Complete Works (230 page)

What are they?

One is the constitution we’ve been describing. And it has two names. If one outstanding man emerges among the rulers, it’s called a kingship; if more than one, it’s called an aristocracy.

That’s true.

Therefore, I say that this is one form of constitution. Whether one man emerges or many, none of the significant laws of the city would be changed, if they followed the upbringing and education we described. [e]

Probably not.

1
. This discussion is announced at 445c, but doesn’t begin until Book VIII.

2
.
Odyssey
i.351–52, slightly altered.

3
. The Hydra was a mythical monster. When one of its heads was cut off, two or three new heads grew in its place. Heracles had to slay the Hydra as one of his labors.

4
. I.e., on the rock in the sanctuary at Delphi, which was believed to be the navel or center of the earth.

5
. The Greek term is
s
ō
phrosun
ē
. It has a very wide meaning: self-control, good sense, reasonableness, temperance, and (in some contexts) chastity. Someone who keeps his head under pressure or temptation possesses
s
ō
phrosun
ē
.

6
. See 368c ff.

7
. See 390d, and note.

8
. See 432c–433b.

Book V

This is the kind of city and constitution, then, that I call good and correct,
[449]
and so too is this kind of man. And if indeed this is the correct kind, all the others—whether as city governments or as organizations of the individual soul—are bad and mistaken. Their badness is of four kinds.

What are they? he said.

I was going to enumerate them and explain how I thought they developed out of one another,
¹
but Polemarchus, who was sitting a little further away than Adeimantus, extended his hand and took hold of the latter’s [b] cloak by the shoulder from above. He drew Adeimantus towards him, while he himself leaned forward and said something to him. We overheard nothing of what he said except the words “Shall we let it go, or what?”

We certainly won’t let it go, Adeimantus said, now speaking aloud.

And I asked: What is it that you won’t let go?

You, he said.

For what reason in particular? [c]

We think that you’re slacking off and that you’ve cheated us out of a whole important section of the discussion in order to avoid having to deal with it. You thought we wouldn’t notice when you said—as though it were something trivial—that, as regards wives and children, anyone could see that the possessions of friends should be held in common.
²
But isn’t that right, Adeimantus?

Yes it is. But this “right,” like the other things we’ve discussed, requires an explanation—in this case, an explanation of the manner in which they are to be held in common, for there may be many ways of doing this. So don’t omit telling us about the particular one you mean. We’ve been [d] waiting for some time, indeed, for you to tell us about the production of children—how they’ll be produced and, once born, how they’ll be brought up—and about the whole subject of having wives and children in common. We think that this makes a considerable difference—indeed all the difference—to whether a constitution is correct or not. So now, since you are beginning to describe another constitution before having adequately discussed these things, we are resolved, as you overheard, not to let you
[450]
off until you explain all this as fully as the rest.

Include me, Glaucon said, as a partner in this resolution.

In fact, Socrates, Thrasymachus added, you can take this as the resolution of all of us.

What a thing you’ve done, I said, in stopping me! What an argument you’ve started up again from the very beginning, as it were, about the constitution! I was delighted to think that it had already been described and was content to have these things accepted as they were stated before. You don’t realize what a swarm of arguments you’ve stirred up by calling [b] me to account now. I saw the swarm and passed the topic by in order to save us a lot of trouble.

Well, said Thrasymachus, are we here to search for gold
³
or to listen to an argument?

The latter, I said, but within reason.

It’s within reason, Socrates, Glaucon said, for people with any understanding to listen to an argument of this kind their whole life long. So don’t mind about us, and don’t get tired yourself. Rather, tell us at length what your thoughts are on the topic we inquired about, namely, what the [c] common possession of wives and children will amount to for the guardians and how the children will be brought up while they’re still small, for the time between birth and the beginning of education seems to be the most difficult period of all. So try to tell us what the manner of this upbringing must be.

It isn’t an easy subject to explain, for it raises even more incredulity than the topics we’ve discussed so far. People may not believe that what we say is possible or that, even if it could be brought about, it would be for the best. It’s for this reason that I hesitated to bring it up, namely, that [d] our argument might seem to be no more than wishful thinking.

Then don’t hesitate, for your audience isn’t inconsiderate, incredulous, or hostile.

Are you trying to encourage me by saying that?

I am.

Well, you’re doing the opposite. Your encouragement would be fine, if I could be sure I was speaking with knowledge, for one can feel both secure and confident when one knows the truth about the dearest and most important things and speaks about them among those who are themselves [e] wise and dear friends. But to speak, as I’m doing, at a time when one is unsure of oneself and searching for the truth, is a frightening and
[451]
insecure thing to do. I’m not afraid of being laughed at—that would be childish indeed. But I am afraid that, if I slip from the truth, just where it’s most important not to, I’ll not only fall myself but drag my friends down as well. So I bow to Adrastea
⁴
for what I’m going to say, for I suspect that it’s a lesser crime to kill someone involuntarily than to mislead people about fine, good, and just institutions. Since it’s better to run this risk among enemies than among friends, you’ve well and truly encouraged me! [b]

Glaucon laughed and said: Well, Socrates, if we suffer from any false note you strike in the argument, we’ll release you and absolve you of any guilt as in a homicide case: your hands are clean, and you have not deceived us. So take courage and speak.

I will, for the law says that someone who kills involuntarily is free of guilt when he’s absolved by the injured party. So it’s surely reasonable to think the same is true in my case as well.

With that as your defense, speak.

Then I’ll have to go back to what should perhaps have been said in [c] sequence, although it may be that this way of doing things is in fact right and that after the completion of the male drama, so to speak, we should then go through the female one—especially as you insist on it so urgently.

