not even," said
I, "if he were allowed to retreat20 [422c] and then turn and strike the one
who came up first, and if he repeated the procedure many times under a
burning and stifling sun? Would not such a fighter down even a number of
such opponents?" "Doubtless," he said; "it wouldn't be surprising if he
did." "Well, don't you think that the rich have more of the skill and
practice21 of boxing than of the art of war?" "I do," he said. "It will be
easy, then, for our athletes in all probability to fight with double and
triple their number." "I shall have to concede the point," [422d] he said,
"for I believe you are right." "Well then, if they send an embassy to the
other city and say what is in fact true22 : 'We make no use of gold and
silver nor is it lawful for us but it is for you: do you then join us in
the war and keep the spoils of the enemy,'23 --do you suppose any who heard
such a proposal would choose to fight against hard and wiry hounds rather
than with the aid of the hounds against fat and tender sheep?" "I think
not." "Yet consider whether the accumulation [422e] of all the wealth of
other cities in one does not involve danger for the state that has no
wealth." "What happy innocence," said I, "to suppose that you can properly
use the name city of any other than the one we are constructing." "Why,
what should we say?" he said. "A greater predication," said I, "must be
applied to the others. For they are each one of them many cities, not a
city, as it goes in the game.24 There are two at the least at enmity with
one another, the city of the rich [423a] and the city of the poor,25 and in
each of these there are many. If you deal with them as one you will
altogether miss the mark, but if you treat them as a multiplicity by
offering to the one faction the property, the power, the very persons of
the other, you will continue always to have few enemies and many allies.
And so long as your city is governed soberly in the order just laid down,
it will be the greatest of cities. I do not mean greatest in repute, but in
reality, even though it have only a thousand26 defenders. For a city of
this size [423b] that is really one27 you will not easily discover either
among Greeks or barbarians--but of those that seem so you will find many
and many times the size of this. Or do you think otherwise?" "No, indeed I
don't," said he.
"Would not this, then, be the best rule and measure for our governors of
the proper size of the city and of the territory that they should mark off
for a city of that size and seek no more?" "What is the measure?" "I
think," said I, "that they should let it grow so long as in its growth it
consents28 to remain a unity, [423c] but no further." "Excellent," he said.
"Then is not this still another injunction that we should lay upon our
guardians, to keep guard in every way that the city shall not be too small,
nor great only in seeming, but that it shall be a sufficient city and one?"
"That behest will perhaps be an easy29 one for them," he said. "And still
easier,30 haply," I said, "is this that we mentioned before31 when we said
that if a degenerate offspring was born to the guardians he must be sent
away to the other classes, [423d] and likewise if a superior to the others
he must be enrolled among the guardians; and the purport of all this was32
that the other c