Republic

Plato

Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 5-6 translated by Paul Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1930-37.

But as to the violation of the oaths[*]( Iliad 4.69 ff.) and the truce by Pandarus, if anyone affirms it to have been brought about by the action of Athena and Zeus, we will not approve, nor that the strife and contention[*](ἔριν τε καὶ κρίσιν is used in Menexenus 237 C of the contest of the gods for Attica. Here it is generally taken of the Theomachy, Iliad xx. 1074, which begins with the summons of the gods to a council by Themis at the command of Zeus. It has also been understood, rather improbably, of the judgement of Paris.) of the gods was the doing of Themis and Zeus; nor again must we permit our youth to hear what Aeschylus says—

  1. A god implants the guilty cause in men
  2. When he would utterly destroy a house,
Aesch. [*](For the idea, quem deus vult perdere dementat prius, cf. Theognis 405, Schmidt, Ethik d. Griechen, i. pp. 235 and 247, and Jebb on Sophocles Antigone 620-624.) but if any poets compose a Sorrows of Niobe, the poem that contains these iambics, or a tale of the Pelopidae or of Troy, or anything else of the kind, we must either forbid them to say that these woes are the work of God, or they must devise some such interpretation as we now require, and must declare that what God did was righteous and good, and they were benefited[*](Plato’s doctrine that punishment is remedial must apply to punishments inflicted by the gods. Cf. Protagoras 324 B, Gorgias 478 E, 480 A, 505 B, 525 B, 590 A-B. Yet there are some incurables. Cf. 615 E.) by their chastisement. But that they were miserable who paid the penalty, and that the doer of this was God, is a thing that the poet must not be suffered to say; if on the other hand he should say that for needing chastisement the wicked were miserable and that in paying the penalty they were benefited by God, that we must allow. But as to saying that God, who is good, becomes the cause of evil to anyone, we must contend in every way that neither should anyone assert this in his own city if it is to be well governed, nor anyone hear it, neither younger nor older, neither telling a story in meter or without meter; for neither would the saying of such things, if they are said, be holy, nor would they be profitable to us or concordant with themselves.I cast my vote with yours for this law, he said, and am well pleased with it. This, then, said I, will be one of the laws and patterns concerning the gods[*](Minucius Felix says of Plato’s theology, Octav. chap. xix: Platoni apertior de deo et rebus ipsis et nominibus oratio est et quae tota esset caelestis nisi persuasionis civilis nonnunquam admixtione sordesceret.) to which speakers and poets will be required to conform, that God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good. And an entirely satisfactory one, he said. And what of this, the second. Do you think that God is a wizard and capable of manifesting himself by design, now in one aspect, now in another, at one time[*](The two methods, (1) self-transformation, and (2) production of illusions in our minds, answer broadly to the two methods of deception distinguished in the Sophist 236 C.) himself changing and altering his shape in many transformations and at another deceiving us and causing us to believe such things about him; or that he is simple and less likely than anything else to depart from his own form? I cannot say offhand, he replied. But what of this: If anything went out from[*](Cf. Tim. 50 B, Cratylus 439 E. Aristotle, H. A. i. 1. 32, applies it to biology: τὸ γενναῖόν ἐστι τὸ μὴ ἐξιστάμενον ἐκ τῆς αὑτοῦ φύσεως. Plato’s proof from the idea of perfection that God is changeless has little in common with the Eleatic argument that pure being cannot change.) its own form, would it not be displaced and changed, either by itself or by something else? Necessarily. Is it not true that to be altered and moved[*](The Theaetetus explicitly distinguishes two kinds of motion, qualitative change and motion proper (181 C-D), but the distinction is in Plato’s mind here and in Cratylus 439 E.) by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition,

