segment text analysis rephrasing 0 0 "Socrates - GLAUCON I went down yesterday to the Piraeus with Glaucon the son of Ariston,that I might offer up my prayers to the goddess; and also becauseI wanted to see in what manner they would celebrate the festival,which was a new thing. I was delighted with the procession of theinhabitants; but that of the Thracians was equally, if not more, beautiful.When we had finished our prayers and viewed the spectacle, we turnedin the direction of the city; and at that instant Polemarchus theson of Cephalus chanced to catch sight of us from a distance as wewere starting on our way home, and told his servant to run and bidus wait for him. The servant took hold of me by the cloak behind,and said: Polemarchus desires you to wait. I turned round, and asked him where his master was. There he is, said the youth, coming after you, if you will only wait. Certainly we will, said Glaucon; and in a few minutes Polemarchusappeared, and with him Adeimantus, Glaucon's brother, Niceratus theson of Nicias, and several others who had been at the procession. Socrates - POLEMARCHUS - GLAUCON - ADEIMANTUS Polemarchus said to me: I perceive, Socrates, that you and our companionare already on your way to the city. You are not far wrong, I said. But do you see, he rejoined, how many we are? Of course. And are you stronger than all these? for if not, you will have toremain where you are. May there not be the alternative, I said, that we may persuade youto let us go? But can you persuade us, if we refuse to listen to you? he said. Certainly not, replied Glaucon. Then we are not going to listen; of that you may be assured. Adeimantus added: Has no one told you of the torch-race on horsebackin honour of the goddess which will take place in the evening? With horses! I replied: That is a novelty. Will horsemen carry torchesand pass them one to another during the race? Yes, said Polemarchus, and not only so, but a festival will he celebratedat night, which you certainly ought to see. Let us rise soon aftersupper and see this festival; there will be a gathering of young men,and we will have a good talk. Stay then, and do not be perverse. Glaucon said: I suppose, since you insist, that we must. Very good, I replied. Glaucon - CEPHALUS - SOCRATES Accordingly we went with Polemarchus to his house; and there we foundhis brothers Lysias and Euthydemus, and with them Thrasymachus theChalcedonian, Charmantides the Paeanian, and Cleitophon the son ofAristonymus. There too was Cephalus the father of Polemarchus, whomI had not seen for a long time, and I thought him very much aged.He was seated on a cushioned chair, and had a garland on his head,for he had been sacrificing in the court; and there were some otherchairs in the room arranged in a semicircle, upon which we sat downby him. He saluted me eagerly, and then he said: -- You don't come to see me, Socrates, as often as you ought: If I werestill able to go and see you I would not ask you to come to me. Butat my age I can hardly get to the city, and therefore you should comeoftener to the Piraeus. For let me tell you, that the more the pleasuresof the body fade away, the greater to me is the pleasure and charmof conversation. Do not then deny my request, but make our house yourresort and keep company with these young men; we are old friends,and you will be quite at home with us. I replied: There is nothing which for my part I like better, Cephalus,than conversing with aged men; for I regard them as travellers whohave gone a journey which I too may have to go, and of whom I oughtto enquire, whether the way is smooth and easy, or rugged and difficult.And this is a question which I should like to ask of you who havearrived at that time which the poets call the 'threshold of old age'--Is life harder towards the end, or what report do you give of it?" "Summary: Socrates and Glaucon go to the Piraeus to offer prayers and watch a festival. They are approached by Polemarchus, who asks them to wait for him. Polemarchus and his friends invite Socrates and Glaucon to their house, where they engage in conversation with Cephalus about old age and life. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Glaucon, Polemarchus, Adeimantus, Niceratus, Cephalus, Thrasymachus, Charmantides, Cleitophon Fuzzy time: Yesterday, evening Absolute place: A clubhouse in Los Angeles Fuzzy place: The Piraeus, Polemarchus' house Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Socrates and Glaucon went down to the Piraeus yesterday about sunset, and we were watching the festival; and while we were there, an old man met us who said: Polemarchus is detained at home by a sore head; but he bade me ask you to wait for him here, and in the meantime I should tell you what was the reason why we did not come to meet you in town. He said that you must have seen """"the ship which had been set afire."""" We thought so, too,"" said Socrates. But when we had got into the harbor and came near, we saw her lying over on one side quite unharmed, with only a few timbers loose, and men working to mend them."" And now we understand the reason of Polemarchus' detention; for supposing the ship to be burnt up, there would be nothing to detain him at home, as his father is dead; but now he is naturally ashamed to appear out of mourning. Perhaps he may really turn up before long. We will wait a little. Meanwhile we may talk. Tell us, Cephalus, what are your thoughts. Are you thinking of settling here, or what do you intend to do? You will not surely live alone: where are your sons?"" Yes, they are coming; but they are young, and I am considering whether they will be of any use to me. For I am becoming blind and grow every day more helpless."""" Then you will remain here, though this is a sad change for you?"" I suppose that I must remain; the place will be better for me."" Crito said: """"And will you not take a servant, Cephalus, to attend you, so that you can lead your usual life, and take exercise even?"""""" Yes, say they,"" answered Cephalius; ""but I can hardly manage to get about even as far as the agora ; the change is not to be wondered at."" What do you mean, my good friend?"" asked Thrasymachus. ""The change is not to be wondered at, of course, if you are too old to go into the country; but I daresay that you can easily find some one to take the place of your sons, can't you?"""" Certainly,"" said Cephalius; ""there are plenty of attendants whom I can get who will do what I want very cheaply."" Well, but are you not afraid,"" said Cleitophon, ""of hiring one who will run away with all your money after attending you for a month?"" That is just the sort of danger I run,"" replied Cephalius; ""and another thing, too, which is the greatest of risks, that he may steal away my virtue as well."" Then turning to Adeimantus and Niceratus he added: What do you think, gentlemen? " 1 1 "I will tell you, Socrates, he said, what my own feeling is. Men ofmy age flock together; we are birds of a feather, as the old proverbsays; and at our meetings the tale of my acquaintance commonly is--I cannot eat, I cannot drink; the pleasures of youth and love arefled away: there was a good time once, but now that is gone, and lifeis no longer life. Some complain of the slights which are put uponthem by relations, and they will tell you sadly of how many evilstheir old age is the cause. But to me, Socrates, these complainersseem to blame that which is not really in fault. For if old age werethe cause, I too being old, and every other old man, would have feltas they do. But this is not my own experience, nor that of otherswhom I have known. How well I remember the aged poet Sophocles, whenin answer to the question, How does love suit with age, Sophocles,--are you still the man you were? Peace, he replied; most gladly haveI escaped the thing of which you speak; I feel as if I had escapedfrom a mad and furious master. His words have often occurred to mymind since, and they seem as good to me now as at the time when heuttered them. For certainly old age has a great sense of calm andfreedom; when the passions relax their hold, then, as Sophocles says,we are freed from the grasp not of one mad master only, but of many.The truth is, Socrates, that these regrets, and also the complaintsabout relations, are to be attributed to the same cause, which isnot old age, but men's characters and tempers; for he who is of acalm and happy nature will hardly feel the pressure of age, but tohim who is of an opposite disposition youth and age are equally aburden. I listened in admiration, and wanting to draw him out, that he mightgo on --Yes, Cephalus, I said: but I rather suspect that people ingeneral are not convinced by you when you speak thus; they think thatold age sits lightly upon you, not because of your happy disposition,but because you are rich, and wealth is well known to be a great comforter. You are right, he replied; they are not convinced: and there is somethingin what they say; not, however, so much as they imagine. I might answerthem as Themistocles answered the Seriphian who was abusing him andsaying that he was famous, not for his own merits but because he wasan Athenian: 'If you had been a native of my country or I of yours,neither of us would have been famous.' And to those who are not richand are impatient of old age, the same reply may be made; for to thegood poor man old age cannot be a light burden, nor can a bad richman ever have peace with himself. May I ask, Cephalus, whether your fortune was for the most part inheritedor acquired by you? Acquired! Socrates; do you want to know how much I acquired? In theart of making money I have been midway between my father and grandfather:for my grandfather, whose name I bear, doubled and trebled the valueof his patrimony, that which he inherited being much what I possessnow; but my father Lysanias reduced the property below what it isat present: and I shall be satisfied if I leave to these my sons notless but a little more than I received. That was why I asked you the question, I replied, because I see thatyou are indifferent about money, which is a characteristic ratherof those who have inherited their fortunes than of those who haveacquired them; the makers of fortunes have a second love of moneyas a creation of their own, resembling the affection of authors fortheir own poems, or of parents for their children, besides that naturallove of it for the sake of use and profit which is common to themand all men. And hence they are very bad company, for they can talkabout nothing but the praises of wealth. That is true, he said." "Summary: The speaker reflects on the complaints of old age and discusses the impact of character and wealth on one's experience of aging. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Cephalus Language: English" What a fuss old age makes about its own complaints! Not one of them has any real meaning. Old age is the most agreeable of all the ages of life.” “I don’t believe it, Socrates,” said Cephalus. “I’m sure you’re wrong. I’d give anything to be young again, and have none of these aches and pains in my joints. But there’s no chance of that now.” “You’re only making yourself miserable by thinking about it,” said Socrates. “Besides, if you were young again, what could you do? The same as you can now: take care of your property, and make money for your sons. If you’ve got riches, you’re happy; if you haven’t, you’re unhappy. And old men who are rich are always happy. They may not look it, but they are.” “You must admit, though, that their lives are very dreary,” said Cephalus. “There’s nothing to do except play dice and talk politics with each other. No amusement, no pleasure, no friends, no women!” “What do you mean, ‘no friends’?” asked Socrates. “And how about your sons? Aren’t they your friends? And your wife? What about her?” “I was only talking about my personal friends, the people of my own age whom I go about with,” said Cephalus. “You see, Socrates, we’re all bound together by ties of friendship and kinship, but there’s nothing in common between us and the younger generation. We belong to different worlds. I used to be fond of music when I was young, and I enjoyed reading poetry and philosophy. Now I can’t stand either of them. And I couldn’t understand a word that Glaucon and Adeimantus are saying just now. It made me quite uncomfortable. There was no harmony between us at all.” “That’s because you are old, and they are young, and you are rich, and they are poor,” said Socrates. “The whole business of life seems very different from two different points of view. You know that as well as I do. That’s why you are so fond of money, while they are indifferent to it. 2 2 "Yes, that is very true, but may I ask another question? What do youconsider to be the greatest blessing which you have reaped from yourwealth? One, he said, of which I could not expect easily to convince others.For let me tell you, Socrates, that when a man thinks himself to benear death, fears and cares enter into his mind which he never hadbefore; the tales of a world below and the punishment which is exactedthere of deeds done here were once a laughing matter to him, but nowhe is tormented with the thought that they may be true: either fromthe weakness of age, or because he is now drawing nearer to that otherplace, he has a clearer view of these things; suspicions and alarmscrowd thickly upon him, and he begins to reflect and consider whatwrongs he has done to others. And when he finds that the sum of histransgressions is great he will many a time like a child start upin his sleep for fear, and he is filled with dark forebodings. Butto him who is conscious of no sin, sweet hope, as Pindar charminglysays, is the kind nurse of his age: Hope, he says, cherishes the soul of him who lives in justice andholiness and is the nurse of his age and the companion of his journey;--hope which is mightiest to sway the restless soul of man. How admirable are his words! And the great blessing of riches, I donot say to every man, but to a good man, is, that he has had no occasionto deceive or to defraud others, either intentionally or unintentionally;and when he departs to the world below he is not in any apprehensionabout offerings due to the gods or debts which he owes to men. Nowto this peace of mind the possession of wealth greatly contributes;and therefore I say, that, setting one thing against another, of themany advantages which wealth has to give, to a man of sense this isin my opinion the greatest. Well said, Cephalus, I replied; but as concerning justice, what isit? --to speak the truth and to pay your debts --no more than this?And even to this are there not exceptions? Suppose that a friend whenin his right mind has deposited arms with me and he asks for themwhen he is not in his right mind, ought I to give them back to him?No one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so,any more than they would say that I ought always to speak the truthto one who is in his condition. You are quite right, he replied. But then, I said, speaking the truth and paying your debts is nota correct definition of justice. Cephalus - SOCRATES - POLEMARCHUS Quite correct, Socrates, if Simonides is to be believed, said Polemarchusinterposing. I fear, said Cephalus, that I must go now, for I have to look afterthe sacrifices, and I hand over the argument to Polemarchus and thecompany. Is not Polemarchus your heir? I said. To be sure, he answered, and went away laughing to the sacrifices. Socrates - POLEMARCHUS Tell me then, O thou heir of the argument, what did Simonides say,and according to you truly say, about justice? He said that the repayment of a debt is just, and in saying so heappears to me to be right. I should be sorry to doubt the word of such a wise and inspired man,but his meaning, though probably clear to you, is the reverse of clearto me. For he certainly does not mean, as we were now saying thatI ought to return a return a deposit of arms or of anything else toone who asks for it when he is not in his right senses; and yet adeposit cannot be denied to be a debt. True. Then when the person who asks me is not in his right mind I am byno means to make the return? Certainly not. When Simonides said that the repayment of a debt was justice, he didnot mean to include that case? Certainly not; for he thinks that a friend ought always to do goodto a friend and never evil." "Summary: A conversation between Socrates and Cephalus about the blessings of wealth and the nature of justice. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus Quoted character: Simonides Time setting: 1950s Language: English" She didn’t turn her head, but Socrates said in a harsher tone: “Is it then your opinion that wealth is a blessing? For I am told by Simonides that you are very rich.” Cephalus looked at him with an expression of sullen resentment. “If I were not rich,” he said, “I should not be here today; for my wealth has enabled me to live a life of leisure and enjoy the best that money can buy, and so I have had time to learn what is good and bad, and now when the end comes I shall be able to die happily.” He put his hand on Socrates’ shoulder and said softly: “My friend, I give you this advice for your own sake. If you are poor, become rich, if you are rich, hold fast your wealth. Then you will have leisure to do what is just and holy, and so you will live well, and at the end you will die as you deserve to die.” “Well,” said Polemarchus, “he seems to talk sense, and yet I think that Simonides was right after all when he said that it is no easy matter to find a rich man who knows how to use his riches well.” Socrates laughed. “Simonides,” he said, “was a poet and therefore excused for talking nonsense; but Cephalus is a sober, respectable man, and one would have expected better from him. Do you think that he really believes what he said?” “I don’t know,” said Polemarchus. “I expect he does.” “Then we must try to convince him that he is mistaken,” said Socrates. “It’s easy enough to do. Let’s ask him how many blessings there are in being rich.” “Why, surely only one,” said Cephalus. “The power to do whatever you please.” “That doesn’t sound like a very great blessing,” said Socrates. “If you can do anything you like you can also do what you oughtn’t to do, and that is often the beginning of evil. But let us leave that aside, and suppose that you could do nothing wrong, but could always act rightly; would that be a great blessing?” “Certainly,” said Cephalus. “But what about other people? Suppose that while you were living in your palace you were all the time envied and hated by everyone else, because they saw that you were enjoying the blessings which they couldn’t get; would that be a blessing or not?” “I see what you mean,” said Cephalus. “But even that would not make me unhappy; for I should always remember that I was deserving my happiness.” “Do you think that you would be happy if you were alone? Or wouldn’t it be necessary for you to have friends and relatives to share your happiness with?” “Of course,” said Cephalus, “for without them happiness would be impossible.” “And won’t it be hard to find friends if you are always envied and hated? 3 3 "You mean that the return of a deposit of gold which is to the injuryof the receiver, if the two parties are friends, is not the repaymentof a debt, --that is what you would imagine him to say? Yes. And are enemies also to receive what we owe to them? To be sure, he said, they are to receive what we owe them, and anenemy, as I take it, owes to an enemy that which is due or properto him --that is to say, evil. Simonides, then, after the manner of poets, would seem to have spokendarkly of the nature of justice; for he really meant to say that justiceis the giving to each man what is proper to him, and this he termeda debt. That must have been his meaning, he said. By heaven! I replied; and if we asked him what due or proper thingis given by medicine, and to whom, what answer do you think that hewould make to us? He would surely reply that medicine gives drugs and meat and drinkto human bodies. And what due or proper thing is given by cookery, and to what? Seasoning to food. And what is that which justice gives, and to whom? If, Socrates, we are to be guided at all by the analogy of the precedinginstances, then justice is the art which gives good to friends andevil to enemies. That is his meaning then? I think so. And who is best able to do good to his friends and evil to his enemiesin time of sickness? The physician. Or when they are on a voyage, amid the perils of the sea? The pilot. And in what sort of actions or with a view to what result is the justman most able to do harm to his enemy and good to his friends? In going to war against the one and in making alliances with the other. But when a man is well, my dear Polemarchus, there is no need of aphysician? No. And he who is not on a voyage has no need of a pilot? No. Then in time of peace justice will be of no use? I am very far from thinking so. You think that justice may be of use in peace as well as in war? Yes. Like husbandry for the acquisition of corn? Yes. Or like shoemaking for the acquisition of shoes, --that is what youmean? Yes. And what similar use or power of acquisition has justice in time ofpeace? In contracts, Socrates, justice is of use. And by contracts you mean partnerships? Exactly. But is the just man or the skilful player a more useful and betterpartner at a game of draughts? The skilful player. And in the laying of bricks and stones is the just man a more usefulor better partner than the builder? Quite the reverse. Then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partnerthan the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainlya better partner than the just man? In a money partnership. Yes, Polemarchus, but surely not in the use of money; for you do notwant a just man to be your counsellor the purchase or sale of a horse;a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, wouldhe not? Certainly. And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot wouldbe better? True. Then what is that joint use of silver or gold in which the just manis to be preferred? When you want a deposit to be kept safely. You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie? Precisely. That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless? That is the inference. And when you want to keep a pruning-hook safe, then justice is usefulto the individual and to the state; but when you want to use it, thenthe art of the vine-dresser? Clearly. And when you want to keep a shield or a lyre, and not to use them,you would say that justice is useful; but when you want to use them,then the art of the soldier or of the musician? Certainly. And so of all the other things; --justice is useful when they areuseless, and useless when they are useful?