 Book 9, Part 1 of Plato's Republic This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards The Republic by Plato, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book 9, Part 1. Last of all comes the tyrannical man, about whom we have once more to ask, how is he formed out of the Democratical? And how does he live, in happiness or in misery? Yes, he said, he is the only one remaining. There is, however, I said, a previous question, which remains unanswered. What question? I do not think that we have adequately determined the nature and number of the appetites, and until this is accomplished, the inquiry will always be confused. Well, he said, it is not too late to supply the omission. Very true, I said, and observe the point which I want to understand. Certain of the unnecessary pleasures and appetites I conceive to be unlawful. One appears to have them, but in some persons they are controlled by the laws and by reason, and the better desires prevail over them. Either they are wholly banished, or they become few and weak. On the case of others, they are stronger, and there are more of them. Which appetites do you mean? I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and ruling power is asleep, then the wild beast within us, gorged with meat or drink, starts up and having shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfy his desires, and there is no conceivable folly or crime, not accepting incest, or any other unnatural union, or parasite, or the eating of forbidden food, which at such a time, when he has parted company with all shame and sense, a man may not be ready to commit. Most true, he said. But when a man's pulse is healthy and temperate, and when before going to sleep he has awakened his rational powers, and fed them on noble thoughts and inquiries, collecting himself in meditation, after having first indulged his appetites neither too much nor too little, but just enough to lay them to sleep, and prevent them and their enjoyments and pains from interfering with the higher principle, which he leaves in the solitude of pure abstraction, agree to contemplate and aspire to the knowledge of the unknown, whether in past, present or future. When again he has allayed the passionate element, if he has a quarrel against anyone, I say when after pacifying the two irrational principles, he rouses up the third, which is reason, before he takes his rest, then as you know, he attains truth most nearly, and is least likely to be the sport of fantastic and lawless visions. I quite agree. In saying this, I have been running into a digression, but the point which I desire to note is that in all of us, even in good men, there is a lawless, wild beast nature, which peers out in sleep. Pray, consider whether I am right, and you agree with me. Yes, I agree. And now remember the character which we attributed to the democratic man. He was supposed from his youth upwards to have been trained under a miserly parent, who encouraged the saving appetites in him, but discounted the unnecessary, which aim only at amusement and ornament? True. And then he got into the company of a more refined, licentious sort of people, and taking to all their wanton ways rushed into the opposite extreme for an abhorrence of his father's meanness. At last, being a better man than his corruptors, he was drawn in both directions until he halted midway and led a life not of vulgar and slavish passion, but of what he deemed moderate indulgence in various pleasures. After this manner, the democrat was generated out of the oligarch? Yes, he said, that was our view of him, and is so still. And now, I said, years will have passed away, and you must conceive this man, such as he is, to have a son, who is brought up in his father's principles. I can imagine him. And you must further imagine the same thing to happen to the son, which has already happened to the father. He is drawn into a perfectly lawless life, which by his seducers is termed perfect liberty, and his father and friends take part with his moderate desires, and the opposite party assists the opposite ones. As soon as these dire magicians and tyrant-makers find that they are losing their hold on him, they can try to implant in him a master passion to be lured over his idle and spin-thrift lusts, a sort of monstrous winged drone. That is the only image which will adequately describe him. Yes, he said, that is the only adequate image of him. And when his other lusts, amid clouds of incense and perfumes and garlands and wines, and all the pleasures of a disillute life, now let loose, come buzzing around him, nourishing to the utmost the sting of desire which they implant in his drone-like nature, then at last this Lord of the soul, having madness for the captain of his guard, breaks out into a frenzy. And if he finds in himself any good opinions or appetites in process of formation, and there is in him any sense of shame remaining, to these better principles he puts an end, and casts them forth until he has purged away temperance, and brought in madness to the full. Yes, he said, that is the way in which the tyrannical man is generated. And is not this the reason why of old love has been called a tyrant? I should not wonder. Further, I said, has not a drunken man also the spirit of a tyrant? He has. And do you know that a man who is deranged and not right in his mind will fancy that he is able to rule, not only over men, but also over the gods? That he will. And the tyrannical man, in the true sense of the word, comes into being when, either under the influence of nature, or habit, or both, he becomes drunken, lustful, passionate, oh my friend, is not that so? Assuredly. Such is the man, and such is his origin. And next, how does he live? Suppose, as people facetiously say, you were to tell me. I imagine, I said, that the next step in his progress, that there will be feasts, and carousels, and revelings, and courtesans, and all that sort of thing. Love is the Lord of the house within him, and orders all the concerns of his soul. That is certain. Yes, and every day and every night desires grow up many and formidable, and their demands are many. They are indeed, he said. His revenues, if he has any, are soon spent. True. Then comes debt, and the cutting down of his property. Of course. When he has nothing left, must not his desires, crowding in the nest like young ravens, be crying aloud for food. And he, goaded on by them, and especially by love himself, who is in a manner the captain of them, is in a frenzy, and would feign discover whom he can defraud or despoil of his property in order that he may gratify them? Yes. That is sure to be the case. He must have money, no matter how, if he is to escape horrid pains and pangs. He must. And, as in himself, there was a succession of pleasures, and the new got the better of the old, and took away their rights, so he, being younger, will claim to have more than his father and his mother, and if he has spent his own share of the property, he will take a slice of theirs. No doubt he will. And if his parents will not give way, then he will try, first of all, to cheat and deceive them. Very true. And if he fails, then he will use force and plunder them. Yes, probably. And if the old man and woman fight for their own, what then, my friend? Will the creature feel any compunction at tyrannizing over them? Nay, he said, I should not feel at all comfortable about his parents. But, O heavens, Adimantus, on account of some new-fangled love of a harlot who is anything but a necessary connection, can you believe that he would strike the mother who is his ancient friend and necessary to his very existence, and would place her under the authority of the other when she is brought under the same roof with her, for that, under like circumstances, he would do the same to his withered old father, first and most indispensable of friends, for the sake of some newly found blooming youth, who is the reverse of indispensable? Yes, indeed, he said, I believe that he would. Truly, then, I said, a tyrannical son is a blessing to his father and mother. He is indeed, he replied. He first takes their property, and when that fails, and pleasures are beginning to swarm in the hive of his soul, then he breaks into a house, or steals the garments of some nightly wayfarer. Next he proceeds to clear temple. Meanwhile, the old opinions which he had when a child, and which gave judgment about good and evil, are overthrown by those others which have just been emancipated, and are now the bodyguard of love, and share his empire. These in his democratic days, when he was still subject to the laws and to his father, were only let loose in the dreams of sleep. But now that he is under the dominion of love, he becomes always, and in waking reality, what he was, then very rarely, and in a dream only, he will commit the foulest murder, or eat forbidden food, or be guilty of any other horrid act. Love is his tyrant, and lives lordly in him, and lawlessly, and being himself a king leads him on, as a tyrant leads a state, to the performance of any reckless deed by which he can maintain himself and the rabble of his associates, whether those whom evil communicates have brought in from without, or those whom he himself has allowed to break loose within him by reason of a similar evil nature in himself. Have we not heard a picture of his way of life? Yes, indeed, he said. And if there are only a few of them in the state, and the rest of the people are well disposed, they go away and become the bodyguard, or mercenary soldiers of some other tyrant who may probably want them for a war? And if there is no war, they stay at home and do many little pieces of mischief in the city? What sort of mischief? For example, they are thieves, burglars, cut-perses, foot-pads, robbers of temples, man-stealers of the community, or if they are able to speak, they turn in formers, and bear false witness, and take bribes. A small catalog of evils, even if the perpetrators of them are few in number. Yes, I said, but small and great are comparative terms, and all these things, in the misery and evil which they inflict upon a state, do not come within a thousand miles of the tyrant, when this noxious class and their followers grow numerous and become conscious of their strength, assisted by the impatuation of the people, they choose from among themselves the one who has most of the tyrant in his own soul, and him they create their tyrant. Yes, he said, and he will be the most fit to be a tyrant. If the people yield, well and good, but if they resist him, as he began by beating his own father and mother, so now, if he has the power, he beats them, and will keep his dear old fatherland or motherland, as the Cretans say, in subjection to his young retainers, whom he has introduced to be their rulers and masters. This is the end of his passions and desires. Exactly. When such men are only private individuals, and before they get power, this is their character. They associate entirely with their own flatterers or ready tools, or if they want anything from anybody, they in their turn are equally ready to bow down before them. They profess every