34. Oligarchy (Plutocracy) and
the Oligarchic Man
Next, let us look at another man
who, as Aeschylus says,
"Is set over against another
State";
or rather, as our plan requires,
begin with the State.
By all means.
I believe that oligarchy follows next
in order.
And what manner of government do
you term oligarchy?
A government resting on a
valuation of property, in which the rich have [550d] power and the poor man is deprived of it.
I understand, he replied.
Ought I not to begin by describing
how the change from timocracy to oligarchy arises?
Yes.
Well, I said, no eyes are required
in order to see how the one passes into the other.
How?
The accumulation of gold in the
treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal
modes of expenditure; [550e] for what do they or their wives care about the law?
Yes, indeed.
And then one, seeing another grow
rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers
of money.
Likely enough.
And so they grow richer and
richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of
virtue; for when riches and virtue are placed together in the scales of the
balance, the one always rises as the other falls.
True.
And in proportion as riches and
rich men are honoured [551a] in the State, virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured.
Clearly.
And what is honoured is
cultivated, and that which has no honour is neglected.
That is obvious.
And so at last, instead of loving
contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money; they honour and
look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonour the poor man.
They do so.
They next proceed to make a law [551b] which fixes a sum
of money as the qualification of citizenship; the sum is higher in one place
and lower in another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they
allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in
the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms,
if intimidation has not already done their work.
Very true.
And this, speaking generally, is
the way in which oligarchy is established.
Yes, he said; but what are the
characteristics of this form of government, and what are the defects of which [551c] we were speaking?
First of all, I said, consider the
nature of the qualification. Just think what would happen if pilots were to be
chosen according to their property, and a poor man were refused permission to
steer, even though he were a better pilot?
You mean that they would
shipwreck?
Yes; and is not this true of the
government of anything?
I should imagine so.
Except a city? -- or would you
include a city?
Nay, he said, the case of a city
is the strongest of all, inasmuch as the rule of a city is the greatest and
most difficult of all.
[551d]
This, then, will be the first
great defect of oligarchy?
Clearly.
And here is another defect which
is quite as bad.
What defect?
The inevitable division: such a
State is not one, but two States, the one of poor, the other of rich men; and
they are living on the same spot and always conspiring against one another.
That, surely, is at least as bad.
Another discreditable feature is,
that, for a like reason, they are incapable of carrying on any war. Either they
arm the multitude, [551e] and then they are more afraid of them than of the enemy;
or, if they do not call them out in the hour of battle, they are oligarchs
indeed, few to fight as they are few to rule. And at the same time their
fondness for money makes them unwilling to pay taxes.
How discreditable!
And, as we said before, under such
a constitution the same persons have too many callings -- they are husbandmen,
[552a]
tradesmen, warriors, all in one. Does that look well?
Anything but well.
There is another evil which is,
perhaps, the greatest of all, and to which this State first begins to be
liable.
What evil?
A man may sell all that he has,
and another may acquire his property; yet after the sale he may dwell in the
city of which he is no longer a part, being neither trader, nor artisan, nor
horseman, nor hoplite, but only a poor, helpless creature.
[552b]
Yes, that is an evil which also
first begins in this State.
The evil is certainly not
prevented there; for oligarchies have both the extremes of great wealth and
utter poverty.
True.
But think again: In his wealthy
days, while he was spending his money, was a man of this sort a whit more good
to the State for the purposes of citizenship? Or did he only seem to be a
member of the ruling body, although in truth he was neither ruler nor subject,
but just a spendthrift?
As you say, he seemed to be a
ruler, but [552c] was only a spendthrift.
May we not say that this is the
drone in the house who is like the drone in the honeycomb, and that the one is
the plague of the city as the other is of the hive?
Just so, Socrates.
And God has made the flying
drones, Adeimantus, all without stings, whereas of the walking drones he has
made some without stings but others have dreadful stings; of the stingless
class are those who in their old age end as paupers; [552d] of the stingers
come all the criminal class, as they are termed.
Most true, he said.
Clearly then, whenever you see
paupers in a State, somewhere in that neighborhood there are hidden away
thieves, and cut-purses and robbers of temples, and all sorts of malefactors.
Clearly.
Well, I said, and in oligarchical
States do you not find paupers?
