Laws

Ath. Indeed, these verses of his, as well as those he utters concerning the Cyclopes, are in a kind of unison with the voices of both God and Nature. For being divinely inspired in its chanting, the poetic tribe, with the aid of Graces and Muses, often grasps the truth of history.

Clin. It certainly does.

Ath. Now let us advance still further in the tale that now engages us; for possibly it may furnish some hint regarding the matter we have in view. Ought we not to do so?

Clin. Most certainly.

Ath.Ilium was founded, we say, after moving from the highlands down to a large and noble plain, on a hill of no great height which had many rivers flowing down from Ida above.

Clin. So they say.

Ath. And do we not suppose that this took place many ages after the Deluge?

Clin. Many ages after, no doubt.

Ath. At any rate they seem to have been strangely forgetful of the catastrophe now mentioned, since they placed their city, as described, under a number of rivers descending from the mount, and relied for their safety upon hillocks of no great height.

Clin. So it is evident that they were removed by quite a long interval from that calamity.

Ath. By this time, too, as mankind multiplied, many other cities had been founded.

Clin. Of course.

Ath. And these cities also made attacks on Ilium, probably by sea too, as well as by land, since by this time all made use of the sea fearlessly.

Clin. So it appears.

Ath. And after a stay of ten years the Achaeans sacked Troy.

Clin. Very true.

Ath. Now during this period of ten years, while the siege lasted, the affairs of each of the besiegers at home suffered much owing to the seditious conduct of the young men. For when the soldiers returned to their own cities and homes, these young people did not receive them fittingly and justly, but in such a way that there ensued a vast number of cases of death, slaughter, and exile. So they, being again driven out, migrated by sea; and because Dorieus[*](We do not hear of him elsewhere; and the account here is so vague that it is hard to say what events (or traditions) are alluded to. The usual story is that Dorian invaders drove out the Achaeans from S. Greece (about 900 B.C.)) was the man who then banded together the exiles, they got the new name of Dorians, instead of Achaeans. But as to all the events that follow this, you Lacedaemonians relate them all fully in your traditions.

Meg. Quite true.

Ath. And now—as it were by divine direction—we have returned once more to the very point in our discourse on laws where we made our digression,[*](Cp. Plat. Laws 638d.) when we plunged into the subject of music and drinking-parties; and we can, so to speak, get a fresh grip upon the argument, now that it has reached this point,—the settlement of Lacedaemon, about which you said truly that it and Crete were settled under kindred laws. From the wandering course of our argument, and our excursion through various polities and settlements, we have now gained this much: we have discerned a first, a second and a third State,[*](i.e., (1) the family or clan, under patriarchal headship; (2) the combination of clans under an aristocracy (or monarchy); (3) the mixed state (or city of the plain, like Troy); and (4) the confederacy, consisting, in the example, of three States leagued together.) all, as we suppose, succeeding one another in the settlements which took place during vast ages of time. And now there has emerged this fourth State—or nation, if you so prefer—which was once upon a time in course of establishment and is now established. Now, if we can gather from all this which of these settlements was right and which wrong, and which laws keep safe what is kept safe, and which laws ruin what is mined, and what changes in what particulars would effect the happiness of the State,—then, O Megillus and Clinias, we ought to describe these things again, making a fresh start from the beginning,—unless we have some fault to find with our previous statements.

Meg. I can assure you, Stranger, that if some god were to promise us that, in making this second attempt to investigate legislation, we shall listen to a discourse that is no worse and no shorter than that we have just been listening to, I for one would go a long way to hear it; indeed, this would seem quite a short day, although it is, as a matter of fact, close on midsummer.

Ath. So it seems that we must proceed with our enquiry.

Meg. Most certainly.

Ath. Let us, then, place ourselves in imagination at that epoch when Lacedaemon, together with Argos and Messene and the adjoining districts, had become completely subject, Megillus, to your forefathers. They determined next, according to the tradition, to divide their host into three parts, and to establish three States,—Argos, Messene and Lacedaemon.