sort of affection for them, but when they have gained their point, they know them no more. Yes, truly. They are always either the masters or servants, and never the friends of anybody. The tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship. Certainly not. And may not we rightly call such men treacherous? No question. Also they are utterly unjust. If we were right in our notion of justice, yes, he said, and we were perfectly right. Let us then sum up in a word, I said, the character of the worst man, he is the waking reality of what we dreamed. Most true. And this is he, who being by nature most of a tyrant bears rule, and the longer he lives, the more of a tyrant he becomes. That is certain, said Glaucon, taking his turn to answer. And will not he, who has been shown to be the wickedest, be also the most miserable, and he who has tyrannized longest and most continually and truly miserable, although this may not be the opinion of men in general? Yes, he said, inevitably. And must not the tyrannical man be like the tyrannical state, and the democratical man like the democratical state, and the same of the others? Certainly. And as state is to state in virtue and happiness, so is man in relation to man? To be sure. Then comparing our original city, which was under a king, and the city which is under a tyrant, how do they stand us to virtue? They are the opposite extremes, he said. For one is the very best, and the other is the very worst. There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is which, and therefore I will at once inquire whether you would arrive at a similar decision about their relative happiness and misery, and here we must not allow ourselves to be panic-stricken at the apparition of the tyrant, who is only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him, but let us go as we ought into every corner of the city and look all about, and then we will give our opinion. A fair invitation, he replied, and I see, as everyone must, that a tyranny is the wretchedest form of government, and the rule of a king, the happiest. And in estimating the men, too, may I not fairly make a like request that I should have a judge whose mind can enter into and see through human nature. He must not be like a child who looks at the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumes to the beholder, but let him be one who has a clear insight. May I suppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by one who is able to judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him, and been present at his daily life and known him in his family relations, where he may be seen stripped of his tragedy attire, and again in the hour of public danger, he shall tell us about the happiness and misery of the tyrant, when compared with other men? That again, he said, is a very fair proposal. Shall I assume that we ourselves are able and experienced judges, and have before now met with such a person? We shall then have someone who will answer our inquiries. By all means. Let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the individual and the state, bearing this in mind, and glancing in turn from one to the other of them. Will you tell me their respective conditions? What do you mean? He asked. Beginning with the state, I replied, would you say that a city which is governed by a tyrant is free or enslaved? No city, he said, could be more completely enslaved. And yet, as you see, there are free men as well as masters in such a state? Yes, he said. I see that there are, a few, but the people, speaking generally, and the best of them, are miserably degraded and enslaved. Then if the man is like the state, I said, must not the same rule prevail? His soul is full of meanness and vulgarity. The best elements in him are enslaved, and there is a small ruling part, which is also the worst and maddest, inevitably. And would you say that the soul of such a one is the soul of a free man or of a slave? He has the soul of a slave, in my opinion. And the state which is enslaved under a tyrant is utterly incapable of acting voluntarily? Utterly incapable. And also the soul which is under a tyrant, I am speaking of the soul taken as a whole, is least capable of doing what she desires. There is a gadfly, which goads her, and she is full of trouble and remorse? Certainly. And is the city, which is under a tyrant, rich or poor? Poor. And the tyrannical soul must be always poor and insatiable? True. And must not such a state and such a man be always full of fear? Yes, indeed. Is there any state in which you will find more of lamentation and sorrow and groaning and pain? Certainly not. And is there any man in whom you will find more of this sort of misery than in the tyrannical man, who is in a fury of passions and desires? Impossible. Reflecting upon these and similar evils, you held the tyrannical state to be the most miserable of states? And I was right, he said. Certainly, I said. And when you see the same evils in the tyrannical man, what do you say of him? I say that he is by far the most miserable of all men. There, I said, I think that you are beginning to go wrong. What do you mean? I do not think that he has as yet reached the utmost extreme of misery. Then who is more miserable? One of whom I am about to speak. Who is that? He who is of a tyrannical nature, and instead of leading a private life, has been cursed, with the further misfortune of being a public tyrant. From what has been said, I gather that you are right. Yes, I replied, but in this high argument you should be a little more certain, and should not conjecture only, for of all questions, this respect in good and evil is the greatest. Very true, he said. End of book nine, part one. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. Book nine, part two of Plato's Republic. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. The Republic by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book nine, part two. Let me then offer you an illustration which may, I think, throw a light upon this subject. What is your illustration? The case of rich individuals in cities who possess many slaves. From them you may form an idea of the tyrant's condition, for they both have slaves. The only difference is that he has more slaves. Yes, that is the difference. You know that they live securely and have nothing to apprehend from their servants? What should they fear? Nothing, but do you observe the reason of this? Yes, the reason is that the whole city is linked together for the protection of each individual. Very true, I said. But imagine one of these owners. The master say of some fifty slaves, together with his family and property and slaves, carried off by a god into the wilderness, where there are no free men to help him. Will he not be in an agony of fear lest he and his wife and children should be put to death by his slaves? Yes, he said. He will be in the utmost fear. The time has arrived when he will be compelled to flatter diverse of his slaves and make many promises to them of freedom and other things much against his will. He will have to cajole his own servants. Yes, he said, that will be the only way of saving himself. And suppose the same god, who carried him away to surround him with neighbors who will not suffer one man to be the master of another and who, if they could catch the offender, would take his life. His case will be still worse if you suppose him to be everywhere surrounded and watched by enemies. And is not this the sort of prison in which the tyrant will be bound? He, who being by nature such as we have described, is full of all sorts of fears and lusts. His soul is dainty and greedy, and yet alone, of all men in the city, he is never allowed to go on a journey, or to see the things which other free men desire to see. But he lives in his hole, like a woman hidden in the house, and is jealous of any other citizen who goes into foreign parts and sees anything of interest. Very true, he said. And amid evils such as these, will not he who is ill-governed in his own person, the tyrannical man, I mean, whom you just now decided to be the most miserable of all, will not he be yet more miserable when, instead of living a private life, he is constrained by fortune to be a public tyrant. He has to be master of others when he is not master of himself. He is like a diseased or paralytic man who is compelled to pass his life, not in retirement, but fading and combating with other men. Yes, he said. The similitude is most exact. Is not his case utterly miserable, and does not the actual tyrant lead a worse life than he whose life he determined to be the worst? Certainly. He who is the real tyrant, whatever men may think, is the real slave, and is obliged to practice the greatest adulation and inservility, and to be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind. He is desires which he is utterly unable to satisfy, and has more wants than anyone, and is truly poor, if you know how to inspect the whole soul of him. All his life long he is beset with fear, and is full of convulsions and distractions, even as the state which he resembles, and surely the resemblance holds. Very true, he said. Moreover, as we were saying, before he grows worse from having power, he becomes and is of necessity more jealous, more faithless, more unjust, more friendless, more impious than he was at first. He is the purveyor and cherisher of every sort of vice, and the consequence is that he is supremely miserable, and that he makes everybody else as miserable as himself. No man of any sense will dispute your words. Come, then, I said, and as the general umpire in theatrical contests proclaim the result. Do you also decide who, in your opinion, is the first in the scale of happiness, and who second, and in what order the others follow? There are five of them in all. They are the royal, democratical, oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical. The decision will be easily given, he replied. They shall be choruses coming on the stage, and I must judge them in the order in which they enter, by the criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and misery. Need we hire a herald, or shall I announce that the son of Eraston, the best, has decided that the best and just is also the happiest, and that this is he who is the most royal man and king over himself, and that the worst and most unjust man is also the most miserable, and that this is he who, being the greatest tyrant of himself, is also the greatest tyrant of his state, makes a proclamation yourself, he said. And shall I add, whether seen or unseen by gods and men? Let the words be added. Then this, I said, will be our first proof, and there is another which may also have some weight. What is that? The second proof is derived from the nature of the soul, seeing that the individual soul, like the state, has been divided by us into three principles the division may, I think, furnish a new demonstration of what nature. It seems to me that to these three principles three pleasures correspond, also through desires and governing powers. How do you mean? He said. There is one principle with which, as we were saying, a man