Yes, he said; nearly everybody is
a pauper who is not a ruler.
And may we be so bold as to affirm
[552e] that
there are also many criminals to be found in them, rogues who have stings, and
whom the authorities are careful to restrain by force?
Certainly, we may be so bold.
The existence of such persons is
to be attributed to want of education, ill-training, and an evil constitution
of the State?
True.
Such, then, is the form and such
are the evils of oligarchy; and there may be many other evils.
Very likely.
[553a]
Then oligarchy, or the form of
government in which the rulers are elected for their wealth, may now be
dismissed. Let us next proceed to consider the nature and origin of the
individual who answers to this State.
By all means.
Does not the timocratical man
change into the oligarchical on this wise?
How?
A time arrives when the
representative of timocracy has a son: at first he begins by emulating his
father and walking in his footsteps, but presently he sees him [553b] of a sudden
foundering against the State as upon a sunken reef, and he and all that he has
is lost; he may have been a general or some other high officer who is brought
to trial under a prejudice raised by informers, and either put to death, or
exiled, or deprived of the privileges of a citizen, and all his property taken
from him.
Nothing more likely.
And the son has seen and known all
this -- he is a ruined man, and his fear has taught him to knock ambition and
passion [553c]
head foremost from his bosom's throne; humbled by poverty he takes to
money-making and by mean and miserly savings and hard work gets a fortune
together. Is not such an one likely to seat the concupiscent and covetous
element on the vacant throne and to suffer it to play the great king within
him, girt with tiara and chain and scimitar?
Most true, he replied.
And when he has made reason [553d] and spirit sit
down on the ground obediently on either side of their sovereign, and taught
them to know their place, he compels the one to think only of how lesser sums
may be turned into larger ones, and will not allow the other to worship and
admire anything but riches and rich men, or to be ambitious of anything so much
as the acquisition of wealth and the means of acquiring it.
Of all changes, he said, there is
none so speedy or so sure as the conversion of the ambitious youth into the
avaricious one.
[553e]
And the avaricious, I said, is the
oligarchical youth?
Yes, he said; at any rate the
individual out of whom he came is like the State out of which oligarchy came.
[554a]
Let us then consider whether there
is any likeness between them.
Very good.
First, then, they resemble one
another in the value which they set upon wealth?
Certainly.
Also in their penurious, laborious
character; the individual only satisfies his necessary appetites, and confines
his expenditure to them; his other desires he subdues, under the idea that they
are unprofitable.
True.
He is a shabby fellow, who saves
something out of everything [554b] and makes a purse for himself; and this is the sort of man
whom the vulgar applaud. Is he not a true image of the State which he
represents?
He appears to me to be so; at any
rate money is highly valued by him as well as by the State.
You see that he is not a man of
cultivation, I said.
I imagine not, he said; had he
been educated he would never have made a blind god director of his chorus, or
given him chief honour.
Excellent! I said. Yet consider:
Must we not further admit that owing to this want of cultivation there will be
found in him drone-like desires [554c] as of pauper and rogue, which are forcibly kept down by
his general habit of life?
True.
Do you know where you will have to
look if you want to discover his rogueries?
Where must I look?
You should see him where he has
some great opportunity of acting dishonestly, as in the guardianship of an
orphan.
Aye.
It will be clear enough then that
in his ordinary dealings which give him a reputation for honesty he [554d] coerces his bad
passions by an enforced virtue; not making them see that they are wrong, or
taming them by reason, but by necessity and fear constraining them, and because
he trembles for his possessions.
To be sure.
Yes, indeed, my dear friends, but
you will find that the natural desires of the drone commonly exist in him all
the same whenever he has to spend what is not his own.
Yes, and they will be strong in
him too.
The man, then, will be at war with
himself; he will be two men, and not one; but, in general, [554e] his better desires
will be found to prevail over his inferior ones.
True.
For these reasons such an one will
be more respectable than most people; yet the true virtue of a unanimous and
harmonious soul will flee far away and never come near him.
I should expect so.
And surely, the miser individually
will be an ignoble competitor [555a] in a State for any prize of victory, or other object of
honourable ambition; he will not spend his money in the contest for glory; so
afraid is he of awakening his expensive appetites and inviting them to help and
join in the struggle; in true oligarchical fashion he fights with a small part
only of his resources, and the result commonly is that he loses the prize and
saves his money.