Meg. Very true.

Ath. And Temenus became King of Argos, Cresphontes of Messene, and Proclus and Eurysthenes of Lacedaemon.

Meg. Of course.

Ath. And all the men of that time swore that they would assist these kings if anyone should try to wreck their kingdoms.

Meg. Quite so.

Ath. Is the dissolution of a kingdom, or of any government that has ever yet been dissolved, caused by any other agency than that of the rulers themselves? Or, though we made this assertion a moment ago when we happened upon this subject, have we now forgotten it?[*](Cp.Plat. Laws 682d, 682e.)

Meg. How could we possibly have forgotten?

Ath. Shall we further confirm that assertion now? For we have come to the same view now, as it appears, in dealing with facts of history; so that we shall be examining it with reference not to a mere abstraction, but to real events. Now what actually took place was this: each of the three royal houses, and the cities under their sway, swore to one another,[*]( Cp.Plat. Laws 692b.) according to the laws, binding alike on ruler and subject, which they had made,—the rulers that, as time went on and the nation advanced, they would refrain from making their rule more severe, and the subjects that, so long as the rulers kept fast to their promise, they would never upset the monarchy themselves, nor would they allow others to do so; and they swore that the kings should aid both kings and peoples when wronged, and the peoples aid both peoples and kings. Was not that the way of it?

Meg. It was.

Ath. In the polities legally established—whether by the kings or others—in the three States, was not this the most important principle?

Meg. What?

Ath. That the other two States should always help against the third, whenever it disobeyed the laws laid down.

Meg. Evidently.

Ath. And surely most people insist on this,— that the lawgivers shall enact laws of such a kind that the masses of the people accept them willingly; just as one might insist that trainers or doctors should make their treatments or cures of men’s bodies pleasurable.

Meg. Exactly so.

Ath. But in fact one often has to be content if one can bring a body into a sound and healthy state with no great amount of pain.

Meg. Very true.

Ath. The men of that age possessed also another advantage which helped not a little to facilitate legislation.[*](Cp. Plat. Laws 736c.)

Meg. What was that?

Ath. Their legislators, in their efforts to establish equality of property, were free from that worst of accusations which is commonly incurred in States with laws of a different kind, whenever anyone seeks to disturb the occupation of land, or to propose the abolition of debts, since he perceives that without these measures equality could never be fully secured. In such cases, if the lawgiver attempts to disturb any of these things, everyone confronts him with the cry, Hands off, and they curse him for introducing redistributions of land and remissions of debts, with the result that every man is rendered powerless. But the Dorians had this further advantage, that they were free from all dread of giving offence, so that they could divide up their land without dispute; and they had no large debts of old standing.[*]( i.e., the Dorian settlers, by right of conquest, were free to do as they pleased: none of the old owners or creditors could assert rights or claims.)

Meg. True

Ath. How was it then, my good sirs, that their settlement and legislation turned out so badly?

Meg. What do you mean? What fault have you to find with it?

Ath. This, that whereas there were three States settled, two of the three[*](viz., Argos and Messene,—the third being Laconia. ) speedily wrecked their constitution and their laws, and one only remained stable—and that was your State, Megillus.

Meg. The question is no easy one.

Ath. Yet surely in our consideration and enquiry into this subject, indulging in an old man’s sober play with laws, we ought to proceed on our journey painlessly, as we said[*](Cp. Plat. Laws 625b.) when we first started out.

Meg. Certainly, we must do as you say.

Ath. Well, what laws would offer a better subject for investigation than the laws by which those States were regulated? Or what larger or more famous States are there about whose settling we might enquire?

Meg. It would be hard to mention better instances than these.