learns. Another with which he is angry. The third, having many forms, has no special name, but is denoted by the general term appetitive, from the extraordinary strength and vehemence of the desires of eating and drinking, and the other sensual appetites which are the main elements of it, also money loving because such desires are generally satisfied by the help of money. That is true, he said. If we were to say that the loves and pleasures of this third part were concerned with gain, we should then be able to fall back on a single notion and might truly and intelligibly describe this part of the soul as loving gain or money. I agree with you. Again, it's not the passionate element wholly set on ruling and conquering and getting fame. True. Suppose we call it the contentious or ambitious. Would the term be suitable? Extremely suitable. On the other hand, everyone sees that the principle of knowledge is wholly directed to the truth, and cares less than either of the others for gain or fame. Far less. Lover of wisdom. Lover of knowledge. Are titles which we may fitly apply to that part of the soul? Certainly. One principle prevails in the souls of one class of men, another in others. As may happen? Yes. Then we may begin by assuming that there are three classes of men. Lover of wisdom. Lover of honor. Lover of gain. Exactly. And there are three kinds of pleasure which are their several objects. Very true. Now, if you examine the three classes of men and ask of them in turn which of their lives is pleasantest, each will be found praising his own and depreciating that of others. The moneymaker will contrast the vanity of honor or of learning if they bring no money with the solid advantages of gold and silver. True, he said. And the lover of honor. What will be his opinion? Will he not think that the pleasure of riches is vulgar, while the pleasure of learning, if it brings no distinction, is all smoke and nonsense to him? Very true. And are we to suppose, I said, that the philosopher sets any value on other pleasures in comparison with the pleasure of knowing the truth, and in that pursuit abiding, ever learning, not so far indeed from the heaven of pleasure, does he not call the other pleasures necessary, under the idea that if there were no necessity for them, he would rather not have them? There can be no doubt of that, he replied. Since then, the pleasures of each class and the life of each are in dispute and the question is not which life is less honorable or better or worse, but which is the more pleasant or painless, how shall we know who speaks truly? I cannot myself tell, he said. Well, but what ought to be the criterion? Is any better than experience and wisdom and reason? There cannot be a better, he said. Then, I said, reflect, of the three individuals which has the greatest experience of all the pleasures which be enumerated. Has the lover of gain in learning the nature of essential truth greater experience of the pleasure of knowledge than the philosopher has of the pleasure of gain? The philosopher, he replied, has greatly the advantage, for he has of necessity always known the taste of the other pleasures from his childhood upwards. But the lover of gain, in all his experience, has not of necessity tasted, or, I should rather say, even had he desired, could hardly have tasted, the sweetness of learning and knowing truth. Then the lover of wisdom has a great advantage over the lover of gain, for he has a double experience? Yes, very great. Again, has he greater experience of the pleasures of honor or the lover of honor of the pleasures of wisdom? Nay, he said, all three are honored in proportion as they attain their object, for the rich man and the brave man and the wise men alike have their crowd of admirers, and as they all receive honor, they all have experience of the pleasures of honor. But the delight, which is to be found in the knowledge of true being, is known to the philosopher only. His experience, then, will enable him to judge better than anyone? Far better. And he is the only one who has wisdom as well as experience? Certainly. Further, the very faculty, which is the instrument of judgment, is not possessed by the covetous or ambitious man, but only by the philosopher? What faculty? Reason, with whom, as we were saying, the decision ought to rest? Yes. And reasoning is peculiarly his instrument? Certainly. If wealth and gain were the criterion, then the praise or blame of the lover of gain would certainly be the most trustworthy? Ah, sureedly. Or if honor or victory or courage, in that case the judgment of the ambitious or pugnacious would be the truest? Clearly. But since experience and wisdom and reason are the judges, the only inference possible, he replied, is that pleasures which are approved by the lover of wisdom are the truest. And so we arrive at the result that the pleasure of the intelligent part of the soul is the pleasantest of the three, and that he of us in whom this is the drooling principle has the pleasantest life. Unquestionably he said, the wise man speaks with authority when he approves of his own life. And what does the judge affirm to be the life which is next, and the pleasure which is next? Clearly that of the soldier and lover of honor, who is nearer to himself than the moneymaker. Last comes the lover of gain? Very true, he said. Twice in succession, then, has the just man overthrown the unjust in this conflict, and now comes the third trial, which is dedicated to Olympian Zeus, the savior. A sage whispers in my ear that no pleasure except that of the wise is quite true and pure. Others are a shadow only, and surely this will prove the greatest and most decisive of falls? Yes, the greatest. But will you explain yourself? I will work out the subject and you shall answer my questions. Proceed. Say, then, is not pleasure opposite to pain? True. And there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor pain? There is. A state which is intermediate and a sort of repose of the soul about either? That is what you mean? Yes. You remember what people say when they are sick? What do they say? That after all, nothing is pleasanter than health, but then they never knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill. Yes, I know, he said. And when persons are suffering from acute pain, you must have heard them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of their pain? I have. And there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere rest and cessation of pain and not any positive enjoyment is extolled by them as the greatest pleasure? Yes, he said. At the time they are pleased and well content to be at rest. Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will be painful? No doubtless, he said. Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be pain? So it would seem. But can that which is neither become both? I should say not. And both pleasure and pain are motions of the soul. Are they not? Yes. But that which is neither was just now shown to be rest and between them? Yes. How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is pleasure or that the absence of pleasure is pain? Impossible. This, then, is an appearance only and not a reality. That is to say, the rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful and painful in comparison of what is pleasant. But all these representations derived by the test of true pleasure are not real, but a sort of imposition? That is the inference. Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains and you will no longer suppose as you perhaps may at present that pleasure is only the cessation of pain or pain of pleasure. What are they, he said, and where shall I find them? There are many of them. Take as an example the pleasures of smell very great and have no antecedent pains. They come in a moment and when they depart leave no pain behind them. Most true, he said. Let us not, then, be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the cessation of pain or pain of pleasure. No. Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the soul through the body are generally of this sort. There are reliefs of pain. That is true. And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like nature? Yes. Shall I give you an illustration of them? Let me hear. You would allow, I said, that there is in nature an upper and lower and middle region? I should. And if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region would he not imagine that he is going up? If he was descending in the middle and sees once he has come would imagine that he is already in the upper region? If he has never seen the true upper world? To be sure, he said. How can he think otherwise? But if we were taken back again he would imagine and truly imagine that he was descending? No doubt. All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle and lower regions? Yes. End of Book 9, Part 2. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. Book 9, Part 3 of Plato's Republic. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Jeffrey Edwards. The Republic by Plato. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Book 9, Part 3. Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth as they have wrong ideas about many other things should also have wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state so that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain and think the pain which they experience to be real and in like manner to the neutral or intermediate state they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety and pleasure they, not knowing pleasure err in contrasting pain with the absence of pain which is like contrasting black with gray instead of white. Can you wonder I say at this? No indeed I should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite. Look at the matter thus hunger, thirst and the like are in initions of the bodily state yes and ignorance and folly are in initions of the soul true and food and wisdom are the corresponding satisfactions of either certainly and is the satisfaction derived from that which has less or from that which has more existence that's truer that which has more what classes of things have a greater share of pure existence in your judgment those of which food and drink and condiments and all kinds of sustenance are examples or the class which contains true opinion and knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue put the question in this way which has a more pure being that which is concerned with the invariable the immortal and the true and is of such a nature or that which is concerned with and bound in the variable and mortal and is itself variable and mortal far purer he replied is the being of that which is concerned with the invariable and does the essence of the invariable partake of knowledge in the same degree as of essence yes of knowledge in the same degree and of truth in the same degree yes and and conversely that which has less of truth will also have less of essence necessarily then in general those kinds of things which are in the service of the body have less of truth and essence than those which are in the service of the soul far less and has