Republic

Let us begin, then, what we have to say and hear by recalling the starting-point of our description of the nature which he who is to be a scholar and gentleman[*](The quality of the καλὸς κἀγαθός gave rise to the abstraction καλοκἀγαθία used for the moral ideal in the Eudemian Ethics. Cf. Isoc. Demon. 6, 13, and 51, Stewart on Eth. Nic. 1124 a 4 (p. 339) and 1179 b 10 (p. 460).) must have from birth. The leader of the choir for him, if you recollect, was truth. That he was to seek always and altogether, on pain of[*](For ἤ = or else Cf. Prot. 323 A and C, Phaedr. 237 C, 239 A, 245 D, Gorg. 494 A, Crat. 426 B, etc.) being an impostor without part or lot in true philosophy.Yes, that was said.Is not this one point quite contrary to the prevailing opinion about him?It is indeed, he said. Will it not be a fair plea in his defence to say that it was the nature of the real lover of knowledge to strive emulously for true being and that he would not linger over the many particulars that are opined to be real, but would hold on his way, and the edge of his passion would not be blunted nor would his desire fail till he came into touch with[*](Similar metaphors for contact, approach and intercourse with the truth are frequent in Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. For Plato cf. Campbell on Theaet. 150 B and 186 A. Cf. also on 489 D.) the nature of each thing in itself by that part of his soul to which it belongs[*](Cf. Phaedo 65 E f., Symp. 211 E-212 A.) to lay hold on that kind of reality—the part akin to it, namely—and through that approaching it, and consorting with reality really, he would beget intelligence and truth, attain to knowledge and truly live and grow,[*](Lit. be nourished. Cf. Protag. 313 C-D, Soph. 223 E, Phaedr. 248 B.) and so find surcease from his travail[*](a Platonic and Neoplatonic metaphor. Cf. Theaet. 148 E ff., 151 A, and passim, Symp. 206 E, Epist. ii. 313 A, Epictet. Diss. i. 22. 17.) of soul, but not before? No plea could be fairer. Well, then, will such a man love falsehood, or, quite the contrary, hate it? Hate it, he said. When truth led the way, no choir[*](For the figurative use of the word χορός cf. 560 E, 580 B, Euthydem. 279 C, Theaet. 173 B.) of evils, we, I fancy, would say, could ever follow in its train. How could it? But rather a sound and just character, which is accompanied by temperance. Right, he said. What need, then, of repeating from the beginning our proof of the necessary order of the choir that attends on the philosophical nature? You surely remember that we found pertaining to such a nature courage, grandeur of soul, aptness to learn, memory.[*](For the list of virtues Cf. on 487 A.) And when you interposed the objection that though everybody will be compelled to admit our statements,[*](Cf. for the use of the dative Polit. 258 A συγχωρεῖς οὖν οἷς λέγει, Phaedo 100 C τῇ τοιᾷδε αἰτίᾳ συγχωρεῖς, Horace, Sat. ii. 3. 305 stultum me fateor, liceat concedere veris.) yet, if we abandoned mere words and fixed our eyes on the persons to whom the words referred, everyone would say that he actually saw some of them to be useless and most of them base with all baseness, it was in our search for the cause of this ill-repute that we came to the present question: Why is it that the majority are bad? And, for the sake of this, we took up again the nature of the true philosophers and defined what it must necessarily be? That is so, he said.