Ath. It is fairly evident that the men of that age intended this organization of theirs to serve as an adequate protection not only for the Peloponnesus, but for the whole of Hellas as well, in case any of the barbarians should attack them just as the former dwellers around Ilium were emboldened to embark on the Trojan War through reliance on the Assyrian power as it had been in the reign of Ninus.[*]( The mythical founder of the Assyrian empire, husband of Semiramis, and builder of Nineveh (dated about 2200 B.C.).) For much of the splendor of that empire still survived and the people of that age stood in fear of its confederate power, just as we men of today dread the Great King. For since Troy was a part of the Assyrian empire, the second[*](The first capture was by Heracles, in the reign of Laomedon, father of Priam. Cp. Hom. Il. 5.640 ff.) capture of Troy formed a grave charge against the Greeks. It was in view of all this that the Dorian host was at that time organizes and distributed amongst three States under brother princes, the sons of Heracles[*](viz., Temenus, king of Argos, Procles and Eurystheus of Laconia, Cresphontes of Messene.); and men thought it admirably devised, and in its equipment superior even to the host that had sailed to Troy. For men reckoned, first, that in the sons of Heracles they had better chiefs than the Pelopidae,[*](viz., Agamemnon and Menelaus.) and further, that this army was superior in valor to the army which went to Troy, since the latter, which was Achaean, was worsted by the former, which was Dorian. Must we not suppose that it was in this way, and with this intention, that the men of that age organized themselves?

Meg. Certainly.

Ath. Is it not also probable that they would suppose this to be a stable arrangement, and likely to continue quite a long time, since they had shared together many toils and dangers, and were marshalled under leaders of a single family (their princes being brothers), and since, moreover, they had consulted a number of diviners and, amongst others, the Delphian Apollo?

Meg. That is certainly probable.

Ath. But it seems that these great expectations speedily vanished, except only, as we said, in regard to that small fraction, your State of Laconia; and ever since, up to the present day, this fraction has never ceased warring against the other two. For if the original intention had been realized, and if they had been in accord about their policy, it would have created a power invincible in war.

Meg. It certainly would.

Ath. How then, and by what means, was it destroyed? Is it not worth while to enquire by what stroke of fortune so grand a confederacy was wrecked?

Meg. Yes for, if one passed over these examples, one would not be likely to find elsewhere either laws or constitutions which preserve interests thus fair and great, or, on the contrary, wreck them totally.

Ath. Thus by a piece of good luck, as it seems, we have embarked on an enquiry of some importance.

Meg. Undoubtedly.

Ath. Now, my dear sir, do not men in general, like ourselves at the present moment, unconsciously fancy that every fine object they set eyes on would produce marvellous results, if only a man understood the right way to make a fine use of it? But for us to hold such an idea in regard to the matter before us would possibly be both wrong and against nature; and the same is true of all other cases where men hold such ideas.

Meg. What is it you mean? And what shall we say is the special point of your remarks ?

Ath. Why, my dear sir, I had a laugh at my own expense just now. For when I beheld this armament of which we are speaking, I thought it an amazingly fine thing, and that, if anyone had made a fine use of it at that time, it would have proved, as I said, a wonderful boon to the Greeks.

Meg. And was it not quite right and sensible of you to say this, and of us to endorse it?

Ath. Possibly; I conceive, however, that everyone, when he beholds a thing that is large, powerful and strong, is instantly struck by the conviction that, if its possessor knew how to employ an instrument of that magnitude and quality, he could make himself happy by many wonderful achievements.

Meg. Is not that a right conviction? Or what is your view?

Ath. Just consider what one ought to have in view in every instance, in order to justify the bestowal of such praise. And first, with regard to the matter now under discussion,—if the men who were then marshalling the army knew how to organize it properly, how would they have achieved success? Must it not have been by consolidating it firmly and by maintaining it perpetually, so that they should be both free themselves and masters over all others whom they chose, and so that both they and their children should do in general just what they pleased throughout the world of Greeks and barbarians alike? Are not these the reasons why they would be praised?