Very true.
Can we any longer doubt, then,
that the miser and money-maker answers to [555b] the oligarchical State?
There can be no doubt.
35. Democracy and the
Democratic Man
Next comes democracy; of this the
origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire
into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgement.
That, he said, is our method.
Well, I said, and how does the
change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise? -- The good
at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is
insatiable?
[555c]
What then?
The rulers, being aware that their
power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the
spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them
and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?
To be sure.
There can be no doubt that the
love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens
of the same State to any considerable extent; [555d] one or the other will be disregarded.
That is tolerably clear.
And in oligarchical States, from
the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have
often been reduced to beggary?
Yes, often.
And still they remain in the city;
there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money,
some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments;
and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and
against everybody else, [555e] and are eager for revolution.
That is true.
On the other hand, the men of
business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they
have already ruined, insert their sting -- that is, their money -- into some
one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many
times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they [556a] make drone and
pauper to abound in the State.
Yes, he said, there are plenty of
them -- that is certain.
The evil blazes up like a fire;
and they will not extinguish it, either by restricting a man's use of his own
property, or by another remedy:
What other?
One which is the next best, and
has the advantage of compelling the citizens to look to their characters: --
Let there be a general rule that every one shall enter into voluntary contracts
at his own risk, [556b] and there will be less of this scandalous money-making,
and the evils of which we were speaking will be greatly lessened in the State.
Yes, they will be greatly
lessened.
At present the governors, induced
by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and
their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are
habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; [556c] they do nothing,
and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.
Very true.
They themselves care only for
making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of
virtue.
Yes, quite as indifferent.
Such is the state of affairs which
prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one
another's way, whether on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or
fellow-sailors; [556d] aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in
the very moment of danger -- for where danger is, there is no fear that the
poor will be despised by the rich -- and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man
may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his
complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh -- when he sees such an one
puffing and at his wit's end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men
like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when
they meet in private [556e] will not people be saying to one another "Our warriors
are not good for much"?
Yes, he said, I am quite aware
that this is their way of talking.
And, as in a body which is
diseased the addition of a touch from without may bring on illness, and
sometimes even when there is no external provocation a commotion may arise
within -- in the same way wherever there is weakness in the State there is also
likely to be illness, of which the occasions may be very slight, the one party
introducing from without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies,
and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and may be at times
distracted, even when [557a] there is no external cause.
Yes, surely.
And then democracy comes into
being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and
banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and
power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly
elected by lot.
Yes, he said, that is the nature
of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear
has caused the opposite party to withdraw.
And now what is their manner of
life, [557b]
and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be
the man.
Clearly, he said.
In the first place, are they not
free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness -- a man may say and do
what he likes?
'Tis said so, he replied.
And where freedom is, the
individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?
Clearly.
Then in this kind of State there
will be [557c]
the greatest variety of human natures?
There will.
This, then, seems likely to be the
fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every
sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be
of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is
spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the
fairest of States.
[557d]
Yes.
Yes, my good Sir, and there will
be no better in which to look for a government.
Why?
Because of the liberty which
reigns there -- they have a complete assortment of constitutions; and he who
has a mind to establish a State, as we have been doing, must go to a democracy
as he would to a bazaar at which they sell them, and pick out the one that
suits him; then, when he has made his choice, he may found his State.
[557e]
He will be sure to have patterns
enough.
And there being no necessity, I
said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be
governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at
peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed -- there being no
necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast,
that you should not hold office or be a dicast, [558a] if you have a fancy -- is not
this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?
For the moment, yes.
And is not their humanity to the
condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a
democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile,
just stay where they are and walk about the world -- the gentleman parades like
a hero, and nobody sees or cares?
Yes, he replied, many and many a
one.
See too, I said, the forgiving
spirit of democracy, [558b] and the "don't care" about trifles, and the
disregard which she shows of all the fine principles which we solemnly laid
down at the foundation of the city -- as when we said that, except in the case
of some rarely gifted nature, there never will be a good man who has not from
his childhood been used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy
and a study -- how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of ours
under her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which make a statesman,
and promoting to honour any one [558c] who professes to be the people's friend.