We have, then, I said, to contemplate the causes of the corruption of this nature in the majority, while a small part escapes,[*](Le petit nombre des élus. Cf. 496 A-B and Phaedo 69 C-D, Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14.) even those whom men call not bad but useless; and after that in turn we are to observe those who imitate this nature and usurp its pursuits and see what types of souls they are that thus entering upon a way of life which is too high[*](For the Greek double use of ἄξιος and ἀνάξιος Cf. Laws 943 E, Aesch. Ag. 1527. Cf. How worthily he died who died unworthily and Wyatt’s line Disdain me not without desert.) for them and exceeds their powers, by the many discords and disharmonies of their conduct everywhere and among all men bring upon philosophy the repute of which you speak. Of what corruptions are you speaking? I will try, I said, to explain them to you if I can. I think everyone will grant us this point, that a nature such as we just now postulated for the perfect philosopher is a rare growth among men and is found in only a few. Don’t you think so? Most emphatically. Observe, then, the number and magnitude of the things that operate to destroy these few. What are they? The most surprising fact of all is that each of the gifts of nature which we praise tends to corrupt the soul of its possessor and divert it from philosophy. I am speaking of bravery, sobriety, and the entire list.[*](Cf. Burton, Anatomy, i. 1 This St. Austin acknowledgeth of himself in his humble confessions, promptness of wit, memory, eloquence, they were God’s good gifts, but he did not use them to his glory. Cf. Meno 88 A-C, and Seneca, Ep. v. 7 multa bona nostra nobis nocent.) That does sound like a paradox, said he. Furthermore, said I, all the so-called goods[*](Cf. What Plato Said, p. 479 on Charm. 158 A. For goods Cf. ibid. p. 629 on Laws 697 B. The minor or earlier dialogues constantly lead up to the point that goods are no good divorced from wisdom, or the art to use them rightly, or the political or royal art, or the art that will make us happy. Cf. What Plato Said, p. 71.) corrupt and divert, beauty and wealth and strength of body and powerful family connections in the city and all things akin to them—you get my general meaning? I do, he said, and I would gladly hear a more precise statement of it. Well, said I, grasp it rightly as a general proposition and the matter will be clear and the preceding statement will not seem to you so strange. How do you bid me proceed? he said. We know it to be universally true of every seed and growth, whether vegetable or animal, that the more vigorous it is the more it falls short of its proper perfection when deprived of the food, the season, the place that suits it. For evil is more opposed to the good than to the not-good.[*](This is for Plato’s purpose a sufficiently clear statement of the distinction between contradictory and contrary opposition. Plato never drew out an Aristotelian or modern logician’s table of the opposition of propositions. But it is a misunderstanding of Greek idiom or of his style to say that he never got clear on the matter. He always understood it. Cf. Symp. 202 A-B, and on 437 A-B, What Plato Said, p. 595 on Soph. 257 B, and ibid. p. 563 on Rep. 436 B ff.) Of course. So it is, I take it, natural that the best nature should fare worse[*](Corruptio optimi pessima. Cf. 495 A-B, Xen. Mem, i. 2. 24, iv. 1. 3-4. Cf. Livy xxxviii. 17 generosius in sua quidquid sede gignitur: insitum alienae terrae in id quo alitur, natura vertente se, degenerat, Pausanias vii. 17. 3.) than the inferior under conditions of nurture unsuited to it. It is. Then, said I, Adeimantus, shall we not similarly affirm that the best endowed souls become worse than the others under a bad education? Or do you suppose that great crimes and unmixed wickedness spring from a slight nature[*](Cf. 495 B; La Rochefoucauld, Max. 130 Ia faiblesse est le seul défaut qu’on ne saurait corriger and 467 Ia faiblesse est plus opposée à Ia vertu que le vice.) and not from a vigorous one corrupted by its nurture, while a weak nature will never be the cause of anything great, either for good or evil? No, he said, that is the case.