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of justice and its role in various situations. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Simonides, Polemarchus, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" “Justice?” he said. “What do you know about justice? You’re no good at justice, you’re no good at anything except your own business, and that’s an accident. I’m a bootmaker and I can’t make boots without hurting my hand. It’s the same with you: you can only think by hurting your brain. So let’s have it.” “Yes,” said Simonides; “let’s have it.” Polemarchus began to speak again. “I don’t suppose there was ever such a thing as justice in the world, but if there was, it was something like this. It’s the art of getting what is fair, and giving what is due. In other words, it’s helping your friends and harming your enemies.” “And who are your friends?” asked Socrates. “Why,” said Polemarchus, “the just men.” “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the just men?” “Why,” said Polemarchus, “the strong men.” “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the strong men?” “The rich men,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the rich men?” “The men who have plenty of money,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who have plenty of money?” “The men who are able to provide for their families and their servants,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are able to provide for their families and their servants?” “The men who have many slaves,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who have many slaves?” “The farmers,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the farmers?” “The landowners,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the landowners?” “The people who have plenty of land,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who have plenty of land?” “The sons of the fathers,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the sons of the fathers?” “The men who were born in the country,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who were born in the country?” “The men who were born from the men who were born in the country,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who were born from the men who were born in the country?” “The Athenians, the Spartans, the Corinthians, the Megarians, and all the other Greeks,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the Greeks?” “The Hellenes,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the Hellenes?” “The Hellenes,” said Polemarchus. “Quite so,” said Socrates. “And who are the Hellenes?” “The Hellenes,” said Polemarchus. “Well, well,” said Socrates. 4 4 "That is the inference. Then justice is not good for much. But let us consider this furtherpoint: Is not he who can best strike a blow in a boxing match or inany kind of fighting best able to ward off a blow? Certainly. And he who is most skilful in preventing or escaping from a diseaseis best able to create one? True. And he is the best guard of a camp who is best able to steal a marchupon the enemy? Certainly. Then he who is a good keeper of anything is also a good thief? That, I suppose, is to be inferred. Then if the just man is good at keeping money, he is good at stealingit. That is implied in the argument. Then after all the just man has turned out to be a thief. And thisis a lesson which I suspect you must have learnt out of Homer; forhe, speaking of Autolycus, the maternal grandfather of Odysseus, whois a favourite of his, affirms that He was excellent above all men in theft and perjury. And so, you andHomer and Simonides are agreed that justice is an art of theft; tobe practised however 'for the good of friends and for the harm ofenemies,' --that was what you were saying? No, certainly not that, though I do not now know what I did say; butI still stand by the latter words. Well, there is another question: By friends and enemies do we meanthose who are so really, or only in seeming? Surely, he said, a man may be expected to love those whom he thinksgood, and to hate those whom he thinks evil. Yes, but do not persons often err about good and evil: many who arenot good seem to be so, and conversely? That is true. Then to them the good will be enemies and the evil will be their friends?True. And in that case they will be right in doing good to the evil andevil to the good? Clearly. But the good are just and would not do an injustice? True. Then according to your argument it is just to injure those who dono wrong? Nay, Socrates; the doctrine is immoral. Then I suppose that we ought to do good to the just and harm to theunjust? I like that better. But see the consequence: --Many a man who is ignorant of human naturehas friends who are bad friends, and in that case he ought to do harmto them; and he has good enemies whom he ought to benefit; but, ifso, we shall be saying the very opposite of that which we affirmedto be the meaning of Simonides. Very true, he said: and I think that we had better correct an errorinto which we seem to have fallen in the use of the words 'friend'and 'enemy.' What was the error, Polemarchus? I asked. We assumed that he is a friend who seems to be or who is thought good. And how is the error to be corrected? We should rather say that he is a friend who is, as well as seems,good; and that he who seems only, and is not good, only seems to beand is not a friend; and of an enemy the same may be said. You would argue that the good are our friends and the bad our enemies? Yes. And instead of saying simply as we did at first, that it is just todo good to our friends and harm to our enemies, we should furthersay: It is just to do good to our friends when they are good and harmto our enemies when they are evil? Yes, that appears to me to be the truth. But ought the just to injure any one at all? Undoubtedly he ought to injure those who are both wicked and his enemies. When horses are injured, are they improved or deteriorated? The latter. Deteriorated, that is to say, in the good qualities of horses, notof dogs? Yes, of horses. And dogs are deteriorated in the good qualities of dogs, and not ofhorses? Of course. And will not men who are injured be deteriorated in that which isthe proper virtue of man?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and whether it leads to theft or harm. It also explores the idea of friendship and enmity. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Active character: Socrates, Polemarchus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "It isn't just that justice leads to theft, but it leads to every kind of harm. If you ask me, the more just a man is, the more likely he is to be robbed and have his throat cut."""" Socrates had gone very pale, but now I saw the blood rush back into his face as though he were afraid someone was going to hit him. """"That's a slanderous thing to say about justice, Polemarchus,"""" he said. """"And if you believe it, you're no better than a thief or a murderer yourself. But let's leave that for the moment. It seems to me that Thrasymachus has a point: a perfectly just man might well find himself in trouble if he sticks to his principles. How do you answer that?"""" You have to understand what justice really means,"" I told him. ""If you are going to do something for somebody, you should do it because you want to, not because they force you to."""" That sounded like sense. """"What's wrong with friendship?"""" I asked. What's wrong with it?"" cried Socrates. ""Nothing at all! Friendship is one of the greatest blessings that life can give us."""" Then why does enmity exist?"" I asked. Why does it exist?"" he repeated. ""Because men are wicked, that's why. Men like Thrasymachus, who would rather be friends with a pack of dogs than human beings. Do you know how much he spends on dog food every week?"""" You could probably feed half a dozen poor families on it."" I laughed. He joined in, but then he stopped and suddenly looked grave again. """"I don't suppose you remember Mr. and Mrs. Tully. They used to live up by the crossroads."""" Of course I remember them. They weren't exactly poor, but they certainly weren't rich either."" And yet Mr. Tully killed himself,"" Socrates said. ""He'd just come out of the pub when I met him. He was wearing a new suit and new shoes and carrying a brand-new umbrella over his arm. He walked into the river and never came out again."""" We stood there for some time in silence, listening to the echo of the wind through the trees. """"Why did you leave Athens?"""" he asked. I shrugged. """"It was time to move on."""" Just like your father before you,"" he said quietly. ""His name was Darius, wasn't it? A fine-looking man. I remember him well."""" Yes,"" I said. I had wondered when he would mention my father. He had been a good friend to Socrates and sometimes I thought that Socrates still missed him. The truth was that I missed him too, but I couldn't show it. Socrates began to pace up and down the room. """"You know, there's nothing we can do about the past,"""" he said. """"All we can do is try to make the present a little more bearable. " 5 5 "Certainly. And that human virtue is justice? To be sure. Then men who are injured are of necessity made unjust? That is the result. But can the musician by his art make men unmusical? Certainly not. Or the horseman by his art make them bad horsemen? Impossible. And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking general canthe good by virtue make them bad? Assuredly not. Any more than heat can produce cold? It cannot. Or drought moisture? Clearly not. Nor can the good harm any one? Impossible. And the just is the good? Certainly. Then to injure a friend or any one else is not the act of a just man,but of the opposite, who is the unjust? I think that what you say is quite true, Socrates. Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts,and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evilthe debt which he owes to his enemies, --to say this is not wise;for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring ofanother can be in no case just. I agree with you, said Polemarchus. Then you and I are prepared to take up arms against any one who attributessuch a saying to Simonides or Bias or Pittacus, or any other wiseman or seer? I am quite ready to do battle at your side, he said. Shall I tell you whose I believe the saying to be? Whose? I believe that Periander or Perdiccas or Xerxes or Ismenias the Theban,or some other rich and mighty man, who had a great opinion of hisown power, was the first to say that justice is 'doing good to yourfriends and harm to your enemies.' Most true, he said. Yes, I said; but if this definition of justice also breaks down, whatother can be offered? Several times in the course of the discussion Thrasymachus had madean attempt to get the argument into his own hands, and had been putdown by the rest of the company, who wanted to hear the end. But whenPolemarchus and I had done speaking and there was a pause, he couldno longer hold his peace; and, gathering himself up, he came at uslike a wild beast, seeking to devour us. We were quite panic-strickenat the sight of him. Socrates - POLEMARCHUS - THRASYMACHUS He roared out to the whole company: What folly. Socrates, has takenpossession of you all? And why, sillybillies, do you knock under toone another? I say that if you want really to know what justice is,you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honourto yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your ownanswer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. Andnow I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profitor gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me;I must have clearness and accuracy. I was panic-stricken at his words, and could not look at him withouttrembling. Indeed I believe that if I had not fixed my eye upon him,I should have been struck dumb: but when I saw his fury rising, Ilooked at him first, and was therefore able to reply to him. Thrasymachus, I said, with a quiver, don't be hard upon us. Polemarchusand I may have been guilty of a little mistake in the argument, butI can assure you that the error was not intentional. If we were seekingfor a piece of gold, you would not imagine that we were 'knockingunder to one another,' and so losing our chance of finding it. Andwhy, when we are seeking for justice, a thing more precious than manypieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one anotherand not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend,we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that wecannot. And if so, you people who know all things should pity us andnot be angry with us. How characteristic of Socrates! he replied, with a bitter laugh; --that'syour ironical style! Did I not foresee --have I not already told you,that whatever he was asked he would refuse to answer, and try ironyor any other shuffle, in order that he might avoid answering?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and whether it is possible for the just to harm others. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus Quoted work: Simonides, Bias, Pittacus Language: English" But I have nothing to say in answer to this ; and therefore, if you like, we will leave the question to be settled hereafter. C. But now let us consider justice and injustice, which are the subjects of our discussion : suppose that a number of men who have been educated like pigs or goats would be just, not in the form of justice which the Just man possesses, but in the nature of sincerity, as the innocent animal carries about with him an utter want of art or deception — in this way they would be just and be called so by those who conversed with them — would they not, Socrates ? A. Yes. C. And would they think that there was anything unjust in themselves ? A. No. C. Then they would not say that justice is the virtue of the soul, but that it has some other nature, for they could not say that even about themselves ; and therefore I think that neither would Simonides nor any other man at all who believed that a man without virtue may yet be just. A. You are right. C. And those who say that justice is the virtue of the soul do not mean to affirm that all souls are just ? A. Certainly not. C. Speak more clearly ; is there one sort of life in which justice may be found, and another sort of life in which she may not ? A. What do you mean ? C. I mean to say that there is the true artist, and there is the mere mechanic, and that the latter is artless. A. Of course. C. Well then, speaking generally, do not both the mechanic and the artist work in the same things ? A. Very often. C. And are both of them skilful ? A. Certainly. C. And does not the artist make his work well, and the mechanic work well? A. To be sure. C. And is not the work of both alike useful ? A. How can that be, when the maker of the stone image is useful, and the maker of the likeness is delightful ? A. And do you think that the work of the painter ought to be esteemed of less value than that of the maker of the image ? A. Why, how could that be, when there is a much greater difference between the two works than between the image and the original ? C. Then, as I said before, you think that the work of the maker of the painting is of as much value as that of the maker of the statue ? A. Certainly. C. And do you think that the work of the physician is useful, and that of the pilot safe ? A. I do. C. And that both are honourable employments ? A. Yes. C. And do you think that the guardian spirit within the man who is skilled in medicine prescribes no duty to him in respect of health ? A. Certainly he does. C. And what is the duty which he prescribes ? A. That he should give health to the sick. C. And what is that which the pilot should obtain from his guardian spirit, and which he should preserve in his own life ? 6 6 "You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus, I replied, and well know thatif you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibithim whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, orsix times two, or four times three, 'for this sort of nonsense willnot do for me,' --then obviously, that is your way of putting thequestion, no one can answer you. But suppose that he were to retort,'Thrasymachus, what do you mean? If one of these numbers which youinterdict be the true answer to the question, am I falsely to saysome other number which is not the right one? --is that your meaning?'-How would you answer him? Just as if the two cases were at all alike! he said. Why should they not be? I replied; and even if they are not, but onlyappear to be so to the person who is asked, ought he not to say whathe thinks, whether you and I forbid him or not? I presume then that you are going to make one of the interdicted answers? I dare say that I may, notwithstanding the danger, if upon reflectionI approve of any of them. But what if I give you an answer about justice other and better, hesaid, than any of these? What do you deserve to have done to you? Done to me! --as becomes the ignorant, I must learn from the wise--that is what I deserve to have done to me. What, and no payment! a pleasant notion! I will pay when I have the money, I replied. Socrates - THRASYMACHUS - GLAUCON But you have, Socrates, said Glaucon: and you, Thrasymachus, needbe under no anxiety about money, for we will all make a contributionfor Socrates. Yes, he replied, and then Socrates will do as he always does --refuseto answer himself, but take and pull to pieces the answer of someone else. Why, my good friend, I said, how can any one answer who knows, andsays that he knows, just nothing; and who, even if he has some faintnotions of his own, is told by a man of authority not to utter them?The natural thing is, that the speaker should be some one like yourselfwho professes to know and can tell what he knows. Will you then kindlyanswer, for the edification of the company and of myself ? Glaucon and the rest of the company joined in my request and Thrasymachus,as any one might see, was in reality eager to speak; for he thoughtthat he had an excellent answer, and would distinguish himself. Butat first he to insist on my answering; at length he consented to begin.Behold, he said, the wisdom of Socrates; he refuses to teach himself,and goes about learning of others, to whom he never even says thankyou. That I learn of others, I replied, is quite true; but that I am ungratefulI wholly deny. Money I have none, and therefore I pay in praise, whichis all I have: and how ready I am to praise any one who appears tome to speak well you will very soon find out when you answer; forI expect that you will answer well. Listen, then, he said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else thanthe interest of the stronger. And now why do you not me? But of courseyou won't. Let me first understand you, I replied. justice, as you say, is theinterest of the stronger. What, Thrasymachus, is the meaning of this?You cannot mean to say that because Polydamas, the pancratiast, isstronger than we are, and finds the eating of beef conducive to hisbodily strength, that to eat beef is therefore equally for our goodwho are weaker than he is, and right and just for us? That's abominable of you, Socrates; you take the words in the sensewhich is most damaging to the argument. Not at all, my good sir, I said; I am trying to understand them; andI wish that you would be a little clearer. Well, he said, have you never heard that forms of government differ;there are tyrannies, and there are democracies, and there are aristocracies?" "Summary: The protagonist is engaged in a conversation with Thrasymachus about the nature of justice. Narrative arc: Tension and conflict between the two characters Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Thrasymachus Language: English" Socrates: You were saying, Thrasymachus, that justice is the interest of the stronger?” Thrasymachus (biting his lip): “Yes, I did say that.” Socrates: And when you said this, did you mean that the stronger may be the multitude or the individual?” Thrasymachus: I meant the individual. Socrates: Did you further mean by the interest of the stronger, the interest of the stronger in wealth, or in anything else?” Thrasymachus: In honour and power, which seem to me to be the two great prizes of life. Socrates: You are saying, as we might say, that justice is the health of the state?” Thrasymachus: Yes, I should say so. Socrates: And the soul of man is akin to the health of the state?” Thrasymachus: An apt image. Socrates: And the just man would be like the just state?” Thrasymachus: Very much so. Socrates: And the unjust man would be like the unhealthy state?” Thrasymachus: That again is an apt image.” Socrates: Then now let us consider the nature of illness, whether in man or in the state. Is not illness the privation of some part of the body or of the whole body?” Thrasymachus: Yes. Socrates: And a privation is a defect nothing more? ” Certainly. Socrates: But surely a mere defect or deprivation cannot be an evil; for suppose that the defect or deprivation is of that which is itself an evil; in this case the absence of the evil will be good, and no longer a defect?” Thrasymachus: Clearly not. Socrates: And if again, the defect or deprivation is of what is neither good nor evil, clearly the loss of it will not be either good or evil? ” Of course. Socrates: And now consider another point:—Is not health better than illness?” Certainly. Socrates: And is not the best of each kind always most satisfactory on the whole? ” Yes. Socrates: And therefore the best of the body is fair and good? ” Certainly. Socrates: But the worst of the body is ugly and bad? ” Exactly. Socrates: And is not ill-health bad, and the want of beauty the greatest form of ill-health? ” Yes. Socrates: Then ugliness implies greatness of ill-health?” True. Socrates: But is not sickness merely the lack of health, or rather an excess of illness?” Yes. Socrates: And therefore sickness is the greatest form of illness?” How do you mean? Socrates: Why, because it is the most objectionable and miserable form. For, in my opinion, the greater any evil is when fully attained, the greater also is the misery. 