not the body itself less of truth and essence than the soul yes yes what is filled with more real existence and actually has a more real existence is more really filled than that which is filled with less real existence and is less real of course and if there be a pleasure in being filled with that which is according to nature that which is more really filled with more real being will more really and truly enjoy true pleasure whereas that which participates in less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied and will participate in an illusory and less real pleasure unquestionably those then who know not wisdom and virtue and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality go down and up again as far as the mean and in this region they move at random throughout life but they never pass into the true upper world thither they never look nor do they ever find their way neither are they truly filled with true being nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure like cattle with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to the earth that is to the dining table they fatten and feed and breed and in their excessive love of these delights they kick and butt at one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron and they kill one another by reason of their insatiable lust for they fill themselves with that which is not substantial and the part of themselves which they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent verily Socrates said Glaucon you describe the life of the many like an oracle their pleasures are mixed with pains how can they be otherwise for they are mere shadows and pictures of the true and are colored by contrast which exaggerates both light and shade and so they implant in the minds of fools insane desires of themselves and they are fought about as Tizikra says that the Greeks fought about the shadow of Hellenic Troy in ignorance of the truth something of that sort must inevitably happen and must not the like happen with the spirited or passionate element of the soul well not the passionate man who carries his passions into action be in the like case whether he is envious and ambitious or violent and contentious or angry and discontented if he be seeking to attain honor and victory in the satisfaction of his anger without reason or sense yes he said the same will happen with the spirited element also then may we not confidently assert that lovers of money and honor when they seek their pleasures under the guidance and in the company of reason and knowledge and pursue after and win the pleasures which wisdom shows them will also have the truest pleasures in the highest degree which is attainable to them in as much as they follow truths and they will have the pleasures which are natural to them if that which is best for each one is also most natural to him yes certainly the best is the most natural and when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle and there is no division the several parts are just and do each of them their own business and enjoy the best and truest pleasures of which they are capable exactly but when either of the two other principles prevails it fails in attaining its own pleasure and compels the rest to pursue after a pleasure which is a shadow only and which is not their own true and the greater the interval which separates them from philosophy and reason the more strange and elusive will be the pleasure yes and is not that farthest from reason which is at the greatest distance from law and order clearly and the lustful and tyrannical desires are as we saw at the greatest distance yes and the royal and orderly desires are nearest yes then the tyrant will live at the greatest distance from true or natural pleasure and the king at the least certainly but if so the tyrant will live most unpleasantly and the king most pleasantly inevitably would you know the measure of the interval which separates them will you tell me there appear to be three pleasures one genuine and two spurious now the transgression of the tyrant reaches a point beyond the spurious he has run away from the region of law and reason and takes up his abode with certain slave pleasures which are his satellites and the measure of his inferiority can only be expressed in a figure how do you mean I assume I said the tyrant is in the third place from the oligarch the democrat was in the middle yes and if there is truth in what has preceded he will be wedded to an image of pleasure which is thrace removed as to truth from the pleasure of the oligarch he will and the oligarch is third from the royal since we count as one royal is he aristocratical yes he is third then the tyrant is removed from true pleasure by the space of a number which is three times three manifestly the shadow then of tyrannical pleasure determined by the number of length will be a plain figure certainly and if you raise the power and make the plane a solid there is no difficulty in seeing how vast is the interval by which the tyrant is parted from the king yes the arithmetician will easily do this um or if some person begins at the other end and measures the interval by which the king is parted from the tyrant in truth of pleasure he will find him when the multiplication is completed living seven hundred and twenty nine times more pleasantly and the tyrant more painfully by this same interval what a wonderful calculation and how enormous is the distance which separates the just from the unjust in regard to pleasure and pain yet a true calculation I said and a number which nearly concerns human life if human beings are concerned with days and nights and months and years seven hundred and twenty nine nearly equals the number of days and nights in the year yes he said human life is certainly concerned with them and if the good and just man be thus superior in pleasure to the evil and unjust his superiority will be infinitely greater in propriety of life and in beauty and in virtue immeasurably greater well I said and now having arrived at this stage of the argument we may revert to the words which brought us hither was not someone saying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputed to be just yes that was said now then having demonstrated the power and quality of justice and injustice let us have a little conversation with him what shall we say to him let us make an image of the soul that he may have his own words presented before his eyes of what sort an ideal image of the soul like the composite creations of ancient mythology such as the chimera or sylla or cerberus and there are many others in which two or more different natures are said to grow into one there are said to have been such unions then do you now model the form of a multitudinous many-headed monster having a ring of heads of all manner of beasts tame and wild which he is able to generate and metamorphose at will you suppose marvelous powers in the artist but as language is more pliable than wax or any similar substance let there be such a model as you propose suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion and a third of a man the second smaller than the third and the third smaller than the second that, he said, is an easier task and I have made them as you say and now join them and let the three go into one that has been accomplished next fashion the outside of them into a single image as of a man so that he who is not able to look within and sees only the outer hull may believe the beast to be a single human creature I have done so, he said and now to him who maintains that it is profitable for the human creature to be unjust and unprofitable to be just let us reply that if he be right it is profitable for this creature to feast the multitudinous monster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities but to starve and weaken the man who is consequently liable to be dragged about at the mercy of either of the other two and he is not to attempt to familiarize or harmonize them with one another he ought rather to suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another certainly, he said that is what the approver of injustice says he should be making the lion heart his ally and in common care of them all should be uniting the several parts with one another and with himself yes, he said that is quite what the maintainer of justice say and so from every point of view whether of pleasure, honor or advantage the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth and the disapprover is wrong and false and ignorant yes from every point of view come now and let us gently reason with the unjust who is not intentionally in error sweet sir, we will say to him what think you of things esteem noble and ignoble is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man or rather to the god in man and the ignoble that which subjects the man to the beast he can hardly avoid saying yes can he now not if he has any regard for my opinion but if he agrees so far we may ask him to answer another question then how would a man profit if he received gold and silver on the condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst who can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men would be the gainer however large might be the sum which he received and will anyone say that he is not a miserable catef who remorselessly sells his own divine being to that which is most godless and detestable he took the necklace as the price of her husband's life but he is taking a bribe in order to compass a worse ruin yes said Glaucon far worse and I will answer for him has not the intemperate been censured of old because in him the huge multi-form monster is allowed to be too much at large clearly and men are blamed for pride and bad temper when the lion and serpent element in them disproportionately grows and gains strength yes and luxury and softness are blamed because they relax and weaken the same creature and make a coward of him very true and is not a man reproached for flattery and meanness who subordinates the spirited animal to the unruly monster and for the sake of money of which he can never have enough habituates him in the days of his youth to be trampled in the mire and from being a lion to become a monkey true he said and why are mean employments and manual arts reproach only because they imply a natural weakness of the higher principal the individual is unable to control the creatures within him but he has to court them and his great study is how to flatter them such appears to be the reason and therefore being desirous of placing him under a rule like that of the best we say that he ought to be the servant of the best in whom the divine rules not as Thrasymachus supposed to the injury of the servant but because everyone had better be ruled by divine wisdom dwelling within him or if this be impossible then by an external authority in order that we may be all as far as possible under the same government friends and equals true he said and this is clearly seen to be the intention of the law which is the ally of the whole city and is seen also in the authority which we exercise over children and the refusal to let them be