Yes, she is of a noble spirit.
These and other kindred
characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of
government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to
equals and unequals alike.
We know her well.
Consider now, I said, what manner
of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how
he comes into being.
Very good, he said.
Is not this the way -- he is the
son [558d]
of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?
Exactly.
And, like his father, he keeps
under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting
sort, being those which are called unnecessary?
Obviously.
Would you like, for the sake of
clearness, to distinguish which are the necessary and which are the unnecessary
pleasures?
I should.
Are not necessary pleasures those
of which we cannot get rid, [558e] and of which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And
they are rightly so, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is
beneficial and what is necessary, and cannot help it.
[559a]
True.
We are not wrong therefore in
calling them necessary?
We are not.
And the desires of which a man may
get rid, if he takes pains from his youth upwards -- of which the presence,
moreover, does no good, and in some cases the reverse of good -- shall we not
be right in saying that all these are unnecessary?
Yes, certainly.
Suppose we select an example of
either kind, in order that we may have a general notion of them?
Very good.
Will not the desire of eating,
that is, of simple food and condiments, [559b] in so far as they are required for health and strength,
be of the necessary class?
That is what I should suppose.
The pleasure of eating is
necessary in two ways; it does us good and it is essential to the continuance
of life?
Yes.
But the condiments are only
necessary in so far as they are good for health?
Certainly.
And the desire which goes beyond
this, of more delicate food, or other luxuries, which might generally be got
rid of, if controlled and trained in youth, and is hurtful to the body, and
hurtful to the soul in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, [559c] may be rightly
called unnecessary?
Very true.
May we not say that these desires
spend, and that the others make money because they conduce to production?
Certainly.
And of the pleasures of love, and
all other pleasures, the same holds good?
True.
And the drone of whom we spoke was
he who has surfeited in pleasures and desires of this sort, and was the slave
of the unnecessary desires, whereas he who was subject [559d] to the necessary
only was miserly and oligarchical?
Very true.
Again, let us see how the
democratical man grows out of the oligarchical: the following, as I suspect, is
commonly the process.
What is the process?
When a young man who has been
brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has
tasted drones' honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures
who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of
pleasure -- then, as you may imagine, the change [559e] will begin of the
oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?
Inevitably.
And as in the city like was
helping like, and the change was effected by an alliance from without assisting
one division of the citizens, so too the young man is changed by a class of
desires coming from without to assist the desires within him, that which is
akin and alike again helping that which is akin and alike?
Certainly.
And if there be any ally which
aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father [560a] or of kindred,
advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an
opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.
It must be so.
And there are times when the
democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires
die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man's
soul and order is restored.
Yes, he said, that sometimes
happens.
And then, again, after the old
desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, [560b] which are akin to
them, and because he, their father, does not know how to educate them, wax
fierce and numerous.
Yes, he said, that is apt to be
the way.
They draw him to his old
associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in
him.
Very true.
At length they seize upon the
citadel of the young man's soul, which they perceive to be void of all
accomplishments and fair pursuits and true words, which make their abode in the
minds of men who are dear to the gods, [560c] and are their best guardians and sentinels.
None better.
False and boastful conceits and
phrases mount upwards and take their place.
They are certain to do so.
And so the young man returns into
the country of the lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of
all men; and if any help be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of
him, the aforesaid vain conceits shut the gate of the king's fastness; [560d] and they will
neither allow the embassy itself to enter, nor if private advisers offer the
fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them or receive them. There is
a battle and they gain the day, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is
ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname
unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that
moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the
help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.
Yes, with a will.
And when they have emptied [560e] and swept clean
the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in
great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and
anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads,
and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet
names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste
magnificence, [561a] and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of
his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the
freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.
Yes, he said, the change in him is
visible enough.
After this he lives on, spending
his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on
necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his
wits, when years have elapsed, [561b] and the heyday of passion is over -- supposing that he then
re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly
give himself up to their successors -- in that case he balances his pleasures
and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the
hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had
enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but
encourages them all equally.
Very true, he said.
Neither does he receive or let
pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him [561c] that some
pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil
desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the
others -- whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that
they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.
Yes, he said; that is the way with
him.