Then the nature which we assumed in the philosopher, if it receives the proper teaching, must needs grow and attain to consummate excellence, but, if it be sown[*](Cf. 107 B, Tim. 42 D.) and planted and grown in the wrong environment, the outcome will be quite the contrary unless some god comes to the rescue.[*](This is the θεῖα μοῖρα of 493 A and Meno 99 E. Cf. What Plato Said, p. 517.) Or are you too one of the multitude who believe that there are young men who are corrupted by the sophists,[*](See What Plato Said, pp. 12 ff. and on Meno 93-94. Plato again anticipates many of his modern critics. Cf. Grote’s defence of the sophists passim, and Mill, Unity of Religion(Three essays on Religion, pp. 78, 84 ff.).) and that there are sophists in private life[*](ἰδιωτικούς refers to individual sophists as opposed to the great sophist of public opinion. Cf. 492 D, 493 A, 494 A.) who corrupt to any extent worth mentioning,[*](For καὶ ἄξιον λόγου Cf. Euthydem 279 C, Laches 192 A, Laws 908 B, 455 C, Thucyd. ii. 54. 5, Aristot. Pol. 1272 b 32, 1302 a 13, De part. an. 654 a 13, Demosth. v. 16, Isoc. vi. 65.) and that it is not rather the very men who talk in this strain who are the chief sophists and educate most effectively and mould to their own heart’s desire young and old, men and women?When? said he. Why, when, I said, the multitude are seated together[*](Cf. Gorg. 490 B, Emerson, Self-Reliance: It is easy . . . to brook the rage of the cultivated classes . . . . But . . . when the unintelligent brute force that lies at the bottom of society is made to growl and mow, it needs the habit of magnanimity and religion to treat it godlike as a trifle of no concernment, Carlyle, French Revolution: Great is the combined voice of men . . . . He who can resist that has his footing somewhere beyond time. For the public as the great sophist cf. Brimley, Essays, p. 224 (The Angel in the House): The miserable view of life and its purposes which society instils into its youth of both sexes, being still, as in Plato’s time, the sophist par excellence of which all individual talking and writing sophists are but feeble copies. Cf. Zeller, Ph. d. Gr. 4 II. 1. 601 Die sophistische Ethik ist seiner Ansicht nach die einfache Konsequenz der Gewöhnlichen. This is denied by some recent critics. The question is a logomachy. Of course there is more than one sophistic ethics. Cf. Mill, Dissertations and Discussions, iv. pp. 247 ff., 263 ff., 275. For Plato’s attitude toward the sophists see also Polit. 303 C, Phaedr, 260 C, What Plato Said, pp. 14-15, 158.) in assemblies or in court-rooms or theaters or camps or any other public gathering of a crowd, and with loud uproar censure some of the things that are said and done and approve others, both in excess, with full-throated clamor and clapping of hands, and thereto the rocks and the region round about re-echoing redouble the din of the censure and the praise.[*](Cf. Eurip. Orest. 901, they shouted ὡς καλῶς λέγοι, also Euthydem. 303 B οἱ κίονες, 276 B and D, Shorey on Horace, Odes i.20.7 datus in theatro cum tibi plausus, and also the account of the moulding process in Protag. 323-326.) In such case how do you think the young man’s heart, as the saying is, is moved within him?[*](What would be his plight, his state of mind; how would he feel? Cf. Shorey in Class. Phil. v. (1910) pp. 220-221, Iliad xxiv. 367, Theognis 748 καὶ τίνα θυμὸν ἔχων; Symp. 219 D 3 τίνα οἴεσθέ με διάνοιαν ἔχειν; Eurip. I.A. 1173 τίν’ ἐν δόμοις με καρδίαν ἕξειν δοκεῖς;) What private teaching do you think will hold out and not rather be swept away by the torrent of censure and applause, and borne off on its current, so that he will affirm[*](Adam translates as if it were καὶ φήσει. Cf. my Platonism and the History of Science, Amer. Philos. Soc. Proc. lxvi. p. 174 n. See Stallbaum ad loc.) the same things that they do to be honorable and base, and will do as they do, and be even such as they? That is quite inevitable, Socrates, he said. And, moreover, I said, we have not yet mentioned the chief necessity and compulsion. What is it? said he. That which these educators and sophists impose by action when their words fail to convince. Don’t you know that they chastise the recalcitrant with loss of civic rights and fines and death? They most emphatically do, he said. What other sophist, then, or what private teaching do you think will prevail in opposition to these? None, I fancy, said he. No, said I, the very attempt[*](Cf. Protag. 317 A-B, Soph. 239 C, Laws 818 D.) is the height of folly.