free until we have established in them principal analogous to the constitution of a state and by cultivation of this higher element have set up in their hearts a guardian and ruler like our own and when this is done they may go their ways yes he said the purpose of the law is manifest from what point of view then and on what ground can we say that a man is profited by injustice or in temperance or other baseness which will make him a worse man even though he acquire money or power by his wickedness from no point of view at all which shall he profit if his injustice be undetected and unpunished he who is undetected only gets worse whereas he who is detected and punished has the brutal part of his nature silenced and humanized the gentler element in him is liberated and his whole soul is perfected and ennobled by the acquirement of justice and temperance and wisdom more than the body ever is by receiving gifts of beauty, strength and health in proportion as the soul is more honorable than the body certainly he said to this nobler purpose the man of understanding will devote the energies of his life and in the first place he will honor studies which impress these qualities on his soul and others clearly he said in the next place he will regulate his bodily habit and training and so far will he be from yielding to brutal and irrational pleasures that he will guard even health as quite a secondary matter his first object will be not that he may be fair or strong or well unless he is likely thereby to gain temperance but he will always desire so to attemper the body as to preserve the harmony of the soul certainly he will if he has true music in him and in the acquisition of wealth there is a principle of order and harmony which he will also observe he will not allow himself to be dazzled by the foolish applause of the world and heap up riches to his own infinite harm certainly not he said he will look at the city which is within him and take heed that no disorder occur in it which might arise either from superfluity or from want and upon this principle he will regulate his property and gain or spend according to his means very true and for the same reason he will gladly accept and enjoy such honors as he deems likely to make him a better man but those whether private or public which are likely to disorder his life he will avoid then if that is his motive he will not be a statesman he will be a dog of Egypt he will in the city which is his own he certainly will though in the land of his birth perhaps not unless he have a divine call I understand you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders which exists in idea only for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth in heaven I replied there is laid up a pattern of it he thinks which he who desires may behold but whether such an one exists or ever will exist in fact is no matter for he will live after the manner of that city having nothing to do with any other I think so he said end of book 9 recording by Jeffrey Edwards book 10 part 1 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by JC Guan the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joe it book 10 part 1 of the many excellences which I perceive in the order of our state there is none which upon reflection pleases me better than the role about poetry to what do you refer to the rejection of imitative poetry which certainly ought not to be received as I see far more clearly now that the parts of the soul have been distinguished what do you mean speaking in confidence for I should not like to have my words repeated to the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe but I do not mind saying to you that all poetical limitations are ruinous to the understanding of their heroes and that the knowledge of their true nature is the only antidote to them explain the purport of your remark well I will tell you although I have always from my earliest use have an awe and love of Homer which even now makes the words falter on my lips for he is the great captain and teacher of the whole of that charming tragic company but a man is not to be referenced more than the truth and therefore I will speak out very good he said listen to me then or rather answer me put your question can you tell me what imitation is for I really do not know a likely thing then that I should know why not for the dollar I may often see a thing sooner than the keener very true he said but in your presence even if I had any faint notion I could not master courage to utter it will you inquire yourself well then shall we begin the inquiry in our usual manner whenever a number of individuals have a common name we assume them to have also an idea or form do you understand me I do let us take any common instance there are beds and tables in the world plenty of them are there not yes but there are only two ideas or forms of them one the idea of a bed the other of a table true and the maker of either of them makes a bed or he makes a table for our use in accordance with the idea that is our way of speaking in this and similar instances but no artificer makes the ideas themselves how could he impossible and there is another artist I should like to know what you would say of him who is he one who is the maker of all the works of all other workmen what an extraordinary man wait a little and there will be more reason for your saying so for this is he who is able to make not only vessels for every kind but plants and animals himself and all other things the earth and heaven and the things which are in heaven or under the earth he makes the gods also he must be a wizard and no mistake oh you are incredulous are you do you mean that there is no such maker or creator or that in one sense there might be a maker of all these things but in another not do you see that there is a way in which you could make them all yourself what way an easy way enough or rather there are many ways in which defeat might be quickly and easily accomplished non quicker than that of turning a mirror round and round you would soon enough make the sun and the heavens and the earth and yourself and other animals and plants and all the other things of which we were just now speaking in the mirror yes he said but there would be appearances only very good I said you are coming to the point now and the painter too is as I conceive just such another a creator of appearances is he not of course but then I suppose you will say that what he creates is untrue and yet there is a sense of which the painter also creates a bed yes he said but not a real bed and what of the maker of the bed were you not saying that he too makes not the idea which according to your view is the essence of the bed but only a particular bed yes I did then if he does not make that which exists he cannot make true existence but only some semblance of existence and if anyone were to say that the work of the maker of the bed or any other workman has real existence he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth at any rate he replied philosophers would say that he was not speaking the truth no wonder then that his work too is an indistinct expression of truth no wonder suppose now that by the light of the examples just offered we inquire who this imitator is if you please well then here are three beds one existing in nature which is made by God as I think that we may say for no one else can be the maker no there is another which is the work of the carpenter yes and the work of a painter is a third yes beds then are of three kinds there are three artists who superintend them God the maker of the bed and the painter yes there are three of them God whether from choice or from necessity made one bed in nature and one only two or more such ideal beds neither have been nor ever will be made by God why is that because even if he had made but two he would still appear behind them which both of them would have for their idea and that would be the ideal bed and not the two others very true he said God knew this and he desired to be the real maker of a real bed not a particular maker of a particular bed and therefore he created a bed which is essentially one only so we believe shall we then speak of him as the natural author or maker of the bed yes he replied inasmuch as by the natural process of creation he is the author of this and of all other things and what shall we say of the carpenter is not he also the maker of the bed yes but would you call the painter the creator and maker certainly not yet if he is not the maker what is he in relation to the bed I think he said that we may fairly designate him as the imitator of that which the others make good I said then you call him who is third in the descent from nature an imitator certainly and the tragic poet is an imitator and therefore like all other imitators he is twice removed from the king and from the truth that appears to be so then about the imitator we are agreed and what about the painter I would like to know whether he may be thought to imitate that which originally exists in nature or only the creations of artists the latter as they are or as they appear you have still to determine this what do you mean I mean that you may look at a bed from different points of view obliquely or directly or from any other point of view and the bed will appear different but there is no difference in reality and the same of all things yes he said the difference is only different now let me ask you another question which is the art of painting designed to be an imitation of things as they are or as they appear of appearance or of reality of appearance then the imitator is a long way off the truth and can do all things because he likely touches on a small part of them an image for example a painter will paint a cobbler carpenter or any other artist though he knows nothing of their arts and if he is a good artist he may deceive children or simple persons when he shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance and they will fancy that they are looking at a real carpenter certainly he informs us that he has found a man who knows all the arts and all things else that anybody knows and every single thing with a higher degree of accuracy than any other man whoever tells us this I think that we can only imagine him to be a simple creature who is likely to have been deceived by some wizard or actor whom he met to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation most true and so when we hear persons saying that the tragedians and Homer who is at their head know all the arts and all things human virtue as well as vice and divine things too for that the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject certainly who has not this knowledge can never be a poet we ought to consider whether here also there may not be a similar illusion perhaps they may have come across imitators and been deceived by them they may not have remembered when they saw their works that these were but imitations tries removed from the truth they are appearances only and not realities or after all they may be in the right and poets do really know the things about which they seem to the many to