Yes, I said, he lives from day to
day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and
strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; [561d] then he takes a
turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more
living the life of a philosopher; often he is busy with politics, and starts to
his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous
of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of
business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this
distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and [561e] so he goes on.
Yes, he replied, he is all liberty
and equality.
Yes, I said; his life is motley
and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many; -- he answers to the State
which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will
take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of
manners is contained in him.
Just so.
[562a]
Let him then be set over against
democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.
Let that be his place, he said.
36. Despotism and the Despotic
Man
Last of all comes the most
beautiful of all, man and State alike, tyranny and the tyrant; these we have
now to consider.
Quite true, he said.
Say then, my friend, in what
manner does tyranny arise? -- that it has a democratic origin is evident.
Clearly.
And does not tyranny spring from
democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy -- I mean, after a
sort?
[562b]
How?
The good which oligarchy proposed
to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth -- am I
not right?
Yes.
And the insatiable desire of
wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was
also the ruin of oligarchy?
True.
And democracy has her own good, of
which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?
What good?
Freedom, I replied; which, as they
tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State -- [562c] and that therefore
in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
Yes; the saying is in everybody's
mouth.
I was going to observe, that the
insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change
in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.
How so?
When a democracy which is
thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers [562d] presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the
strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a
plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that
they are cursed oligarchs.
Yes, he replied, a very common
occurrence.
Yes, I said; and loyal citizens
are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught;
she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects:
these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private
and public. [562e] Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?
Certainly not.
By degrees the anarchy finds a way
into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.
How do you mean?
I mean that the father grows
accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is
on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his
parents; [563a] and this is his freedom, and metic is equal with the citizen and the
citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.
Yes, he said, that is the way.
And these are not the only evils,
I said -- there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master
fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and
tutors; young [563b] and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level
with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men
condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are lothe
to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of
the young.
Quite true, he said.
The last extreme of popular
liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as
free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and
equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.
[563c]
Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter
the word which rises to our lips?
That is what I am doing, I
replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much
greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have
in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb
says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way
of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will
run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for
them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.
[563d]
When I take a country walk, he
said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same
thing.
And above all, I said, and as the
result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at
the least touch of authority and at length, as you know, they cease to care
even for the laws, written or unwritten; [563e] they will have no one over them.
Yes, he said, I know it too well.
Such, my friend, I said, is the
fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.
Glorious indeed, he said. But what
is the next step?
The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin
of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters
democracy -- the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often
causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in
the seasons [564a] and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms
of government.
True.
The excess of liberty, whether in
States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.
Yes, the natural order.
And so tyranny naturally arises
out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of
the most extreme form of liberty?
As we might expect.
That, however, was not, as I
believe, your question -- you rather desired to know what is that disorder [564b] which is generated
alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?
Just so, he replied.
Well, I said, I meant to refer to
the class of idle spendthrifts, of whom the more courageous are the leaders and
the more timid the followers, the same whom we were comparing to drones, some
stingless, and others having stings.
A very just comparison.
These two classes are the plagues
of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to
the body. [564c] And the good physician and lawgiver of the State ought,
like the wise bee-master, to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible,
their ever coming in; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should
have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible.
Yes, by all means, he said.
Then, in order that we may see
clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it
is, into three classes; for in the first place [564d] freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than
there were in the oligarchical State.
That is true.
And in the democracy they are
certainly more intensified.
How so?
Because in the oligarchical State
they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train
or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling
power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the
bema and [564e] do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in
democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.
Very true, he said.
Then there is another class which
is always being severed from the mass.
What is that?
They are the orderly class, which
in a nation of traders sure to be the richest.
Naturally so.
They are the most squeezable
persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.
Why, he said, there is little to
be squeezed out of people who have little.
And this is called the wealthy
class, and the drones feed upon them.
That is pretty much the case, he
said.
[565a]
The people are a third class,
consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians,
and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most
powerful class in a democracy.
True, he said; but then the
multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.
And do they not share? I said. Do
not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among
the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for
themselves?
Why, yes, he said, to that extent
[565b] the
people do share.
And the persons whose property is
taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they
best can?
What else can they do?
And then, although they may have
no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people
and being friends of oligarchy?
True.