as, for example, a body by food and drink and toil, and plants[*](Cf. Laws 765 E.) by the heat of the sun and winds and similar influences—is it not true that the healthiest and strongest is least altered?Certainly.And is it not the soul that is bravest and most intelligent, that would be least disturbed[*](ταράξειε suggests the ἀταραξία of the sage in the later schools.) and altered by any external affection?Yes.And, again, it is surely true of all composite implements, edifices, and habiliments, by parity of reasoning, that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences.That is so.It is universally[*](πᾶν δή generalizes from the preceding exhaustive enumeration of cases. Cf. 382 E, Parmenides 139 A.) true, then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art or both admits least alteration by something else.So it seems.But God, surely, and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state.Of course.From this point of view, then, it would be least of all likely that there would be many forms in God.Least indeed.But would he transform and alter himself?Obviously, he said, if he is altered. Then does he change himself for the better and to something fairer, or for the worse[*](So Aristotle Met. 1074 b 26.) and to something uglier than himself? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed. For we surely will not say that God is deficient in either beauty or excellence. Most rightly spoken, said I. And if that were his condition, do you think, Adeimantus, that any one god or man would of his own will worsen himself in any way? Impossible, he replied. It is impossible then, said I, even for a god to wish to alter himself, but, as it appears, each of them being the fairest and best possible abides[*](Cf. Tim. 42 E ἔμενεν, which suggested the Neoplatonic and Miltonic paradox that the divine abides even when it goes forth.) for ever simply in his own form. An absolutely necessary conclusion to my thinking. No poet then, I said, my good friend, must be allowed to tell us that

  1. The gods, in the likeness of strangers,
  2. Many disguises assume as they visit the cities of mortals.
Hom. Od. 17.485-486 [*](Od. xvii. 485-486, quoted again in Sophist 216 B-C. Cf. Tim. 41 A.) Nor must anyone tell falsehoods about Proteus[*](Cf. Odyssey iv. 456-8. Thetis transformed herself to avoid the wooing of Peleus. Cf. Pindar, Nem. 4) and Thetis, nor in any tragedy or in other poems bring in Hera disguised as a priestess collecting alms
  1. for the life-giving sons of Inachus, the Argive stream.
Aesch. [*](From the Ξαντρίαι of Aeschylus.) And many similar falsehoods they must not tell. Nor again must mothers under the influence of such poets terrify their children[*](Rousseau also deprecates this.) with harmful tales, how that there are certain gods whose apparitions haunt the night in the likeness of many strangers from all manner of lands, lest while they speak evil of the gods they at the same time make cowards of children. They must not, he said. But, said I, may we suppose that while the gods themselves are incapable of change they cause us to fancy that they appear in many shapes deceiving and practising magic upon us? Perhaps, said he.

Consider, said I; would a god wish to deceive, or lie, by presenting in either word or action what is only appearance? I don’t know, said he. Don’t you know, said I, that the veritable lie, if the expression is permissible, is a thing that all gods and men abhor? What do you mean? he said. This, said I, that falsehood in the most vital part of themselves, and about their most vital concerns, is something that no one willingly accepts, but it is there above all that everyone fears it. I don’t understand yet either. That is because you suspect me of some grand meaning, I said; but what I mean is, that deception in the soul about realities, to have been deceived and to be blindly ignorant and to have and hold the falsehood there, is what all men would least of all accept, and it is in that case that they loathe it most of all. Quite so, he said. But surely it would be most wholly right, as I was just now saying, to describe this as in very truth falsehood—ignorance namely in the soul of the man deceived. For the falsehood in words is a copy[*](Cf. Aristotle De Interp. 1. 12 ἔστι μὲν οὖν τὰ ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ παθημάτων σύμβολα. Cf. also Cratylus 428 D, 535 E, Laws730 C, Bacon, Of Truth: But it is not the lie that passes through the mind but the lie that sinketh in and settleth in it that doth the hurt.) of the affection in the soul, an after-rising image of it and not an altogether unmixed falsehood. Is not that so? By all means. Essential falsehood, then, is hated not only by gods but by men. I agree. But what of the falsehood in words, when and for whom is it serviceable so as not to merit abhorrence? Will it not be against enemies? And when any of those whom we call friends owing to madness or folly attempts to do some wrong, does it not then become useful to avert the evil—as a medicine? And also in the fables of which we were just now speaking owing to our ignorance of the truth about antiquity, we liken the false to the true as far as we may and so make it edifying.[*](Cf. Phaedrus 245 A μυρία τῶν παλαιῶν ἔργα κοσμοῦσα τοὺς ἐπιγιγνομένους παιδεύει, Isocrates xii. 149 and Livy’s Preface. For χρήσιμον Cf. Politicus 274 E. We must not infer that Plato is trying to sophisticate away the moral virtue of truth-telling.) We most certainly do, he said. Tell me, then, on which of these grounds falsehood would be serviceable to God. Would he because of his ignorance of antiquity make false likenesses of it? An absurd supposition, that, he said. Then there is no lying poet in God. I think not. Well then, would it be through fear of his enemies that he would lie? Far from it. Would it be because of the folly or madness of his friends? Nay, no fool or madman is a friend of God. Then there is no motive for God to deceive. None. From every point of view[*](Generalizing from the exhaustive classification that precedes.) the divine and the divinity are free from falsehood. By all means.