For there is not, never has been and never will be,[*](Cf. Od. xvi. 437. See Friedländer, Platon, ii. 386 n. who says ἀλλοῖον γίγνεσθαι can only = ἀλλοιοῦσθαι, be made different.) a divergent type of character and virtue created by an education running counter to theirs[*](Cf. 429 C for the idiom, and Laws 696 A οὐ γὰρ μή ποτε γένηται παῖς καὶ ἀνὴρ καὶ γέρων ἐκ ταύτης τῆς τροφῆς διαφέρων πρὸς ἀρετήν.)—humanly speaking, I mean, my friend; for the divine, as the proverb says, all rules fail.[*](Cf. Symp. 176 C (of Socrates), Phaedr. 242 B, Theaet. 162 D-E.) And you may be sure that, if anything is saved and turns out well in the present condition of society and government, in saying that the providence of God[*](Cf. on 492 A, Apol. 33, Phaedo 58 E, Protag. 328 E, Meno 99 E, Phaedr. 244 C, Laws 642 C, 875 C, Ion 534 C.) preserves it you will not be speaking ill.Neither do I think otherwise, he said. Then, said I, think this also in addition. What? Each of these private teachers who work for pay, whom the politicians call sophists and regard as their rivals,[*](Cf. Arnold, Preface to Essays in Criticism; Phaedo 60 D, Laws 817 B, On Virtue 376 D.) inculcates nothing else than these opinions of the multitude which they opine when they are assembled and calls this knowledge wisdom. It is as if a man were acquiring the knowledge of the humors and desires of a great strong beast[*](Cf. Epist. v. 321 D ἔστιν γὰρ δή τις φωνὴ τῶν πολιτειῶν ἑκάστης καθάπερεί τινων ζῴων, each form of government has a sort of voice, as if it were a kind of animal (tr. L.A. Post). Hackforth says this is a clumsy imitation of the Republic which proves the letter spurious. Cf. Thomas Browne, Religio Medici, ii. 1 If there be any among those common objects of hatred I do contemn and laugh at, it is that great enemy of reason, virtue, and religion, the multitude . . . one great beast and a monstrosity more prodigious than Hydra, Horace, Epist. i. 1. 76 belua multorum es capitum. Also Hamilton’s Sir, your people is a great beast, Sidney, Arcadia, bk. ii. Many-headed multitude, Wallas, Human Nature in Politics, p. 172 . . . like Plato’s sophist is learning what the public is and is beginning to understand the passions and desires of that huge and powerful brute, Shakes. Coriolanus iv. i. 2 The beast with many heads Butts me away, ibid. ii. iii. 18 The many-headed multitude. For the idea cf. also Gorg. 501 B-C ff., Phaedr. 260 C 260 C, δόξας δὲ πλήθους μεμελετηκώς, having studied the opinions of the multitude, Isoc. ii. 49-50.) which he had in his keeping, how it is to be approached and touched, and when and by what things it is made most savage or gentle, yes, and the several sounds it is wont to utter on the occasion of each, and again what sounds uttered by another make it tame or fierce, and after mastering this knowledge by living with the creature and by lapse of time should call it wisdom, and should construct thereof a system and art and turn to the teaching of it, knowing nothing in reality about which of these opinions and desires is honorable or base, good or evil, just or unjust, but should apply all these terms to the judgements of the great beast, calling the things that pleased it good, and the things that vexed it bad, having no other account to render of them, but should call what is necessary just and honorable,[*](Cf. Class. Phil. ix. (1914) p. 353, n. 1, ibid. xxiii. (1928) p. 361 (Tim. 75 D), What Plato Said, p. 616 on Tim. 47 E, Aristot. Eth. 1120 b 1 οὐχ ὡς καλὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον, Emerson, Circle, Accept the actual for the necessary, Eurip, I. A. 724 καλῶς ἀναγκαίως τε. Mill iv. 299 and Grote iv. 221 miss the meaning. Cf. Bk I. on 347 C, Newman, Aristot. Pol. i. pp. 113-114, Iamblichus, Protrept. Teubner 148 K. ἀγνοοῦντος . . . ὅσον διέστηκεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαῖα, not knowing how divergent have always been the good and the necessary.) never having observed how great is the real difference between the necessary and the good, and