speak so well the question he said should by all means be considered now do you suppose that if a person were able to make the original as well as the image he would seriously devote himself to the branch would he allow imitation to be the rolling principle of his life as if he had nothing higher in him I should say not the real artist who knew what he was imitating would be interested in realities and not imitations and would desire to leave as memorials of himself works many and fair and instead of being the author he would prefer to be the theme of them yes he said that would be to him a source of much greater honor and profit then I said we must put a question to Homer not about medicine or any of the arts to which his poems only incidentally refer we are not going to ask him or any other poet whether he has current patients like a Sclepius or left behind him a school of medicine such as the Sclepius were or whether he only talks about medicine and other arts at second hand but we have a right to know respecting military tactics politics, education which are the chiefest and noblest subjects of his poems and we may fairly ask him about them friend Homer then we say to him if you are only in the second remove the truth in what you say of virtue and not in the third not an image maker or imitator and if you are able to discern what pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life tell us what state was ever better governed by your help the good order of Lassa demon is due to Lycurgus and many other cities great and small have been similarly benefited by others but who says that you have been a good legislator to them and have done them any good Italy and Sicily boast of Carondas and there is Solon who is renowned among us but what city has anything to say about you is there any city which he might name I think not St. Glocken not even the homerids themselves pretend that he was a legislator well but is there any war on record which was carried on successfully by him or aided by his councils when he was alive there is not or is there any invention of his applicable to the arts or to human life such as Thales the Milesian or Anna cases the Scythian and other ingenious man have conceived which is attributed to him there is absolutely nothing of the kind but if Homer never did any public service was he privately a guide or teacher of any had he in his lifetime friends who loved to associate with him and who handed down to posterity any Homeric way of life such as was established by Pythagoras who was so greatly beloved for his wisdom and whose followers are to this day quite celebrated for the order which was named after him nothing of the kind is recorded of him for surely Socrates, Cree of Phyllis the companion of Homer that child of flesh whose name always makes us laugh might be more justly ridiculed for his stupidity if, as he said Homer was greatly neglected by him and others in his own day when he was alive yes, I replied that is the tradition but can you imagine Glocken that if Homer had really been able to educate and improve mankind if he had possessed knowledge and not been a mere imitator can you imagine, I say that he would not have any followers and been honored and loved by them Protagoras of Abdera and Proticus of Theos and a host of others would be able to refer to their contemporaries you will never be able to manage either your own house or your own state until you appoint us to be your ministers of education and this ingenious device of theirs has such an effect in making men love them that their companions all but carry them about on their shoulders and is it conceivable that the contemporaries of Homer or again of Hesiod either of them to go about as rhapsodists if they had really been able to make mankind virtuous would they not have been as unwilling to part with them as with gold and have compelled them to stay at home with them or if the master could not stay then the disciples would have followed him about everywhere until they had got education enough yes Socrates that I think is quite true then must we not infer that all these poetical individuals beginning with Homer are only imitators they copy images of virtue and the like but the truth they never reach the poet is like a painter who as we have already observed will make a likeness of a cobbler though he understands nothing of cobbling and his picture is good enough for those who know no more than he does and judge only by colors and figures quite so in like manner the poet with his words and phrases may be said to lay on the colors of the several arts himself understanding their nature only enough to imitate them and other people who are as ignorant as he is and judge only from his words he speaks of cobbling or of military tactics or of anything else in meter and harmony and rhythm he speaks very well such is the sweet influence which melody and rhythm by nature have and I think that you must have observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales of poets make when stripped of the colors which music puts upon them and recited in simple prose yes he said they are like faces which were never really beautiful but only blooming and now the bloom of youth has passed away from them exactly there is another point the imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence he knows appearances only am I not right yes then let us have a clear understanding and not be satisfied with half an explanation proceed of the painter we say that he will paint rains and he will paint a bit yes and the worker in leather and brass will make them certainly but does the painter know the right form of the bit and rains nay hardly even the workers in brass in leather who make them only the horseman knows how to use them he knows of their right form most true and of book 10 part 1 recording by JC Guan Montreal December 2008 book 10 part 2 of play those republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by JC Guan the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joe book 10 part 2 and may we not say the same of all things what that there are three arts which are concerned with all things one which uses another which makes a third which which imitates them yes and the excellence or beauty or truth of every structure animate or inanimate and of every action of man is relative to the use of which nature or the artist has intended them true then the user of them must have the greatest experience of them and he must indicate to the maker of the good his qualities which develop themselves in use for example the flute player will tell the flute maker which of his flutes is satisfactory to the performer he will tell him how he ought to make them and the other will attend to his instructions of course the one knows and therefore speaks with authority about the goodness and badness of flutes while the other confiding him will do what he is told by him true the instrument is the same but about the excellence or badness of it the maker will only attain to a correct belief and this he will gain from him who knows by talking to him and being compelled to hear what he has to say whereas the user will have knowledge true but will the imitator have either will he know from use whether or no his drawing is correct or beautiful or will he have right opinion from being compelled to associate with another who knows and gives him instructions about what he should draw neither then he will know more have true opinion then he will have knowledge about the goodness or badness of his imitations I suppose not the imitative artist will be in a brilliant state of intelligence about his own creations nay very much the reverse and still he will go on imitating without knowing what makes a thing good or bad and may be expected therefore to imitate only that which appears to be good to the ignorant multitude just so thus far then we are pretty well agreed that the imitator has no knowledge worth mentioning of what he imitates imitation is only a kind of play or sport and the tragic poets whether they write in iambic or in heroic verse are imitators in the highest degree very true and now tell me I conjure you has not imitation been shown by us to be concerned with that which is thrice removed from the truth certainly in man to which imitation is addressed what do we mean I will explain the body which is large when seen near appears small when seen at a distance true and the same object appears straight when looked at out of the water and crooked when in the water and the concave becomes convex owing to the illusion about colors to which the sight is liable thus every sort of confusion is revealed within us and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving by light and shadow and other ingenious devices and poses having an effect upon us like magic true and the art of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescue of the human understanding the beauty of them and the apparent greater or less or more or heavier no longer have the mastery over us but give way before circulation and measure and weight most true and this surely must be the work of the calculating and rational principle of the soul to be sure and when this principle measures and certifies that some things are equal or that some are greater or less than others there occurs an apparent contradiction true but were we not saying that such a contradiction is impossible the same faculty cannot have contrary opinions at the same time about the same thing very true then that part of the soul which has an opinion contrary to measure is not the same with that opinion in accordance with measure true and the better part of the soul is likely to be that which trusts to measure and calculation certainly and that which is opposed to them is one of the inferior principles of the soul no doubt this was the conclusion at which I was seeking to arrive when I said that painting or drawing and imitation in general when doing their own proper work are far removed from truth and the companions and friends and associates of a principle within us which is equally removed from reason and that they have no true or healthy aim exactly the imitative part is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring very true and this is confined to the sight only or does it extend to the hearing also relating in fact to what we term poetry probably the same would be true of poetry do not rely I said on a probability derived from the analogy of painting but let us examine further and see whether the faculty with which poetical limitation is concerned is good or bad by all means we may state the question thus imitation imitates the actions of men whether voluntary or involuntary on which as they imagine a good or bad result has ensued and they rejoice or sorrow accordingly is there anything more no there is nothing else all this variety of circumstances is the man at unity with himself or rather as in the instance of sight there was confusion and opposition in his opinions about the same things so here also is there not strife and inconsistency in his life though I need hardly raise the question again for I remember that all this