For men born and educated as we’ve described there is, in my opinion, no right way to acquire and use women and children other than by following the road on which we started them. We attempted, in the argument, to set up the men as guardians of the herd.

Yes.

Then let’s give them a birth and rearing consistent with that and see [d] whether it suits us or not.

How?

As follows: Do we think that the wives of our guardian watchdogs should guard what the males guard, hunt with them, and do everything else in common with them? Or should we keep the women at home, as incapable of doing this, since they must bear and rear the puppies, while the males work and have the entire care of the flock?

Everything should be in common, except that the females are weaker [e] and the males stronger.

And is it possible to use any animals for the same things if you don’t give them the same upbringing and education?

No, it isn’t.

Therefore, if we use the women for the same things as the men, they must also be taught the same things.

Yes.
[452]

Now, we gave the men music and poetry and physical training.

Yes.

Then we must give these two crafts, as well as those having to do with warfare, to the women also to use in the same way as the men use them.

That seems to follow from what you say.

But perhaps much of what we are saying, since it is contrary to custom, would incite ridicule if it were carried out in practice as we’ve described.

It certainly would.

What is the most ridiculous thing that you see in it? Isn’t it obviously the women exercising naked in the palestras with the men? And not just the young women, but the older ones too—like old men in gymnasiums [b] who, even though their bodies are wrinkled and not pleasant to look at, still love to do physical training.

Yes, that would look really ridiculous as things stand at present.

But surely, now that we’ve started to speak about this, we mustn’t fear the various jokes that wits will make about this kind of change in music and poetry, physical training, and—last but not least—in bearing arms [c] and riding horses.

You’re right.

And now that we’ve begun to speak about this, we must move on to the tougher part of the law, begging these people not to be silly (though that is their own work!) but to take the matter seriously. They should remember that it wasn’t very long ago that the Greeks themselves thought it shameful and ridiculous (as the majority of the barbarians still do) for even men to be seen naked and that when the Cretans and then the Lacedaemonians began the gymnasiums, the wits of those times could [d] also have ridiculed it all. Or don’t you think so?

I do.

But I think that, after it was found in practice to be better to strip than to cover up all those parts, then what was ridiculous to the eyes faded away in the face of what argument showed to be the best. This makes it clear that it’s foolish to think that anything besides the bad is ridiculous or to try to raise a laugh at the sight of anything besides what’s stupid or [e] bad or (putting it the other way around) it’s foolish to take seriously any standard of what is fine and beautiful other than the good.

That’s absolutely certain.

However, mustn’t we first agree about whether our proposals are possible or not? And mustn’t we give to anyone who wishes the opportunity to question us—whether in jest or in earnest—about whether female human
[453]
nature
can
share all the tasks of that of the male, or none of them, or some but not others, and to ask in which class the waging of war belongs? Wouldn’t this, as the best beginning, also be likely to result in the best conclusion?

Of course.

Shall we give the argument against ourselves, then, on behalf of those who share these reservations, so that their side of the question doesn’t fall by default?

[b] There’s no reason not to.

Then let’s say this on their behalf: “Socrates and Glaucon, there’s no need for others to argue with you, for you yourselves, when you began to found your city, agreed that each must do his own work in accordance with his nature.”

And I think we certainly did agree to that.

“Can you deny that a woman is by nature very different from a man?”

Of course not.

“And isn’t it appropriate to assign different work to each in accordance with its nature?”

Certainly. [c]

“How is it, then, that you aren’t mistaken and contradicting yourselves when you say that men and women must do the same things, when their natures are so completely separate and distinct?”

Do you have any defense against that attack?

It isn’t easy to think of one on the spur of the moment, so I’ll ask you to explain the argument on our side as well, whatever it is.

This and many other such things, Glaucon, which I foresaw earlier, were what I was afraid of, so that I hesitated to tackle the law concerning the possession and upbringing of women and children. [d]

By god, it doesn’t seem to be an easy topic.

It isn’t. But the fact is that whether someone falls into a small diving pool or into the middle of the biggest ocean, he must swim all the same.

He certainly must.

Then we must swim too, and try to save ourselves from the sea of argument, hoping that a dolphin will pick us up or that we’ll be rescued by some other desperate means.
⁵

It seems so. [e]

Come, then. Let’s see if we can find a way out. We’ve agreed that different natures must follow different ways of life and that the natures of men and women are different. But now we say that those different natures must follow the same way of life. Isn’t that the accusation brought against us?

That’s it exactly.

Ah! Glaucon, great is the power of the craft of disputation.
[454]

Why is that?

Because many fall into it against their wills. They think they are having not a quarrel but a conversation, because they are unable to examine what has been said by dividing it up according to forms. Hence, they pursue mere verbal contradictions of what has been said and have a quarrel rather than a conversation.

That does happen to lots of people, but it isn’t happening to us at the moment, is it?

It most certainly is, for it looks to me, at any rate, as though we are [b] falling into disputation against our will.

How?

We’re bravely, but in a quarrelsome and merely verbal fashion, pursuing the principle that natures that aren’t the same must follow different ways of life. But when we assigned different ways of life to different natures and the same ones to the same, we didn’t at all examine the form of natural difference and sameness we had in mind or in what regard we were distinguishing them.

No, we didn’t look into that.

[c] Therefore, we might just as well, it seems, ask ourselves whether the natures of bald and long-haired men are the same or opposite. And, when we agree that they are opposite, then, if the bald ones are cobblers, we ought to forbid the long-haired ones to be cobblers, and if the long-haired ones are cobblers, we ought to forbid this to the bald ones.