being incapable of explaining it to another. Do you not think, by heaven, that such a one would be a strange educator? I do, he said. Do you suppose that there is any difference between such a one and the man who thinks that it is wisdom to have learned to know the moods and the pleasures of the motley multitude in their assembly, whether about painting or music or, for that matter, politics? For if a man associates with these and offers and exhibits to them his poetry[*](Cf. Laws 659 B, 701 A, Gorg. 502 B.) or any other product of his craft or any political. service,[*](Cf. 371 C, Gorg. 517 B, 518 B.) and grants the mob authority over himself more than is unavoidable,[*](Plato likes to qualify sweeping statements and allow something to necessity and the weakness of human nature. Cf. Phaedo 64 E καθ’ ὅσον μὴ πολλὴ ἀνάγκη, 558 D-E, 500 D, 383 C.) the proverbial necessity of Diomede[*](The scholiast derives this expression from Diomedes’ binding Odysseus and driving him back to camp after the latter had attempted to kill him. The schol. on Aristoph. Eccl. 1029 gives a more ingenious explanation. See Frazer, Pausanias, ii. p. 264.) will compel him to give the public what it likes, but that what it likes is really good and honorable, have you ever heard an attempted proof of this that is not simply ridiculous[*](καταγέλαστον is a strong word. Make the very jack-asses laugh would give the tone. Cf. Carlyle, Past and Present, iv. impartial persons have to say with a sigh that . . . they have heard no argument advanced for it but such as might make the angels and almost the very jack-asses weep. Cf. also Isoc. Panegyr. 14, Phil. 84, 101, Antid. 247, Peace 36, and καταγέλαστος in Plato passim, e.g. Symp. 189 B.)? No, he said, and I fancy I never shall hear it either.

Bearing all this in mind, recall our former question. Can the multitude possibly tolerate or believe in the reality of the beautiful in itself as opposed to the multiplicity of beautiful things, or can they believe in anything conceived in its essence as opposed to the many particulars?Not in the least, he said. Philosophy, then, the love of wisdom, is impossible for the multitude.[*](A commonplace of Plato and all intellectual idealists. Cf. 503 B, Polit. 292 E, 297 B, 300 E. Novotny, Plato’s Epistles, p. 87, uses this to support his view that Plato had a secret doctrine. Adam quotes Gorg. 474 A τοῖς δὲ πολλοῖς οὐδὲ διαλέγομαι, which is not quite relevant. Cf. Renan, Etudes d’histoire relig. p. 403 La philosophie sera toujours le fait d’une imperceptible minorité, etc.) Impossible. It is inevitable,[*](It is psychologically necessary. Cf. ibid, Vol. 1. on 473 E. Cf. 527 A, Laws 655 E, 658 E, 681 C, 687 C, Phaedr. 239 C, 271 B, Crito 49 D.) then, that those who philosophize should be censured by them. Inevitable. And so likewise by those laymen who, associating with the mob, desire to curry favor[*](Cf. Gorg. 481 E, 510 D, 513 B.) with it. Obviously. From this point of view do you see any salvation that will suffer the born philosopher to abide in the pursuit and persevere to the end? Consider it in the light of what we said before. We agreed[*](In 487 A.) that quickness in learning, memory, courage and magnificence were the traits of this nature. Yes. Then even as a boy[*](Cf. 386 A. In what follows Plato is probably thinking of Alcibiades. Alc. I, 103 A ff, imitates the passage. Cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 24.) among boys such a one will take the lead in all things, especially if the nature of his body matches the soul. How could he fail to do so? he said. His kinsmen and fellow-citizens, then, will desire, I presume, to make use of him when he is older for their own affairs. Of course. Then they will fawn[*](For ὑποκείσονται Cf. Gorg. 510 C, 576 A ὑποπεσόντες Eurip. Orest. 670 ὑποτρέχειν, Theaet. 