Republic

You are aware, then, said I, that the very house-slaves of such men, if they are loyal and friendly, privately say the same sort of things to the sons, and if they observe a debtor or any other wrongdoer whom the father does not prosecute, they urge the boy to punish all such when he grows to manhood and prove himself more of a man than his father, and when the lad goes out he hears and sees the same sort of thing.[*](ἕτερα τοιαῦτα: cf. on 488 B; also Gorg. 481 E, 482 A, 514 D, Euthyd. 298 E, Protag. 326 A, Phaedo 58 D, 80 D, Symp. 201 E, etc.) Men who mind their own affairs[*](Cf. What Plato Said, p. 480, on Charm. 161 B.) in the city are spoken of as simpletons and are held in slight esteem, while meddlers who mind other people’s affairs are honored and praised. Then it is[*](τότε δή cf. 551 A, 566 C, 330 E, 573 A, 591 A, Phaedo 85 A, 96 B and D, Polit. 272 E. Cf. also τότ’ ἤδη, on 565 C.) that the youth, hearing and seeing such things, and on the other hand listening to the words of his father, and with a near view of his pursuits contrasted with those of other men, is solicited by both, his father watering and fostering the growth of the rational principle[*](Cf. on 439 D, Vol. I. p. 397, note d.) in his soul and the others the appetitive and the passionate[*](For these three principles of the soul cf. on 435 A ff., 439 D-E ff., 441 A.); and as he is not by nature of a bad disposition but has fallen into evil communications,[*](Cf. the fragment of Menander,φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρήσθ’ ὁμιλίαι κακαί, quoted in 1Cor. xv. 33 (Kock, C.A.F. iii. No. 218). Cf. also Phaedr. 250 A ὑπό τινων ὁμιλιῶν, Aesch. Seven Against Thebes 599 ἔσθ’ ὁμιλίας κακῆς κάκιον οὐδέν.) under these two solicitations he comes to a compromise[*](Cf. p. 249, note f.) and turns over the government in his soul[*](Cf. 553 B-C, 608 B.) to the intermediate principle of ambition and high spirit and becomes a man haughty of soul[*](ὑψηλόφρων is a poetical word. Cf. Eurip. I. A. 919.) and covetous of honor.[*](Cf. p. 255, note f.) You have, I think, most exactly described his origin. Then, said I, we have our second polity and second type of man. We have, he said. Shall we then, as Aeschylus: would say,

tell of another champion before another gate,

So, when wealth is honored in a state, and the wealthy, virtue and the good are less honored.Obviously.And that which men at any time honor they practise,[*](This sentence has been much quoted. Cf. Cic. Tusc. i. 2 honos alit artes . . . iacentque ea semper, quae apud quosque inprobantur. Themistius and Libanius worked it into almost every oration. Cf. Mrs. W. C. Wright, The Emperor Julian, p. 70, n. 3. Cf. also Stallbaum ad loc. For ἀσκεῖται cf. Pindar, Ol. viii. 22.) and what is not honored is neglected.It is so.Thus, finally, from being lovers of victory and lovers of honor they become lovers of gain-getting and of money, and they commend and admire the rich man and put him in office but despise the man who is poor.Quite so.And is it not then that they pass a law defining the limits[*](ὅρον: cf. 551 C, Laws 714 C, 962 D, 739 D, 626 B, Menex. 238 D, Polit. 293 E, 296 E, 292 C, Lysis 209 C, Aristot. Pol. 1280 a 7, 1271 a 35, and Newman i. p. 220, Eth. Nic. 1138 b 23. Cf. also τέλος Rhet. 1366 a 3. For the true criterion of office-holding see Laws 715 C-D and Isoc. xii. 131. For wealth as the criterion cf. Aristot. Pol. 1273 a 37.) of an oligarchical polity, prescribing[*](For ταξάμενοι cf. Vol. I. p. 310, note c, on 416 E.) a sum of money, a larger sum where it is more[*](Cf. Aristot. Pol. 1301 b 13-14.) of an oligarchy, where it is less a smaller, and proclaiming that no man shall hold office whose property does not come up to the required valuation? And this law they either put through by force of arms, or without resorting to that they establish their government by terrorization.[*](Cf. 557 A.) Is not that the way of it?It is.The establishment then, one may say, is in this wise.Yes, he said, but what is the character of this constitution, and what are the defects that we said it had? To begin with, said I, consider the nature of its constitutive and defining principle. Suppose men should appoint the pilots[*](Cf. 488, and Polit. 299 B-C, What Plato Said, p. 521, on Euthydem. 291 D.) of ships in this way, by property qualification, and not allow[*](Stallbaum says that ἐπιτρέποι is used absolutely as in 575 D, Symp. 213 E, Lysis 210 B, etc. Similarly Latin permitto. Cf. Shorey on Jowett’s translation of Meno 92 A-B, A. J. P. xiii. p. 367. See too Diog. L. i. 65.) a poor man to navigate, even if he were a better pilot. A sorry voyage they would make of it, he said. And is not the same true of any other form of rule? I think so. Except of a city, said I, or does it hold for a city too? Most of all, he said, by as much as that is the greatest and most difficult[*](Men are the hardest creatures to govern. Cf. Polit. 292 D, and What Plato Said, p. 635, on Laws 766 A.) rule of all. Here, then, is one very great defect in oligarchy. So it appears. Well, and is this a smaller one? What? That such a city should of necessity be not one,[*](For the idea that a city should be a unity Cf. Laws 739 D and on 423 A-B. Cf. also 422 E with 417 A-B, Livy ii. 24 adeo duas ex una civitate discordia fecerat. Aristot. Pol. 1316 b 7 comments ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ φάναι δύο πόλεις εἶναι τὴν ὀλιγαρχικήν, πλουσίων καὶ πενήτων . . . and tries to prove the point by his topical method.) but two, a city of the rich and a city of the poor, dwelling together, and always plotting[*](Cf. 417 B.) against one another. No, by Zeus, said he, it is not a bit smaller. Nor, further, can we approve of this—the likelihood that they will not be able to wage war, because of the necessity of either arming and employing the multitude,[*](For the idea that the rulers fear to arm the people cf. Thuc. iii. 27, Livy iii. 15 consules et armare pIebem et inermem pati timebant.) and fearing them more than the enemy, or else, if they do not make use of them, of finding themselves on the field of battle, oligarchs indeed,[*](He plays on the word. In 565 C ὡς ἀληθῶς ὀλιγαρχικούς is used in a different sense. Cf. Symp. 181 A ὡς ἀληθῶς πάνδημος, Phaedo 80 D εἰς Ἅιδου ὡς ἀληθῶς.) and rulers over a few. And to this must be added their reluctance to contribute money, because they are lovers of money. No, indeed, that is not admirable.