has been already admitted and the soul has been acknowledged by us to be full of these and ten thousand similar oppositions occurring at the same moment and we were right he said yes I said thus far we were right but there was an omission which must now be supplied what was the omission were we not saying that a good man who has the misfortune to lose his son or anything else which is most dear to him will bear the loss with more equanimity than another yes but will he have no sorrow or shall we say that although he cannot help sorrowing he will moderate his sorrow the latter he said is the true statement tell me will he be more likely to struggle and hold out against his sorrow when he is seen by his equals or when he is alone it will make a great difference whether he is seen or not when he is by himself he will not mind saying or doing any things which he would be ashamed of anyone hearing or seeing him do true there is a principle of law and reason in him which bids him resist as well as a feeling of his misfortune which is forcing him to indulge his sorrow true but when a man is drawn in two opposite directions from the same object this as we affirm necessarily implies two distinct principles in him certainly one of them is ready to follow the guidance of the law how do you mean the law would say that to be patient under suffering is best and that we should not give way to inpatience as there is no knowing whether such things are good or evil and nothing is gained by inpatience also because no human thing is of serious importance and grief stands in the way of that which at the moment is most required what is most required he asked that we should take counsel about what has happened and when the dice have been thrown order our affairs in the way which reason deems best not like children who have had a fall keeping hold of the part and wasting time in setting up a howl but always accustoming the soul forthwith to apply a remedy raising up that which is sickly and fallen banning shame the cry of sorrow by the healing art yes he said that is the true way of meeting the attacks of fortune yes I said and the higher principle is ready to follow this suggestion of reason clearly and the other principle which inclines us to recollection of our troubles and to lamentation and can never have enough of them we may call irrational useless and cowardly indeed we may and thus not the latter I mean the rebellious principle furnish a great variety of materials for imitation whereas the wise and calm temperament is not easy to imitate or to appreciate when imitated especially at a public festival when a promiscuous crowd is assembled in a theater for the feeling represented is one to which they are strangers certainly then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made nor is his art intended to place or to affect the principle in the soul but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper which is easily imitated clearly and now we may fairly take him and place him by the side of the painter for he is like him in two ways first in as much as his creations have an inferior degree of truth in this I say he is like him and he is also like him with an inferior part of the soul and therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state because he awakens and nourishes and strengthens the feelings and impairs the reason as in a city when the evil are permitted to have authority and the good are put out of the way so in the soul of man as we maintain the imitative poet for he indulges the irrational nature which has no discernment of greater and less but thinks the same thing at one time great and at another small he is a manufacturer of images and is very far removed from the truth exactly but we have not yet brought forward the heaviest count in our accusation the power which poetry has of harming even the good and there are very few who are not harmed is surely an awful thing yes certainly if the effect is what you say here in judge the best of us as I conceive when we listen to a passage of Homer or one of the tragedians in which he represents some pitiful hero who is drawing out his sorrows in a long duration sleeping and smiting his breast the best of us you know the light in giving way to sympathy and our enraptures at the excellence of the poet who stirs our feelings most yes of course I know but when any sorrow of our own happens to us then you may observe that we pride ourselves on the opposite quality quiet and patient this is the manly part and the other which delighted us in the recitation is now deemed to be the part of a woman very true he said now can we be right in praising and admiring another who is doing that which any one of us would abominate and be ashamed of in his own person no he said certainly not reasonable nay I say quite reasonable from one point of view what point of view if you consider I said that when in misfortune we feel a natural hunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation and that this feeling which is kept under control in our own calamities is satisfied and delighted by the poet and each of us not having been sufficiently trained by reason or habit allows the sympathetic element to break loose because the sorrow is another's and the spectator fancies that there can be no disgrace to himself in praising and pitting anyone who comes telling him what a good man he is and making a fuss about his troubles he thinks that the pleasure is again maybe supercilious and loose this and the poem too few persons ever reflect as I should imagine that from the evil of other men something of evil is communicated to themselves and so the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sight of the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own how very true and thus not the same hold also the ridiculous there are jests which you would be ashamed to make yourself and yet on the comic stage or indeed in private when you hear them you are greatly amused by them and are not at all disgusted at their unseemliness the case of petty is repeated there is a principle in human nature which is disposed to raise laugh and this which you once restrained by reason because you were afraid of being sought a buffoon is now let out again and having stimulated the riseable faculty at the theater you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home quite true he said and the same may be said of lust and anger and all the other affections of desire and pain and pleasure which are held to be inseparable from every action in all of them poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up she lets them rule although they ought to be controlled if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue I cannot deny it therefore Glockon I said whenever you meet with any of the eulogists of Homer declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas and that he is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things in that you should take him up again and again and get to know him and regulate your whole life according to him we may love and honor those who say these things they are excellent people as far as their lights extend and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer is the greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers but we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the God and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our state for if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter either in the epic or lyric verse not law and the reason of mankind which by common consent have ever been deemed best but pleasure and pain will be the rulers of our state that is most true he said and now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry let us our defense serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgment in sending away out of our state an art having the tendencies which we have described for a reason constraint us but that she may not impute to us any harshness or want of politeness let us tell her that there is an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry of which there are many proofs such as the saying of quote the yelping hound howling at her lord end quote or of one quote mighty in the vain talk of fools end quote end quote the mob of sages circumventing Zeus end quote and the quote subtle thinkers who are beggars after all end quote and there are innumerable other signs of ancient enmity between them notwithstanding this let us assure our sweet friend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only prove her title to exist in a well-ordered state we shall be delighted to receive her we are very conscious of her charms but we may not on that account betray the truth I daresay Glockon that you are as much charmed by her as I am especially when she appears in Homer yes indeed I am greatly charmed shall I propose then that she be allowed to return from exile but upon this condition only that she makes a defense of herself in lyrical or some other meter certainly and we may further grant to those of her defenders who are lovers of poetry and yet not poets the permission to speak in prose on her behalf let them show not only that she is pleasant but also useful to states and to human life and we will listen in a kindly spirit for if this can be proved we shall surely be the gainers I mean if there is a use in poetry as well as a delight certainly he said we shall be the gainers if her defense fails then my dear friend like other persons who are enamored of something but put a restraint upon themselves when they think their desires are opposed to their interest so too must we after the manner of lovers give her up though not without a struggle we too are inspired by that love of poetry which the education of noble states has implanted in us and therefore we would have her appear at her best and truest but so long as she is unable to make good her defense this argument of ours shall be a charm to us which we will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains that we may not fall away into the childish love of her which captivates the many at all events we are well aware that poetry being such as we have described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to the truth and he who listens to her fearing for the safety of the city which is within him should be on his guard against her deductions and make our words his law yes he said I quite agree with you yes I said Mother Glockon for great is the issue at stake greater than appears whether a man is to be good or bad and what will anyone be profited if under the influence of honour or money or power I or under the excitement of poetry he neglect justice and virtue yes he said I have been convinced by the argument as I believe that anyone else would have been and yet no mention has been made of the greatest prizes and rewards which await virtue what are there any greater still if there are they must be of an inconceivable greatness why I said what was ever great in a short time the whole period of three score years is surely but a little thing in comparison with eternity say rather nothing he replied and should an immortal