173 A ὑπελθεῖν.) upon him with petitions and honors, anticipating[*](i.e. endeavoring to secure the advantage of it for themselves by winning his favor when he is still young and impressionable.) and flattering the power that will be his. That certainly is the usual way. How, then, do you think such a youth will behave in such conditions, especially if it happen that he belongs to a great city and is rich and well-born therein, and thereto handsome and tall? Will his soul not be filled with unbounded ambitious hopes,[*](Cf. Alc. I. 104 B-C ff.) and will he not think himself capable of managing the affairs of both Greeks and barbarians,[*](Cf. Alc. I. 105 B-C.) and thereupon exalt himself, haughty of mien and stuffed with empty pride and void of sense[*](ὑψηλὸν ἐξαρεῖν, etc., seems to be a latent poetic quotation.) He surely will, he said. And if to a man in this state of mind[*](Or perhaps subject to these influences. Adam says it is while he is sinking into this condition.) someone gently[*](Cf. Vol. I. on 476 E. Cf. 533 D, Protag. 333 E, Phaedo 83 A, Crat. 413 A, Theaet. 154. E.) comes and tells him what is the truth, that he has no sense and sorely needs it, and that the only way to get it is to work like a slave[*](Cf. Phaedo 66 C, Symp. 184 C, Euthydem. 282 B.) to win it, do you think it will be easy for him to lend an ear[*](Cf. Epin. 990 A, Epist. vii. 330 A-B.) to the quiet voice in the midst of and in spite of these evil surroundings[*](Cf. Alc. I. 135 E.) Far from it, said he. And even supposing, said I, that owing to a fortunate disposition and his affinity for the words of admonition one such youth apprehends something and is moved and drawn towards philosophy, what do we suppose will be the conduct of those who think that they are losing his service and fellowship? Is there any word or deed that they will stick at[*](For πᾶν ἔργον cf. Sophocles, E. 615.) to keep him from being persuaded and to incapacitate anyone who attempts it,[*](Cf. 517 E.) both by private intrigue and public prosecution in the court?

That is inevitable, he said. Is there any possibility of such a one continuing to philosophize? None at all, he said. Do you see, then, said I, that we were not wrong in saying that the very qualities that make up the philosophical nature do, in fact, become, when the environment and nurture are bad, in some sort the cause of its backsliding,[*](For ἐκπεσεῖν cf. 496 C.) and so do the so-called goods—[*](Cf. on 591 C. p. 32, note a.) riches and all such instrumentalities[*](Cf. Lysis 220 A; Arnold’s machinery, Aristotle’s χορηγία)? No, he replied, it was rightly said. Such, my good friend, and so great as regards the noblest pursuit, is the destruction and corruption[*](Cf. 491 B-E, Laws 951 B ἀδιάφθαρτος, Xen. Mem. i. 2. 24.) of the most excellent nature, which is rare enough in any case,[*](For καὶ ἄλλως Cf. Il. ix. 699.) as we affirm. And it is from men of this type that those spring who do the greatest harm to communities and individuals, and the greatest good when the stream chances to be turned into that channel,[*](Cf. on 485 D ὥσπερ ῥεῦμα.) but a small nature[*](Cf. on 491 E, p. 33, note d.) never does anything great to a man or a city. Most true, said he. Those, then, to whom she properly belongs, thus falling away and leaving philosophy forlorn and unwedded, themselves live an unreal and alien life, while other unworthy wooers[*](Cf. on 489 D, and Theaet. 173 C.) rush in and defile her as an orphan bereft of her kin,[*](Cf. Taine, à Sainte-Beuve, Aug. 14, 1865: Comme Claude Bernard, il dépasse sa spécialité et c’est ches des spécialistes comme ceux-là que la malheureuse philosophie livée aux mains gantées et parfumées d’eau bénite va trouver des maris capables de lui faire encore des enfants. cf. Epictet. iii. 21. 21. The passage is imitated by Lucian 3. 2. 287, 294, 298. For the shame that has befallen philosophy Cf. Euthydem. 