7 7 "Yes, I know. And the government is the ruling power in each state? Certainly. And the different forms of government make laws democratical, aristocratical,tyrannical, with a view to their several interests; and these laws,which are made by them for their own interests, are the justice whichthey deliver to their subjects, and him who transgresses them theypunish as a breaker of the law, and unjust. And that is what I meanwhen I say that in all states there is the same principle of justice,which is the interest of the government; and as the government mustbe supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is, thateverywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interestof the stronger. Now I understand you, I said; and whether you are right or not I willtry to discover. But let me remark, that in defining justice you haveyourself used the word 'interest' which you forbade me to use. Itis true, however, that in your definition the words 'of the stronger'are added. A small addition, you must allow, he said. Great or small, never mind about that: we must first enquire whetherwhat you are saying is the truth. Now we are both agreed that justiceis interest of some sort, but you go on to say 'of the stronger';about this addition I am not so sure, and must therefore considerfurther. Proceed. I will; and first tell me, Do you admit that it is just or subjectsto obey their rulers? I do. But are the rulers of states absolutely infallible, or are they sometimesliable to err? To be sure, he replied, they are liable to err. Then in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly, andsometimes not? True. When they make them rightly, they make them agreeably to their interest;when they are mistaken, contrary to their interest; you admit that? Yes. And the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects, --andthat is what you call justice? Doubtless. Then justice, according to your argument, is not only obedience tothe interest of the stronger but the reverse? What is that you are saying? he asked. I am only repeating what you are saying, I believe. But let us consider:Have we not admitted that the rulers may be mistaken about their owninterest in what they command, and also that to obey them is justice?Has not that been admitted? Yes. Then you must also have acknowledged justice not to be for the interestof the stronger, when the rulers unintentionally command things tobe done which are to their own injury. For if, as you say, justiceis the obedience which the subject renders to their commands, in thatcase, O wisest of men, is there any escape from the conclusion thatthe weaker are commanded to do, not what is for the interest, butwhat is for the injury of the stronger? Nothing can be clearer, Socrates, said Polemarchus. Socrates - CLEITOPHON - POLEMARCHUS - THRASYMACHUS Yes, said Cleitophon, interposing, if you are allowed to be his witness. But there is no need of any witness, said Polemarchus, for Thrasymachushimself acknowledges that rulers may sometimes command what is notfor their own interest, and that for subjects to obey them is justice. Yes, Polemarchus, --Thrasymachus said that for subjects to do whatwas commanded by their rulers is just. Yes, Cleitophon, but he also said that justice is the interest ofthe stronger, and, while admitting both these propositions, he furtheracknowledged that the stronger may command the weaker who are hissubjects to do what is not for his own interest; whence follows thatjustice is the injury quite as much as the interest of the stronger. But, said Cleitophon, he meant by the interest of the stronger whatthe stronger thought to be his interest, --this was what the weakerhad to do; and this was affirmed by him to be justice. Those were not his words, rejoined Polemarchus. Socrates - THRASYMACHUS Never mind, I replied, if he now says that they are, let us accepthis statement. Tell me, Thrasymachus, I said, did you mean by justicewhat the stronger thought to be his interest, whether really so ornot? Certainly not, he said. Do you suppose that I call him who is mistakenthe stronger at the time when he is mistaken?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and whether it is in the interest of the stronger or not. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Cleitophon, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus Language: English" "And yet, Socrates,' he said, 'this question which you ask is not a fair one; the strong do not always come off best in war: and if they do, what does that prove? In the first place, a better general may be defeated by a worse or by natural causes; or even if he may not be defeated, his victory may be only gained with difficulty, and after losing many of his own soldiers, while he puts to death great numbers of his enemies. Was this worth while?'"" No,"" I replied; ""but they say that justice is useful, and I think that when you speak of her as being concerned with the advantage of the stronger, you mean to imply that she is useful."" The word 'useful' (sumphereton) has a very contemptible meaning, Socrates,"" he replied, for we are constantly speaking of things as useful, though all that we mean is that they are useful for some definite purpose. Men's ordinary way of speaking makes, as you might imagine, no great distinction about words; at least, I find myself in the habit of saying just as other people do: but then I wonder whether anyone besides myself ever reflects how much people in general in their way of speaking slander the ideas which they confess that they do not understand."" But were justice and injustice like to be found in a state of which either was useful but the other hurtful?"" To be consistent, he said, we must take the utilitarian definition of useful. If therefore good for some individual to get a certain power or privilege which may be conferred on him by calling one name or another, and not good for any other individual or for the colony of states as a whole, would that name then be just and would the person who had that name be just, on your principle?"" Yes,"" I said, ""that will be an insight of justice."" Then justice, according to your argument, will be that virtue which is most likely to make a man obey his rulers; whereas injustice will be the virtue which, when possessed by the subjects, will make them run away with the government, so that they may get to be rulers where before they were ruled and may have their revenge upon those who used to rule them?"" True,"" I said. Then now let us consider the contrary vice, oligarchy, in relation to democracy; is not that a form of government in which the poor have more power than the rich, that is to say, in which there is a democracy?"""" Certainly."" And the rich are displeased? Very true."" Then according to your argument, oligarchy is unjust and democracy is just."""" Nay, Thrasymachus,"" I said, ""I do not agree with you; but I rather think that both of them are just, or neither of them; for I do not believe that there is any truth in what you say."" " 8 8 "Yes, I said, my impression was that you did so, when you admittedthat the ruler was not infallible but might be sometimes mistaken. You argue like an informer, Socrates. Do you mean, for example, thathe who is mistaken about the sick is a physician in that he is mistaken?or that he who errs in arithmetic or grammar is an arithmetician orgrammarian at the me when he is making the mistake, in respect ofthe mistake? True, we say that the physician or arithmetician or grammarianhas made a mistake, but this is only a way of speaking; for the factis that neither the grammarian nor any other person of skill evermakes a mistake in so far as he is what his name implies; they noneof them err unless their skill fails them, and then they cease tobe skilled artists. No artist or sage or ruler errs at the time whenhe is what his name implies; though he is commonly said to err, andI adopted the common mode of speaking. But to be perfectly accurate,since you are such a lover of accuracy, we should say that the ruler,in so far as he is the ruler, is unerring, and, being unerring, alwayscommands that which is for his own interest; and the subject is requiredto execute his commands; and therefore, as I said at first and nowrepeat, justice is the interest of the stronger. Indeed, Thrasymachus, and do I really appear to you to argue likean informer? Certainly, he replied. And you suppose that I ask these questions with any design of injuringyou in the argument? Nay, he replied, 'suppose' is not the word --I know it; but you willbe found out, and by sheer force of argument you will never prevail. I shall not make the attempt, my dear man; but to avoid any misunderstandingoccurring between us in future, let me ask, in what sense do you speakof a ruler or stronger whose interest, as you were saying, he beingthe superior, it is just that the inferior should execute --is hea ruler in the popular or in the strict sense of the term? In the strictest of all senses, he said. And now cheat and play theinformer if you can; I ask no quarter at your hands. But you neverwill be able, never. And do you imagine, I said, that I am such a madman as to try andcheat, Thrasymachus? I might as well shave a lion. Why, he said, you made the attempt a minute ago, and you failed. Enough, I said, of these civilities. It will be better that I shouldask you a question: Is the physician, taken in that strict sense ofwhich you are speaking, a healer of the sick or a maker of money?And remember that I am now speaking of the true physician. A healer of the sick, he replied. And the pilot --that is to say, the true pilot --is he a captain ofsailors or a mere sailor? A captain of sailors. The circumstance that he sails in the ship is not to be taken intoaccount; neither is he to be called a sailor; the name pilot by whichhe is distinguished has nothing to do with sailing, but is significantof his skill and of his authority over the sailors. Very true, he said. Now, I said, every art has an interest? Certainly. For which the art has to consider and provide? Yes, that is the aim of art. And the interest of any art is the perfection of it --this and nothingelse? What do you mean? I mean what I may illustrate negatively by the example of the body.Suppose you were to ask me whether the body is self-sufficing or haswants, I should reply: Certainly the body has wants; for the bodymay be ill and require to be cured, and has therefore interests towhich the art of medicine ministers; and this is the origin and intentionof medicine, as you will acknowledge. Am I not right?" "Summary: The speaker is having a conversation about rulers, physicians, and pilots. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "'Come off it,' said Socrates. 'The best rulers are the wisest, aren't they?' And Thrasymachus said: 'You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.' That's what he said. It was like this. The rich and powerful men who owned the ships wanted to make as much money as possible. They didn't give a damn about their crews, or anyone else except themselves, so long as they were fed and watered and worked hard. They didn't want them killed or crippled, though; not because they gave a damn about them, but because if you kill or cripple your slaves you have to pay more for new ones. So they paid pilots to look after the sailors, and they paid doctors to look after them when they were sick or injured. And they paid the doctors very well, and the doctors always had plenty of customers because the sailors got sick or hurt very often, especially in bad weather or when there was trouble with pirates or the soldiers of other cities. Well, they needed good doctors and pilots to keep them alive, because that way they made more money. But they didn't trust the doctors or the pilots any more than they trusted the sailors. If the doctors got greedy and killed more of them than they should, or if the pilots let them be captured by pirates or the soldiers of another city, then they'd lose money. So they hired accountants to watch over the doctors and pilots. They didn't trust the accountants any more than they trusted the doctors and pilots, because the accountants might use their position to cheat the owners out of money, or even steal it outright. So the owners got more accountants to watch the first lot. Now these second accountants watched over everything the first lot did and checked their accounts every day. If they found that one of the first lot had spent too much on drugs or medicine, or that a pilot had lost a ship through his own stupidity or treachery, then the second accountant would get rid of him and make sure he never worked for another owner. And he'd take half the savings away from the first accountant and add it to his own wage. As a result, all three types of employees tried their hardest to keep the sailors safe and healthy. Doctors wanted to save lives, pilots wanted to bring home their ships safely, and accountants wanted to prove that they were doing a good job. And when they did save lives or make money, they got extra wages, and if they saved a lot of lives or made a lot of money they became famous and got even more wages. In fact, the more sailors they looked after, the more important they became. If they looked after twenty sailors, then they could afford to buy a slave or two of their own, and if they looked after fifty they could afford to marry a free woman and set her up in style. And if they looked after lots and lots of sailors they could become wealthy enough to own their own ships and hire their own doctors and accountants."""" " 9 9 "Quite right, he replied. But is the art of medicine or any other art faulty or deficient inany quality in the same way that the eye may be deficient in sightor the ear fail of hearing, and therefore requires another art toprovide for the interests of seeing and hearing --has art in itself,I say, any similar liability to fault or defect, and does every artrequire another supplementary art to provide for its interests, andthat another and another without end? Or have the arts to look onlyafter their own interests? Or have they no need either of themselvesor of another? --having no faults or defects, they have no need tocorrect them, either by the exercise of their own art or of any other;they have only to consider the interest of their subject-matter. Forevery art remains pure and faultless while remaining true --that isto say, while perfect and unimpaired. Take the words in your precisesense, and tell me whether I am not right."" Yes, clearly. Then medicine does not consider the interest of medicine, but theinterest of the body? True, he said. Nor does the art of horsemanship consider the interests of the artof horsemanship, but the interests of the horse; neither do any otherarts care for themselves, for they have no needs; they care only forthat which is the subject of their art? True, he said. But surely, Thrasymachus, the arts are the superiors and rulers oftheir own subjects? To this he assented with a good deal of reluctance. Then, I said, no science or art considers or enjoins the interestof the stronger or superior, but only the interest of the subjectand weaker? He made an attempt to contest this proposition also, but finally acquiesced. Then, I continued, no physician, in so far as he is a physician, considershis own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient; forthe true physician is also a ruler having the human body as a subject,and is not a mere money-maker; that has been admitted? Yes. And the pilot likewise, in the strict sense of the term, is a rulerof sailors and not a mere sailor? That has been admitted. And such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interestof the sailor who is under him, and not for his own or the ruler'sinterest? He gave a reluctant 'Yes.' Then, I said, Thrasymachus, there is no one in any rule who, in sofar as he is a ruler, considers or enjoins what is for his own interest,but always what is for the interest of his subject or suitable tohis art; to that he looks, and that alone he considers in everythingwhich he says and does. When we had got to this point in the argument, and every one saw thatthe definition of justice had been completely upset, Thrasymachus,instead of replying to me, said: Tell me, Socrates, have you got anurse? Why do you ask such a question, I said, when you ought rather to beanswering? Because she leaves you to snivel, and never wipes your nose: she hasnot even taught you to know the shepherd from the sheep." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of art and its relationship to its subject matter. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Thrasymachus Language: English" Art is a lie that makes us realize truth. 21 A painter should paint not what he has in his mind, but what is in his heart.”—Pablo Picasso If you want to know about art, just look at people. What they eat, how they talk, the way they walk. I might make a picture about eating spaghetti. An ordinary meal. But after I’ve done it you’ll never look at eating spaghetti the same way again.”—Edward Hopper Art is either plagiarism or revolution.”—Paul Gauguin The only thing I know is that I paint because I need to, and I paint what I paint because I need to.”—Jackson Pollock If a work of art is worth seeing, then it is worth stealing.”—John Ruskin There are painters who transform the sun to a yellow spot, but there are others who, thanks to their art and intelligence, transform a yellow spot into sun.”—Pablo Picasso ART AND LIFE Life and art have nothing to do with each other. One is for the living, the other for the dead. —T. S. Eliot To be an artist is to fail, as no other dare fail, That one fail often, in order to succeed. —D. H. Lawrence Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known. —Oscar Wilde The chief enemy of creativity is “good” sense.” —Gilbert Keith Chesterton The artist must bow to the monster of his own imagination. —James Baldwin An artist is a dreamer consenting to dream of the entire human race. —George Bernard Shaw Every artist was first an amateur.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson I am a savage. I like warm climates, bananas, oranges, figs, dates, olives, grapefruit; I like islands, jungles, big rivers, small rivers, little rivulets, the sea, the sound of water, the smell of wood smoke, the taste of strong coffee, early mornings, cold beer, long shadows of trees, palm trees, bread fruit trees, mangoes, guavas, fried plantains, rice and beans, roast pork, arroz con pollo, good food, bad food, too much food, plain food, simple food, native food, raw fish, boiled fish, fried fish, pickled fish, old women, young women, tall women, fat women, thin women, black women, white women, brown women, yellow women, red women, wild women, tame women, happy women, sad women, friendly women, hostile women, married women, unmarried women, willing women, unwilling women, dead women, naked women . . .”—Ernest Hemingway I’ve been through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.” —Mark Twain In youth, it was a way I had, To do my best to please me: And all because I wanted prizes, Groped inward, sang a foolish song, And dreamed a passing fancy; Till I went away, and found I’d missed The shining mirror, glad at last Of my delivered face. In age, it’s much the same to me; I say instead of ‘measures,’ ‘prizes.’ 10 10 "What makes you say that? I replied. Because you fancy that the shepherd or neatherd fattens of tends thesheep or oxen with a view to their own good and not to the good ofhimself or his master; and you further imagine that the rulers ofstates, if they are true rulers, never think of their subjects assheep, and that they are not studying their own advantage day andnight. Oh, no; and so entirely astray are you in your ideas aboutthe just and unjust as not even to know that justice and the justare in reality another's good; that is to say, the interest of theruler and stronger, and the loss of the subject and servant; and injusticethe opposite; for the unjust is lord over the truly simple and just:he is the stronger, and his subjects do what is for his interest,and minister to his happiness, which is very far from being theirown. Consider further, most foolish Socrates, that the just is alwaysa loser in comparison with the unjust. First of all, in private contracts:wherever the unjust is the partner of the just you will find that,when the partnership is dissolved, the unjust man has always moreand the just less. Secondly, in their dealings with the State: whenthere is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjustless on the same amount of income; and when there is anything to bereceived the one gains nothing and the other much. Observe also whathappens when they take an office; there is the just man neglectinghis affairs and perhaps suffering other losses, and getting nothingout of the public, because he is just; moreover he is hated by hisfriends and acquaintance for refusing to serve them in unlawful ways.But all this is reversed in the case of the unjust man. I am speaking,as before, of injustice on a large scale in which the advantage ofthe unjust is more apparent; and my meaning will be most clearly seenif we turn to that highest form of injustice in which the criminalis the happiest of men, and the sufferers or those who refuse to doinjustice are the most miserable --that is to say tyranny, which byfraud and force takes away the property of others, not little by littlebut