being seriously think of this little space rather than of the whole of the whole certainly but what do you ask end of book 10 part 2 recording by J. C. Guan Montreal December 2008 book 10 part 3 of Plato's Republic this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Don Oneworld the Republic by Plato translated by Benjamin Joett book 10 part 3 are you aware that the soul of a man is immortal and imperishable he looked at me in astonishment and said no by heaven and are you really prepared to maintain this yes I said I ought to be and you too there is no difficulty in proving it I see great difficulty but I should like to hear you state this argument of which you make so light listen then I'm attending there is a thing which you call good and another which you call evil yes he replied would you agree with me in thinking that the corrupting and destroying element is the evil and the saving and improving element the good yes and you admit that everything has a good and also an evil as ophthalmia is an evil of the eyes and disease of the whole body as mildrew is of corn and rot of timber and dust of copper and iron in everything or in almost everything there is an inherent evil and disease yes he said and anything which is infected by any of these evils is made evil and at last holy dissolves and dies true then vice and evil which is inherent in each is the destruction of each and if this does not destroy them there is nothing that will good certainly will not destroy them nor again that which is neither good nor evil certainly not if then we find any nature which having this inherent corruption cannot be dissolved or destroyed we may be certain that of such a nature there is no destruction that may be assumed well I said and is there no evil which corrupts the soul yes he said there are all the evils which we were just now passing and review unrighteousness, intemperance, cowardice ignorance but does any of these dissolve or destroy her and here do not let us fall into the air of supposing that the unjust and foolish man when he is detected perishes through his own injustice which is an evil of the soul take the analogy of the body the evil the body is a disease which wastes and reduce and annihilates the body and all the things of which we were just now speaking come to annihilation through their own corruption attaching to them and inhering in them and so destroying them is not this true yes consider the soul in a like manner does the injustice or other evil which exists in the soul waste and consume her do they by attaching to the soul and inhering in her at the last bring her to death so separate her from the body certainly not and yet I said it is unreasonable to suppose that anything can perish from without through affection of external evil which could not be destroyed from within by a corruption of its own it is he replied consider that even the badness of food whether staleness, decomposition or any other bad quality when confined to the actual food is not supposed to destroy the body although if the badness of food communicates corruption to the body then we should say that the body has been destroyed by a corruption of itself which is the disease brought on by this but that the body being one thing can be destroyed by the badness of food which is another and which does not engender any natural infection this we shall absolutely deny very true and on the same principle unless some bodily evil can produce an evil of the soul which we must not suppose that the soul which is one thing can be dissolved by any merely external evil which belongs to another yes he said there is reason in that either then let us refute this conclusion or while it remains unrefuted let us never say that fever or any other disease or the knife put to the throat or even the cutting up of the whole body into the minutest pieces can destroy the soul until she herself is proved to become more unholy or unrighteous in consequence of these things being done to the body but that the soul or anything else if not destroyed by an internal evil can be destroyed by an external one is not to be affirmed by any man and surely he replied no one will ever prove that the souls of men become more unjust in consequence of death but if someone who would rather not admit the immortality of the soul boldly denies this and says that the dying do really become more evil and unrighteous then if the speaker is right I suppose that injustice like disease must be assumed to be fatal to the unjust and that those who take this disorder die by the natural inherent power of destruction which evil has and which kills them sooner or later but in quite another way from that in which at present the wicked receive death at the hands of others as a penalty for their deeds nay he said in that case injustice if fatal to the unjust would not be so very terrible to him for he would be delivered from evil but I rather suspect the opposite to be the truth and that injustice which if it have the power will murder others keep the murderer alive I and well awake too so far removed is her dwelling place from being a house of death true I said and if the inherent natural vice or evil of the soul is unable to destroy or kill her hardly will that which is appointed to be the destruction of some other body destroy a soul or anything else except that of which it was appointed to be the destruction yes that can hardly be but the soul which cannot be destroyed by an evil whether inherent or external must exist forever and if existing forever must be immortal certainly that is the conclusion I said and if a true conclusion then the souls must always be the same for if none be destroyed they will not diminish a number neither will they increase for the increase of their mortal natures must come from something mortal and all things would thus end in immortality very true but this we cannot believe reason will not allow us any more than we can believe the soul in her truest nature to be full of variety and difference and dissimilarity what do you mean he said the soul I said being as is now proven immortal must be the fairest of compositions and cannot be compounded by many elements certainly not her immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument and there are many other proofs but to see her as she really is not as we now behold her marred by communion with the body and other miseries you must contemplate her with the eye of reason in her original purity and then her beauty will be revealed and justice and injustice which we have described will be manifested more clearly thus far we have spoken the truth concerning her as she appears at present but we must remember also that we have seen her only in a condition which may be compared to that of the sea god Glockus whose original image can hardly be discerned because his natural members are broken off and crushed and damaged by the waves in all sorts of ways and then crustaceans have grown over them of seaweed and shells and stones so that he is more like some monster than he is to his own natural form and the soul which we behold is in a similar condition disfigured by ten thousand ills but not there Glocken not there must we look where then? at her love of wisdom let us see whom she affects and what society and converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortal and eternal and divine also how different she would become if wholly following the superior principle and born by a divine impulse out of the ocean in which she now is and disengaged from the stones and shells and things of earth and rock which in wild varieties spring up around her because she feeds upon earth and is overgrown by good things of this life as they are turned then would we see her as she is and know whether she have one shape or many or what her nature is of her affections and of the forms which she takes in this present life I think that we have now said enough true he replied and thus I said we have fulfilled the conditions of the argument we have not introduced the rewards and glories of justice which as you were saying are to be found in Homer but justice in her own nature has been shown to be best for the soul in her own nature let a man do what is just whether he have the ring of Gaius or not and even if in addition to the ring of Gaius he puts on a helmet of Hades very true and now Glocken there will be no harm in further enumerating how many and how great are the rewards which justice and the other virtues procure to the soul from gods and men both in life and after death certainly not he said we repay me then what you borrowed in the argument what did I borrow the assumption that the just man should appear unjust and the unjust just for you were of the opinion that even if the true state of the case could not possibly escape the eyes of God and men still this admission ought to be made for the sake of the argument in order that pure justice might be weighed against pure injustice do you remember I should be much to blame if I had forgotten then as the causes decided I demand on behalf of justice that the estimation of which she is held by gods and men and which we acknowledge to be her do should now be restored to her by us since she has been shown to confer reality and not to deceive those who truly possess her let what has been taken from her be given back that so she may win that palm of appearance which is hers also and which she gives to her own the demand he said is just in the first place I said and this is the first thing which you will have to give back the nature both of the just and unjust is truly known to the gods granted and if they are both known to them one must be the friend and the other the enemy of the gods as we admitted from the beginning true and the friend of the gods must be supposed to receive from them all things at their best accepting only such evil as is the necessary consequence of former sins certainly then this must be our notion of the just man that even when he is in poverty or sickness or any other seeming misfortune all things will in the end work together for good to him in life and death for the gods have a care of anyone whose desire is to become just and to be like God as far as man can attain the divine likeness by the pursuit of virtue yes he said if he is like God he will surely not be neglected by him and of the unjust may not the opposite be supposed certainly such then are the palms of victory which the gods give the just that is my conviction and what do they receive of men look at things as they really are and you will see that the clever unjust are in the case of runners who run well from the starting place to the goal but not back again from the goal they go off at a great pace but in the end only look foolish slinking away with their ears dragling on their shoulders and without a crown but the true runner comes to the finish receives the prize and his crown and this is the way with the just he who endures to the end of every action and occasion of his entire life has a good report and carries off the prize which men have to bestow true end of book 10 part 3 recording by Don One World Waukesha, Wisconsin