Then God is altogether simple and true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others by visions or words or the sending of signs in waking or in dreams.I myself think so, he said, when I hear you say it. You concur then, I said, this as our second norm or canon for speech and poetry about the gods,—that they are neither wizards in shape-shifting nor do they mislead us by falsehoods in words or deed? I concur. Then, though there are many other things that we praise in Homer, this we will not applaud, the sending of the dream by Zeus[*](Hom. Il. 2.1-34. This apparent attribution of falsehood to Zeus was an Homeric problem which some solved by a change of accent from δίδομεν to διδόμεν. Cf. Aristotle Poetics 1462 a 22.) to Agamemnon, nor shall we approve of Aeschylus when his Thetis[*](Cf. Aeschylus Frag. 350. Possibly from the Ὅπλων κπίσις.) avers that Apollo singing at her wedding,

foretold the happy fortunes of her issue
Hom. Il. 2.1 —
  1. Their days prolonged, from pain and sickness free,
  2. And rounding out the tale of heaven’s blessings,
  3. Raised the proud paean, making glad my heart.
  4. And I believed that Phoebus’ mouth divine,
  5. Filled with the breath of prophecy, could not lie.
  6. But he himself, the singer, himself who sat
  7. At meat with us, himself who promised all,
  8. Is now himself the slayer of my son.
Aesch. Frag. 350 When anyone says that sort of thing about the gods, we shall be wroth with him, we will refuse him a chorus, neither will we allow teachers to use him for the education of the young if our guardians are to be god-fearing men and god-like in so far as that is possible for humanity. By all means, he said, I accept these norms and would use them as canons and laws.

Concerning the gods then, said I, this is the sort of thing that we must allow or not allow them to hear from childhood up, if they are to honor the gods[*](We may, if we choose, see here a reference to the virtue of piety, which some critics fancifully suppose was eliminated by the Euthyphro. Cf. Unity of Plato’s Thought, note 58.) and their fathers and mothers, and not to hold their friendship with one another in light esteem. That was our view and I believe it right. What then of this? If they are to be brave, must we not extend our prescription to include also the sayings that will make them least likely to fear death? Or do you suppose that anyone could ever become brave who had that dread in his heart? No indeed, I do not, he replied. And again if he believes in the reality of the underworld and its terrors,[*](For the idea that death is no evil Cf. Apology, in fine, Laws 727 D, 828 D, and 881 A, where, however, the fear of hell is approved as a deterrent.) do you think that any man will be fearless of death and in battle will prefer death to defeat and slavery? By no means. Then it seems we must exercise supervision[*](Cf. 377 B.) also, in the matter of such tales as these, over those who undertake to supply them and request them not to dispraise in this undiscriminating fashion the life in Hades but rather praise it, since what they now tell us is neither true nor edifying to men who are destined to be warriors. Yes, we must, he said. Then, said I, beginning with this verse we will expunge everything of the same kind:

  1. Liefer were I in the fields up above to be serf to another
  2. Tiller of some poor plot which yields him a scanty subsistence,
  3. Than to be ruler and king over all the dead who have perished,
Aesch. Frag. 350 [*](Spoken by Achilles when Odysseus sought to console him for his death. Lucian, Dialog. Mort . 18, develops the idea. Proclus comments on it for a page.) and this:
  1. Lest unto men and immortals the homes of the dead be uncovered
  2. Horrible, noisome, dank, that the gods too hold in abhorrence,
Hom. Il. 20.64 [*](δείσας μὴ precedes.) and:
  1. Ah me! so it is true that e’en in the dwellings of Hades
  2. Spirit there is and wraith, but within there is no understanding,
Hom. Il. 10.495 [*](The exclamation and inference (ῥά) of Achilles when the shade of Patroclus eludes his embrace in the dream. The text is endlessly quoted by writers on religious origins and dream and ghost theories of the origin of the belief in the soul.) and this:
  1. Sole to have wisdom and wit, but the others are shadowy phantoms,
Hom. Il. 23.103 [*](Said of the prophet Teiresias. The preceding line is, Unto him even in death was it granted by Persephoneia. The line is quoted also in Meno 100 A.) and:
  1. Forth from his limbs unwilling his spirit flitted to Hades,
  2. Wailing its doom and its lustihood lost and the May of its manhood,
Hom. Il. 16.856 [*](Said of the death of Patroclus, and Hector, Hom. Il. 22.382; imitated in the last line of the Aeneid Vitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras. Cf. Bacchyl. v. 153-4: πύματον δὲ πνέων δάκρυσα τλάμωνἀγλαὰν ἥβαν προλείπων.)

and:

  1. Under the earth like a vapor vanished the gibbering soul,
Hom. Il. 23.100 and:
  1. Even as bats in the hollow of some mysterious grotto
  2. Fly with a flittermouse shriek when one of them falls from the cluster
  3. Whereby they hold to the rock and are clinging the one to the other,
  4. Flitted their gibbering ghosts.
Hom. Od. 24.6-10 [*](Said of the souls of the suitors slain by Odysseus. Cf. Tennyson, Oenone: Thin as the bat-like shrillings of the dead.) We will beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry if we cancel those and all similar passages, not that they are not poetic and pleasing[*](Cf. Theaetetus 177 C οὐκ ἀηδέστερα ἀκούειν.) to most hearers, but because the more poetic they are the less are they suited to the ears of boys and men who are destined to be free and to be more afraid of slavery than of death.By all means.Then we must further taboo in these matters the entire vocabulary of terror and fear, Cocytus[*](Milton’s words, which I have borrowed, are the best expression of Plato’s thought.) named of lamentation loud, abhorred Styx, the flood of deadly hate, the people of the infernal pit and of the charnel-house, and all other terms of this type, whose very names send a shudder[*](φρίττειν and φρίκη are often used of the thrill or terror of tragedy. Cf. Sophocles Electra 1402, O.T. 1306, Aeschylus Prometheus Bound 540.) through all the hearers every year. And they may be excellent for other purposes,[*](Some say, to frighten the wicked, but more probably for their aesthetic effect. Cf. 390 A εἰ δέ τινα ἄλλην ἡδονὴν παρέχεται, Laws 886 C.) but we are in fear for our guardians lest the habit of such thrills make them more sensitive[*](θερμότεροι contains a playful suggestion of the fever following the chill; Cf. Phaedrus 251 A. With μαλακώτεροι the image passes into that of softened metal; cf. 411 B, Laws 666 B-C, 671 B.) and soft than we would have them.And we are right in so fearing.We must remove those things then?Yes.And the opposite type to them is what we must require in speech and in verse?Obviously.And shall we also do away with the wailings and lamentations of men of repute?That necessarily follows, he said, from the other. Consider, said I, whether we shall be right in thus getting rid of them or not. What we affirm is that a good man[*](That only the good can be truly friends was a favorite doctrine of the ancient moralists. Cf. Lysis 214 C, Xenophon Memorabilia ii. 6. 9, 20.) will not think that for a good man, whose friend he also is, death is a terrible thing. Yes, we say that. Then it would not be for his friend’s[*](Cf. Phaedo 117 C I wept for myself, for surely not for him.) sake as if he had suffered something dreadful that he would make lament. Certainly not. But we also say this, that such a one is most of all men sufficient unto himself[*](αὐτάρκης is the equivalent of ἱκανὸς αὑτῷ in Lysis 215 A. For the idea cf. Menexenus 247 E. Self-sufficiency is the mark of a good man, of God, of the universe (Timaeus 33 D), of happiness in Aristotle, and of the Stoic sage.) for a good life and is distinguished from other men in having least need of anybody else. True, he replied. Least of all then to him is it a terrible thing to lose son[*](Cf. the anecdotes of Pericles and Xenophon and the comment of Pater on Marcus Aurelius in Marius the Epicurean. Plato qualifies the Stoic extreme in 603 E. The Platonic ideal is μετριοπάθεια, the Stoic ἀπάθεια,) or brother or his wealth or anything of the sort. Least of all. Then he makes the least lament and bears it most moderately when any such misfortune overtakes him. Certainly.