Meg. Certainly.

Ath. And in every case where a man uses the language of eulogy on seeing great wealth or eminent family distinctions or anything else of the kind, would it not be true to say that, in using it, he has this fact specially in mind,—that the possessor of such things is likely, just because of this, to realize all, or at least the most and greatest, of his desires.

Meg. That is certainly probable.

Ath. Come now, is there one object of desire—that now indicated by our argument—which is common to all men?

Meg. What is that?

Ath. The desire that, if possible, everything,—or failing that, all that is humanly possible—should happen in accordance with the demands of one’s own heart.

Meg. To he sure.

Ath. Since this, then, is what we all wish always, alike in childhood and manhood and old age, it is for this, necessarily, that we should pray continually.

Meg. Of course.

Ath. Moreover, on behalf of our friends we will join in making the same prayer which they make on their own behalf.

Meg. To be sure.

Ath. And a son is a friend to his father, the boy to the man.

Meg. Certainly.

Ath. Yet the father will often pray the gods that the things which the son prays to obtain may in no wise he granted according to the son’s prayers.

Meg. Do you mean, when the son who is praying is still young and foolish?

Ath. Yes, and also when the father, either through age or through the hot temper of youth, being devoid of all sense of right and justice, indulges in the vehement prayers of passion (like those of Theseus against Hippolytus[*]( Hippolytus was accused by his stepmother, Phaedra, of attempting to dishonor her: therefore his father (Theseus) invoked a curse upon him, and Poseidon (father of Theseus) sent a bull which scared the horses of H.’s chariot so that they upset the chariot and dragged him till he was dead.), when he met his luckless end), while the son, on the contrary, has a sense of justice,—in this case do you suppose that the son will echo his father’s prayers?

Meg. I grasp your meaning. You mean, as I suppose, that what a man ought to pray and press for is not that everything should follow his own desire, while his desire in no way follows his own reason; but it is the winning of wisdom that everyone of us, States and individuals alike, ought to pray for and strive after.

Ath. Yes. And what is more, I would recall to your recollection, as well as to my own, how it was said[*](Plat. Laws 630d ff.) (if you remember) at the outset that the legislator of a State, in settling his legal ordinances, must always have regard to wisdom. The injunction you gave was that the good lawgiver must frame all his laws with a view to war: I, on the other hand, maintained that, whereas by your injunction the laws would be framed with reference to one only of the four virtues, it was really essential to look to the whole of virtue, and first and above all to pay regard to the principal virtue of the four, which is wisdom and reason and opinion, together with the love and desire that accompany them. Now the argument has come hack again to the same point, and I now repeat my former statement,—in jest, if you will, or else in earnest; I assert that prayer is a perilous practice for him who is devoid of reason, and that what he obtains is the opposite of his desires. For I certainly expect that, as you follow the argument recently propounded, you will now discover that the cause of the ruin of those kingdoms, and of their whole design, was not cowardice or ignorance of warfare on the part either of the rulers or of those who should have been their subjects; but that what ruined them was badness of all other kinds, and especially ignorance concerning the greatest of human interests. That this was the course of events then, and is so still, whenever such events occur, and will be so likewise in the future,—this, with your permission, I will endeavor to discover in the course of the coming argument, and to make it as clear as I can to you, my very good friends.

Clin. Verbal compliments are in poor taste, Stranger; but by deed, if not by word, we shall pay you the highest of compliments by attending eagerly to your discourse; and that is what best shows whether compliments are spontaneous or the reverse.

Meg. Capital, Clinias! Let us do just as you say.

Clin. It shall be so, God willing. Only say on.

Ath. Well then, to advance further on the track of our discourse,—we assert that it was ignorance, in its greatest form, which at that time destroyed the power we have described, and which naturally produces still the same results; and if this is so, it follows that the lawgiver must try to implant in States as much wisdom as possible, and to root out folly to the utmost of his power.

Clin. Obviously.