304 ff., Epist. vii. 328 E, Isoc. Busiris 48, Plutarch 1091 E, Boethius, Cons. i. 3. There is no probability that this is aimed at Isocrates, who certainly had not deserted the mechanical arts for what he called philosophy. Rohde Kleine Schriften, i. 319, thinks Antisthenes is meant. But Plato as usual is generalizing. See What Plato Said, p. 593 on Soph. 242 C.) and attach to her such reproaches as you say her revilers taunt her with, declaring that some of her consorts are of no account and the many accountable for many evils. Why, yes, he replied, that is what they do say. And plausibly, said I; for other mannikins, observing that the place is unoccupied and full of fine terms and pretensions, just as men escape from prison to take sanctuary in temples, so these gentlemen joyously bound away from the mechanical[*](Cf. the different use of the idea in Protag. 318 E.) arts to philosophy, those that are most cunning in their little craft.[*](τεχνίον is a contemptuous diminutive, such as are common in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Cf. also ἀνθρωπίσκοι in C, and ψυχάριον in 519 A.) For in comparison with the other arts the prestige of philosophy even in her present low estate retains a superior dignity; and this is the ambition and aspiration of that multitude of pretenders unfit by nature, whose souls are bowed and mutilated[*](Cf. 611 C-D, Theaet. 173 A-B.) by their vulgar occupations[*](For the idea that trade is ungentlemanly and incompatible with philosophy Cf. 522 B and 590 C, Laws 919 C ff., and What Plato Said, p. 663 on Rivals 137 B. Cf. Richard of Bury, Philobiblon, Prologue, Fitted for the liberal arts, and equally disposed to the contemplation of Scripture, but destitute of the needful aid, they revert, as it were, by a sort of apostasy, to mechanical arts. Cf also Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 3, and Ecclesiasticus xxxviii. 25 f. How can he get wisdom that holdeth the plough and glorieth in the goad . . . and whose talk is of bullocks? . . . so every carpenter and workmaster . . . the smith . . . the potter . . . ) even as their bodies are marred by their arts and crafts. Is not that inevitable? Quite so, he said. Is not the picture which they present, I said, precisely that of a little bald-headed tinker[*](For a similar short vivid description Cf. Erastae 134 B, Euthyphro 2 B. Such are common in Plautus, e.g. Mercator 639.) who has made money and just been freed from bonds and had a bath and is wearing a new garment and has got himself up like a bridegroom and is about to marry his master’s daughter who has fallen into poverty and abandonment?

There is no difference at all, he said. Of what sort will probably be the offspring of such parents? Will they not be bastard[*](It is probably fanciful to see in this an allusion to the half-Thracian Antisthenes. Cf. also Theaet. 150 C, and Symp. 212 A.) and base? Inevitably. And so when men unfit for culture approach philosophy and consort with her unworthily, what sort of ideas and opinions shall we say they beget? Will they not produce what may in very deed be fairly called sophisms, and nothing that is genuine or that partakes of true intelligence[*](Cf. Euthydem. 306 D.)? Quite so, he said. There is a very small remnant,[*](Cf. Phaedrus 250 A ὀλίγαι δὴ λείπονται, and 404 A and on 490 E.) then, Adeimantus, I said, of those who consort worthily with philosophy, some well-born and well-bred nature, it may be, held in check[*](Perhaps overtaken. Cf. Goodwin on Dem. De cor. 107.) by exile,[*](It is possible but unnecessary to conjecture that Plato may be thinking of Anaxagoras or Xenophon or himself or Dion.) and so in the absence of corrupters remaining true to philosophy, as its quality bids, or it may happen that a great soul born in a little town scorns[*](Cf. Theaet. 