And the end is that when they see
the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they
are deceived [565c] by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they
are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the
sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
That is exactly the truth.
Then come impeachments and
judgments and trials of one another.
True.
The people have always some
champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
Yes, that is their way.
This and no other is [565d] the root from
which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
Yes, that is quite clear.
How then does a protector begin to
change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the
tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.
What tale?
The tale is that he who has tasted
the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other
victims [565e]
is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it?
Oh, yes.
And the protector of the people is
like him; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from
shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he
brings them into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear,
and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizen; [566a] some he kills and
others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and
partition of lands: and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not
either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf --
that is, a tyrant?
Inevitably.
This, I said, is he who begins to
make a party against the rich?
The same.
After a while he is driven out,
but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown.
That is clear.
And if they are unable [566b] to expel him, or
to get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to
assassinate him.
Yes, he said, that is their usual
way.
Then comes the famous request for
a bodyguard, which is the device of all those who have got thus far in their
tyrannical career -- "Let not the people's friend," as they say,
'"be lost to them."
[566c]
Exactly.
The people readily assent; all
their fears are for him -- they have none for themselves.
Very true.
And when a man who is wealthy and
is also accused of being an enemy of the people sees this, then, my friend, as
the oracle said to Croesus,
"By pebbly Hermus' shore he flees
and rests not and is not ashamed to be a coward."
And quite right too, said he, for
if he were, he would never be ashamed again.
But if he is caught he dies.
Of course.
And he, the protector of whom we
spoke, is to be seen, not "larding the plain" with his bulk, but [566d] himself the overthrower
of many, standing up in the chariot of State with the reins in his hand, no
longer protector, but tyrant absolute.
No doubt, he said.
And now let us consider the
happiness of the man, and also of the State in which a creature like him is
generated.
Yes, he said, let us consider
that.
At first, in the early days of his
power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets; -- he to
be called a tyrant, [566e] who is making promises in public and also in private!
liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and
wanting to be so kind and good to every one!
Of course, he said.
But when he has disposed of
foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them,
then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may
require a leader.
To be sure.
[567a]
Has he not also another object,
which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled
to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire
against him?
Clearly.
And if any of them are suspected
by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he
will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of
the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a
war.
He must.
Now [567b] he begins to grow
unpopular.
A necessary result.
Then some of those who joined in
setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one
another, and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.
Yes, that may be expected.
And the tyrant, if he means to
rule, must get rid of them; he cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy
who is good for anything.
He cannot.
And therefore he must look about
him and see [567c] who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is
wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against
them whether he will or no, until he has made a purgation of the State.
Yes, he said, and a rare
purgation.
Yes, I said, not the sort of
purgation which the physicians make of the body; for they take away the worse
and leave the better part, but he does the reverse.
If he is to rule, I suppose that
he cannot help himself.
What a blessed alternative, [567d] I said: -- to be
compelled to dwell only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to
live at all!
Yes, that is the alternative.
And the more detestable his
actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in
them will he require?
Certainly.
And who are the devoted band, and
where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said,
of their own accord, if he pays them.
By the dog! I said, here are more
drones, [567e]
of every sort and from every land.
Yes, he said, there are.
But will he not desire to get them
on the spot?
How do you mean?
He will rob the citizens of their
slaves; he will then set them free and enroll them in his bodyguard.
To be sure, he said; and he will
be able to trust them best of all.
What a blessed creature, I said,
must this tyrant be; he has put to death the others and has these [568a] for his trusted
friends.
Yes, he said; they are quite of
his sort.
Yes, I said, and these are the new
citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his
companions, while the good hate and avoid him.
Of course.
Verily, then, tragedy is a wise
thing and Euripides a great tragedian.
Why so?
Why, because he is the author of
the pregnant saying,
[568b]
"Tyrants are wise by living
with the wise";
and he clearly meant to say that
they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions.
Yes, he said, and he also praises
tyranny as godlike; and many other things of the same kind are said by him and
by the other poets.
And therefore, I said, the tragic
poets being wise men will forgive us and any others who live after our manner
if we do not receive them into our State, because they are the eulogists of
tyranny.
Yes, he said, those who have the
wit [568c]
will doubtless forgive us.
But they will continue to go to
other cities and attract mobs, and hire voices fair and loud and persuasive,
and draw the cities over to tyrannies and democracies.