Then we should be right in doing away with the lamentations of men of note and in attributing them to women,[*](Cf. Plat. Rep. 398e.) and not to the most worthy of them either, and to inferior men, in that those whom we say we are breeding for the guardianship of the land may disdain to act like these.We should be right, said he. Again then we shall request Homer and the other poets not to portray Achilles, the son of a goddess, as,

  1. Lying now on his side, and then again on his back,
  2. And again on his face,
Hom. Il. 24.10-12 [*](The descripition of Achilles mourning for Patroclus, Hom. Il. 24.10-12. Cf. Juv. 3.279-280: Noctem patitur lugentis amicumPelidae, cubat in faciem mox deinde supinus.) and then rising up and
Drifting distraught on the shore of the waste unharvested ocean,
Hom. Il. 24.10-12 [*](Our text of Homer reads δινεύεσκ’ ἀλύων παρὰ θίν’ ἀλός, οὐδέ μιν ἠώς. Plato’s text may be intentional burlesque or it may be corrupt.) nor
clutching with both hands the sooty dust and strewing it over his head,
[*](When he heard of Patroclus’s death.) nor as weeping and lamenting in the measure and manner attributed to him by the poet; nor yet Priam,[*](Hom. Il. 22.414-415.) near kinsman of the gods, making supplication and rolling in the dung,
  1. Calling aloud unto each, by name to each man appealing.
Hom. Il. 22.414-415 And yet more than this shall we beg of them at least not to describe the gods as lamenting and crying,
  1. Ah, woe is me, woeful mother who bore to my sorrow the bravest,
Hom. Il. 18.54 [*](Thetis.) and if they will so picture the gods at least not to have the effrontery to present so unlikely a likeness[*](Cf. 377 E.) of the supreme god as to make him say:
  1. Out on it, dear to my heart is the man whose pursuit around Troy-town
  2. I must behold with my eyes while my spirit is grieving within me,
Hom. Il. 22.168 [*](Zeus of Hector.) and:
  1. Ah, woe is me! of all men to me is Sarpedon the dearest,
  1. Fated to fall by the hands of Patroclus, Menoitius’ offspring.
Hom. Il. 16.433-434 [*]( Cf. Virgil’s imitation, Aeneid 10.465 ff., Cicero, De Div. ii. ch. 10.) For if, dear Adeimantus, our young men should seriously incline to listen to such tales and not laugh at them as unworthy utterances, still less surely would any man be to think such conduct unworthy of himself and to rebuke himself if it occurred to him to do or say anything of that kind, but without shame or restraint full many a dirge for trifles would he chant [*](I have imitated the suggestion of rhythm in the original which with its Ionic dative is perhaps a latent quotation from tragedy. Cf. Chairemon, οὐδεὶς ἐπὶ σμικροῖσι λυπεῖται σοφός, N fr. 37.) and many a lament. You say most truly, he replied. But that must not be, as our reasoning but now showed us, in which we must put our trust until someone convinces with a better reason. No, it must not be. Again, they must not be prone to laughter.[*](The ancients generally thought violent laughter undignified. Cf. Isocrates Demon. 15, Plato Laws 732 C, 935 B, Epictetus Encheirid. xxxiii. 4, Dio Chrys. Or. 33. 703 R. Diogenes Laertius iii. 26, reports that Plato never laughed excessively in his youth. Aristotle’s great-souled man would presumably have eschewed laughter (Eth. iv. 8, Rhet. 1389 b 10), as Lord Chesterfield advises his son to do.) For ordinarily when one abandons himself to violent laughter his condition provokes a violent reaction.[*](In 563 E Plato generalizes this psychological principle.) I think so, he said.