173 B, 540 D.) and disregards its parochial affairs; and a small group perhaps might by natural affinity be drawn to it from other arts which they justly disdain; and the bridle of our companion Theages[*](This bridle has become proverbial. Cf. Plut. De san. tuenda 126 B, Aelian, Var. Hist. iv. 15. For Theages cf. also Apol. 33 E and the spurious dialogue bearing is name.) also might operate as a restraint. For in the case of Theages all other conditions were at hand for his backsliding from philosophy, but his sickly habit of body keeping him out of politics holds him back. My own case, the divine sign,[*](The enormous fanciful literature on the daimonion does not concern the interpretation of Plato, who consistently treats it as a kind of spiritual tact checking Socrates from any act opposed to his true moral and intellectual interests. Cf. What Plato Said, pp. 456-457, on Euthyphro 3 B, Jowett and Campbell, p. 285.) is hardly worth mentioning—for I suppose it has happened to few or none before me. And those who have been of this little company[*](For τούτων . . . γενόμενοι cf. Aristoph. Clouds 107 τούτων γενοῦ μοι.) and have tasted the sweetness and blessedness of this possession and who have also come to understand the madness of the multitude sufficiently and have seen that there is nothing, if I may say so, sound or right in any present politics,[*](The irremediable degeneracy of existing governments is the starting-point of Plato’s political and social speculations. Cf. 597 B, Laws 832 C f., Epist. vii. 326 A; Byron, apud Arnold, Essays in Crit. ii. p. 195 I have simplified my politics into an utter detestation of all existing governments. This passage, Apol. 31 E ff. and Gorg. 521-522 may be considered Plato’s apology for not engaging in politics. Cf. J. V. Novak, Platon u. d. Rhetorik, p. 495 (Schleiermacher, Einl. z. Gorg. pp. 15 f.), Wilamowitz, Platon, i. 441-442 Wer kann hier die Klage über das eigene Los überhören? There is no probability that, as an eminent scholar has maintained, the Republic itself was intended as a programme of practical politics for Athens, and that its failure to win popular opinion is the chief cause of the disappointed tone of Plato’s later writings. Cf. Erwin Wolff in Jaeger’s Neue Phil. Untersuchungen, Heft 6, Platos Apologie, pp. 31-33, who argues that abstinence from politics is proclaimed in the Apology before the Gorgias and that the same doctrine in the seventh Epistle absolutely proves that the Apology is Plato’s own. Cf. also Theaet. 173 C ff., Hipp. Maj. 281 C, Euthydem. 306 B, Xen. Mem. i. 6. 15.) and that there is no ally with whose aid the champion of justice[*](Cf. 368 b, Apol. 32 E εἰ . . . ἐβοήθουν τοῖς δικαίοις and 32 A μαχούμενον ὑπὲρ τοῦ δικαίου.) could escape destruction, but that he would be as a man who has fallen among wild beasts,[*](Cf. Pindar, Ol. i. 64. For the antithetic juxtaposition cf. also εἷς πᾶσιν below; see too 520 B, 374 A, Menex. 241 B, Phaedr. 243 C, Laws 906 D, etc. More in the Utopia (Morley, Ideal Commonwealths, p. 84) paraphrases loosely from memory what he calls no ill simile by which Plato set forth the unreasonableness of a philosopher’s meddling with government) unwilling to share their misdeeds[*](Cf. Democrates fr. 38, Diels ii.3 p. 73 καλὸν μὲν τὸν ἀδικέοντα κωλύειν· εἰ δὲ μή, μὴ ξυναδικεῖν, it is well to prevent anyone from doing wrong, or else not to join in wrongdoing.) and unable to hold out singly against the savagery of all, and that he would thus, before he could in any way benefit his friends or the state come to an untimely end without doing any good to himself or others,—for all these reasons I say the philosopher remains quiet, minds his own affair, and, as it were, standing aside under shelter of a wall[*](Maximus of Tyre 21. 20 comments, Show me a safe wall. See Stallbaum ad loc. for references to this passage in later antiquity. Cf. Heracleit. fr. 44, Diels 3 i. 67, J. Stenzel, Platon der Erzieher, p. 114, Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, p. 33, Renan, Souvenirs, xvii., P. E. More, Shelburne Essays, iii. pp. 280-281 Cf. also Epist. vii. 331 D, Eurip. Ion 598-601.) in a storm and blast of dust and sleet and seeing others filled full of lawlessness, is content if in any way he may keep himself free from iniquity and unholy deeds through this life and take his departure with fair hope,[*](Cf. Vol. I on 331 A, 621 C-D, Marc. Aurel. xii. 36 and vi. 30 in fine. See my article Hope in Hasting’s Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.) serene and well content when the end comes.