Very true.
Moreover, they are paid for this
and receive honour -- the greatest honour, as might be expected, from tyrants,
and the next greatest from democracies; but the higher they ascend our
constitution hill, the more their reputation fails, [568d] and seems unable
from shortness of breath to proceed further.
True.
But we are wandering from the
subject: Let us therefore return and enquire how the tyrant will maintain that
fair and numerous and various and ever-changing army of his.
If, he said, there are sacred treasures
in the city, he will confiscate and spend them; and in so far as the fortunes
of attainted persons may suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which
he would otherwise have to impose upon the people.
[568e]
And when these fail?
Why, clearly, he said, then he and
his boon companions, whether male or female, will be maintained out of his
father's estate.
You mean to say that the people,
from whom he has derived his being, will maintain him and his companions?
Yes, he said; they cannot help
themselves.
But what if the people fly into a
passion, and aver that a grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father,
but that the father should be supported by the son? [569a] The father did not
bring him into being, or settle him in life, in order that when his son became
a man he should himself be the servant of his own servants and should support
him and his rabble of slaves and companions; but that his son should protect
him, and that by his help he might be emancipated from the government of the
rich and aristocratic, as they are termed. And so he bids him and his
companions depart, just as any other father might drive out of the house a
riotous son and his undesirable associates.
By heaven, he said, then the
parent will discover [569b] what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom; and,
when he wants to drive him out, he will find that he is weak and his son
strong.
Why, you do not mean to say that
the tyrant will use violence? What! beat his father if he opposes him?
Yes, he will, having first
disarmed him.
Then he is a parricide, and a
cruel guardian of an aged parent; and this is real tyranny, about which there
can be no longer a mistake: as the saying is, the people who would escape the
smoke which is the slavery of freemen, has fallen [569c] into the fire
which is the tyranny of slaves. Thus liberty, getting out of all order and
reason, passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery.
True, he said.
Very well; and may we not rightly
say that we have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny, and the manner
of the transition from democracy to tyranny?
Yes, quite enough, he said.
[571a]
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 [571b] the enquiry 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; every 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; [571c] while in 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
excepting incest [571d] or any other unnatural union, or parricide, 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 enquiries, collecting himself in
meditation; after having first indulged his appetites [571e] neither too much
nor too little, but just enough to lay them to sleep, [572a] and prevent them
and their enjoyments and pains from interfering with the higher principle --
which he leaves in the solitude of pure abstraction, free 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
any one -- 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 [572b] 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. [572c] He was supposed from his youth upwards to have been
trained under a miserly parent, who encouraged the saving appetites in him, but
discountenanced 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 from an abhorrence of his father's
meanness. At last, being a better man than his corruptors; [572d] 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.
Then you must further imagine the
same thing to happen to the son [572e] 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 assist the opposite ones. As soon as these dire magicians and
tyrant-makers find that they are losing their hold on him, they contrive to
implant in him a master passion, to be lord [573a] over his idle and spendthrift 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 dissolute 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 [573b] 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 [573c]
also the spirit of a tyrant?
He has.
And 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? O 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, [573d]
you were to tell me.
I imagine, I said, at the next
step in his progress, that there will be feasts and carousals and revellings
and courtezans, 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 [573e] 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 fain discover whom he can
defraud or despoil of his property, in order that he may gratify them?
[574a]
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, [574b]
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! Adeimantus, on account
of some newfangled love of a harlot, who is anything but a necessary
connection, can you believe that he would strike the mother [574c] 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; or
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, [574d] 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 a 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, [574e] 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. [575a] 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 communications 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 here a picture of his way of life?
Yes, indeed, he said.
And if there are only a few of
them in the State, [575b] 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 the thieves,
burglars, cut-purses, footpads, robbers of temples, man-stealers of the
community; or if they are able to speak they turn informers, and bear false
witness, and take bribes.
[575c]
A small catalogue 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 infatuation of the people, they choose from
among themselves the one who has most of the tyrant in his own soul, [575d] 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.
[575e]
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; [576a] 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 we not rightly call such
men treacherous?
No question.
Also they are utterly unjust, [576b] if we were right
in our notion of justice?
Yes, he said, and we were perfectly right.