wholesale; comprehending in one, things sacred as well as profane,private and public; for which acts of wrong, if he were detected perpetratingany one of them singly, he would be punished and incur great disgrace--they who do such wrong in particular cases are called robbers oftemples, and man-stealers and burglars and swindlers and thieves.But when a man besides taking away the money of the citizens has madeslaves of them, then, instead of these names of reproach, he is termedhappy and blessed, not only by the citizens but by all who hear ofhis having achieved the consummation of injustice. For mankind censureinjustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not becausethey shrink from committing it. And thus, as I have shown, Socrates,injustice, when on a sufficient scale, has more strength and freedomand mastery than justice; and, as I said at first, justice is theinterest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man's own profitand interest. Thrasymachus, when he had thus spoken, having, like a bathman, delugedour ears with his words, had a mind to go away. But the company wouldnot let him; they insisted that he should remain and defend his position;and I myself added my own humble request that he would not leave us.Thrasymachus, I said to him, excellent man, how suggestive are yourremarks! And are you going to run away before you have fairly taughtor learned whether they are true or not? Is the attempt to determinethe way of man's life so small a matter in your eyes --to determinehow life may be passed by each one of us to the greatest advantage? And do I differ from you, he said, as to the importance of the enquiry? You appear rather, I replied, to have no care or thought about us,Thrasymachus --whether we live better or worse from not knowing whatyou say you know, is to you a matter of indifference. Prithee, friend,do not keep your knowledge to yourself; we are a large party; andany benefit which you confer upon us will be amply rewarded. For myown part I openly declare that I am not convinced, and that I do notbelieve injustice to be more gainful than justice, even if uncontrolledand allowed to have free play. For, granting that there may be anunjust man who is able to commit injustice either by fraud or force,still this does not convince me of the superior advantage of injustice,and there may be others who are in the same predicament with myself.Perhaps we may be wrong; if so, you in your wisdom should convinceus that we are mistaken in preferring justice to injustice. And how am I to convince you, he said, if you are not already convincedby what I have just said; what more can I do for you? Would you haveme put the proof bodily into your souls?" "Summary: The speaker expresses their belief that rulers and the powerful benefit from injustice while the weak suffer, leading to a conversation about the nature of justice and injustice. Narrative arc: Philosophical debate Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Speaker, Thrasymachus Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" The just man, then, I say, will be in every way inferior to the unjust, first and chiefly in the possession of power ; for the one, having justice and courage on his side, and believing that injustice is a disgrace and dishonour to him, never lies in wait for any opportunity of doing injustice ; but when a chance arrives he leaves the matter to fate and luck ; and when he does anything unjust, he does so unwillingly, under compulsion, and as far as possible only with his hands and feet, though he would rather not use even these instruments, but if possible would do nothing at all by them ; whereas the unjust man is always plotting something unjust, and he will go anywhere in order to accomplish it. The just man has also trouble in keeping away from honour and office, where he may be seen and judged by others ; for he has to live unknown and unregarded, like a private person, hiding his life, and at last, when he is dying, still unseen by any one who knows the right or the wrong of it, he departs this life, whether in obedience to the law, or in flight from judgment ; he has to live a life of silliness and inaction, or, if anyone drives him into political life, he either has to wander about unceasingly, ever changing his place of abode, because he dares not remain in one place, or, if he attempts to remain, he is tortured sevenfold at being known, and thus he is driven out of society. And in public offices, which are a necessity, he takes part, if he may, as if he were hiding himself, and holding by the heels, and not by the head ; for he knows that wherever he is he has to be like a runaway slave who is only in a state of grace because he has not yet been caught. But the unjust man, on the contrary, being a false imitator of God, is always becoming visible, always getting great office, and when in office, he does what is just and not just, acting always in the belief that whatever he touches he turns to a god. Having such fearful ambitions he is compelled to run after wealth with greedy eyes, and to make trial of every means of satisfying his desire, and to keep on looking to the future, and to run across other men s minds and lives, and to stop at nothing, till he has wholly submerged his own goodness in those of others, like a pilot who is steering a vessel, and who lets his rudder go, and giving up his art falls overboard and is lost. 11 11 "Heaven forbid! I said; I would only ask you to be consistent; or,if you change, change openly and let there be no deception. For Imust remark, Thrasymachus, if you will recall what was previouslysaid, that although you began by defining the true physician in anexact sense, you did not observe a like exactness when speaking ofthe shepherd; you thought that the shepherd as a shepherd tends thesheep not with a view to their own good, but like a mere diner orbanqueter with a view to the pleasures of the table; or, again, asa trader for sale in the market, and not as a shepherd. Yet surelythe art of the shepherd is concerned only with the good of his subjects;he has only to provide the best for them, since the perfection ofthe art is already ensured whenever all the requirements of it aresatisfied. And that was what I was saying just now about the ruler.I conceived that the art of the ruler, considered as ruler, whetherin a state or in private life, could only regard the good of his flockor subjects; whereas you seem to think that the rulers in states,that is to say, the true rulers, like being in authority. Think! Nay, I am sure of it. Then why in the case of lesser offices do men never take them willinglywithout payment, unless under the idea that they govern for the advantagenot of themselves but of others? Let me ask you a question: Are notthe several arts different, by reason of their each having a separatefunction? And, my dear illustrious friend, do say what you think,that we may make a little progress. Yes, that is the difference, he replied. And each art gives us a particular good and not merely a general one--medicine, for example, gives us health; navigation, safety at sea,and so on? Yes, he said. And the art of payment has the special function of giving pay: butwe do not confuse this with other arts, any more than the art of thepilot is to be confused with the art of medicine, because the healthof the pilot may be improved by a sea voyage. You would not be inclinedto say, would you, that navigation is the art of medicine, at leastif we are to adopt your exact use of language? Certainly not. Or because a man is in good health when he receives pay you wouldnot say that the art of payment is medicine? I should say not. Nor would you say that medicine is the art of receiving pay becausea man takes fees when he is engaged in healing? Certainly not. And we have admitted, I said, that the good of each art is speciallyconfined to the art? Yes. Then, if there be any good which all artists have in common, thatis to be attributed to something of which they all have the commonuse? True, he replied. And when the artist is benefited by receiving pay the advantage isgained by an additional use of the art of pay, which is not the artprofessed by him? He gave a reluctant assent to this. Then the pay is not derived by the several artists from their respectivearts. But the truth is, that while the art of medicine gives health,and the art of the builder builds a house, another art attends themwhich is the art of pay. The various arts may be doing their own businessand benefiting that over which they preside, but would the artistreceive any benefit from his art unless he were paid as well? I suppose not. But does he therefore confer no benefit when he works for nothing? Certainly, he confers a benefit. Then now, Thrasymachus, there is no longer any doubt that neitherarts nor governments provide for their own interests; but, as we werebefore saying, they rule and provide for the interests of their subjectswho are the weaker and not the stronger --to their good they attendand not to the good of the superior. And this is the reason, my dear Thrasymachus, why, as I was just nowsaying, no one is willing to govern; because no one likes to takein hand the reformation of evils which are not his concern withoutremuneration. For, in the execution of his work, and in giving hisorders to another, the true artist does not regard his own interest,but always that of his subjects; and therefore in order that rulersmay be willing to rule, they must be paid in one of three modes ofpayment: money, or honour, or a penalty for refusing. Socrates - GLAUCON What do you mean, Socrates? said Glaucon. The first two modes of paymentare intelligible enough, but what the penalty is I do not understand,or how a penalty can be a payment." "Summary: A conversation between Thrasymachus and Socrates about the role of rulers and shepherds. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Thrasymachus, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "I can't say I like the way you talk to me, Thrasymachus,"" said Socrates. ""It's not very gentlemanly."" Well, that's about all the manners you've got coming from me,"" said Thrasymachus, ""and don't let it worry you."""" And you can take your manners and stick them up your arse,"" said Thrasymachus. ""What does that mean?"" said Socrates. It means what it says,"" said Thrasymachus. ""And if you don't know what it means, then you're a bigger bastard than I thought."""" You'll have to explain,"" said Socrates. I will not,"" said Thrasymachus. ""I'm sick of talking to people who can't understand plain English."" Now this conversation would probably have gone on for some time in exactly the same spirit if there hadn't suddenly been a commotion at the other end of the room. Everybody stopped talking and turned round. A man with a plump face and dark hair was standing up at the table, shouting at someone. His fists were clenched and his face was red. The person he was shouting at was a youngish man with a thin face and glasses. He didn't look as though he knew how to fight. For a moment nobody moved; then Polonius and another man hurried over. They began talking to the fat man and trying to calm him down. I couldn't hear what they were saying, but they seemed to be having some difficulty. The fat man kept pointing at the young man and going on shouting. Finally the two men managed to lead him out of the room. There was a general sigh of relief. The young man had been very white by now, but he looked even whiter when the two men left him and went back to their seats at the table. Suddenly he noticed Socrates and me, and came straight over. He sat down opposite us and said: """"I'm frightfully sorry about that, but you see I really couldn't help it. If anybody could possibly lend me some money . . ."""" He looked so distressed that we both felt sorry for him. Socrates took out his purse and gave him a couple of dollars. That's awfully kind of you,"" he said. ""My name's Endicott, by the way. Harold Endicott."""" I'm Plato,"" I said. ""This is Socrates."""" Oh yes,"" said Endicott. ""I suppose you remember me. I used to come here quite often last term."""" I remember you,"" said Socrates. ""But I don't remember ever seeing you before tonight."""" No,"" said Endicott. ""I haven't been here for ages. I didn't think anybody would recognise me."""" Then why did you come?"" asked Socrates. ""If you knew you weren't wanted, why come back?"""" I don't know,"" said Endicott. ""It was sort of silly, I suppose. But I thought perhaps things might have changed. " 12 12 "You mean that you do not understand the nature of this payment whichto the best men is the great inducement to rule? Of course you knowthat ambition and avarice are held to be, as indeed they are, a disgrace? Very true. And for this reason, I said, money and honour have no attraction forthem; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governingand so to get the name of hirelings, nor by secretly helping themselvesout of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not beingambitious they do not care about honour. Wherefore necessity mustbe laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from the fearof punishment. And this, as I imagine, is the reason why the forwardnessto take office, instead of waiting to be compelled, has been deemeddishonourable. Now the worst part of the punishment is that he whorefuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself.And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office,not because they would, but because they cannot help --not under theidea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves,but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the taskof ruling to any one who is better than themselves, or indeed as good.For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirelyof good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contentionas to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proofthat the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest,but that of his subjects; and every one who knew this would chooserather to receive a benefit from another than to have the troubleof conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus thatjustice is the interest of the stronger. This latter question neednot be further discussed at present; but when Thrasymachus says thatthe life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just,his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character.Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, doyou prefer? I for my part deem the life of the just to be the more advantageous,he answered. Did you hear all the advantages of the unjust which Thrasymachus wasrehearsing? Yes, I heard him, he replied, but he has not convinced me. Then shall we try to find some way of convincing him, if we can, thathe is saying what is not true? Most certainly, he replied. If, I said, he makes a set speech and we make another recounting allthe advantages of being just, and he answers and we rejoin, theremust be a numbering and measuring of the goods which are claimed oneither side, and in the end we shall want judges to decide; but ifwe proceed in our enquiry as we lately did, by making admissions toone another, we shall unite the offices of judge and advocate in ourown persons. Very good, he said. And which method do I understand you to prefer? I said. That which you propose. Well, then, Thrasymachus, I said, suppose you begin at the beginningand answer me. You say that perfect injustice is more gainful thanperfect justice? Socrates - GLAUCON - THRASYMACHUS Yes, that is what I say, and I have given you my reasons. And what is your view about them? Would you call one of them virtueand the other vice? Certainly. I suppose that you would call justice virtue and injustice vice? What a charming notion! So likely too, seeing that I affirm injusticeto be profitable and justice not. What else then would you say? The opposite, he replied. And would you call justice vice? No, I would rather say sublime simplicity. Then would you call injustice malignity? No; I would rather say discretion. And do the unjust appear to you to be wise and good? Yes, he said; at any rate those of them who are able to be perfectlyunjust, and who have the power of subduing states and nations; butperhaps you imagine me to be talking of cutpurses. Even this profession if undetected has advantages, though they arenot to be compared with those of which I was just now speaking." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of ruling and governing, questioning whether ambition or avarice should be the driving force behind it. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon, Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" “Which? Ruling or governing?” “The same.” “But there are two sorts of men,” said Socrates; “the one sort, which includes the majority of mankind, have only their eyes open; they see things on the surface, and can distinguish the shadows of various objects thrown by the fire on the opposite wall, but they have simply no notion of anything that really exists. The other sort, in whom you would include me, turn their eyes away and fix them on reality, and they argue that the latter is far more important than the former, as indeed it is; and they also see many other things besides what you call justice and beauty—things which people who never look at truth in this way have very little chance of seeing. Very well then, let us assume that there are two sorts of men—one of whom are rulers and possess knowledge, and the other are ruled and have only opinion, and that the former have authority over the latter. Now tell me this: Of the two, which do you think is likely to be happier, those who have the better or those who have the worse part assigned to them?” “Those who have the better part, clearly.” “And are not those who rule over others also masters of the possessions of the state?” “Of course.” “Then they will naturally want to get as much of these possessions as possible for themselves?” “Clearly.” “So that their desire for gain must be very intense?” “I should say so.” “And therefore we may conclude that they are ambitious and avaricious men?” “Naturally.” “Now if you like,” he added, “you may describe these men as ‘ruling’ if you prefer that term; but for my part I shall continue to use the word ‘governing,’ and I maintain that the business of governing consists in ruling men, not in acquiring money, and that the man who has the spirit of a ruler will always despise money-making.” Thrasymachus here broke in with another burst of laughter. “You sophists,” he said, “never seem to be able to understand a plain statement when you hear one. What? Do you mean to tell me that a man who governs the State, or who possesses any kind of power, will never be tempted to make money out of his position? Is not ambition a form of greediness, and the desire of ruling akin to the love of gain?” “No,” replied Glaucon, “that is not true, because there is one thing which we certainly find in every soul, and that is the love of ruling, and this is quite distinct from the love of gain.” “Well, then,” said Socrates, “we have now determined that to govern is the same thing as to rule, and that the man who rules is the man who loves honour and virtue above all else, and who desires to obtain as much of these things as possible for himself. 13 13 "I do not think that I misapprehend your meaning, Thrasymachus, I replied;but still I cannot hear without amazement that you class injusticewith wisdom and virtue, and justice with the opposite. Certainly I do so class them. Now, I said, you are on more substantial and almost unanswerable ground;for if the injustice which you were maintaining to be profitable hadbeen admitted by you as by others to be vice and deformity, an answermight have been given to you on received principles; but now I perceivethat you will call injustice honourable and strong, and to the unjustyou will attribute all the qualities which were attributed by us beforeto the just, seeing that you do not hesitate to rank injustice withwisdom and virtue. You have guessed most infallibly, he replied. Then I certainly ought not to shrink from going through with the argumentso long as I have reason to think that you, Thrasymachus, are speakingyour real mind; for I do believe that you are now in earnest and arenot amusing yourself at our expense. I may be in earnest or not, but what is that to you? --to refute theargument is your business. Very true, I said; that is what I have to do: But will you be so goodas answer yet one more question? Does the just man try to gain anyadvantage over the just? Far otherwise; if he did would not be the simple, amusing creaturewhich he is. And would he try to go beyond just action? He would not. And how would he regard the attempt to gain an advantage over theunjust; would that be considered by him as just or unjust? He would think it just, and would try to gain the advantage; but hewould not be able. Whether he would or would not be able, I said, is not to the point.My question is only whether the just man, while refusing to have morethan another just man, would wish and claim to have more than theunjust? Yes, he would. And what of the unjust --does he claim to have more than the justman and to do more than is just Of course, he said, for he claims to have more than all men. And the unjust man will strive and struggle to obtain more than theunjust man or action, in order that he may have more than all? True. We may put the matter thus, I said --the just does not desire morethan his like but more than his unlike, whereas the unjust desiresmore than both his like and his unlike? Nothing, he said, can be better than that statement. And the unjust is good and wise, and the just is neither? Good again, he said. And is not the unjust like the wise and good and the just unlike them? Of course, he said, he who is of a certain nature, is like those whoare of a certain nature; he who is not, not. Each of them, I said, is such as his like is? Certainly, he replied. Very good, Thrasymachus, I said; and now to take the case of the arts:you would admit that one man is a musician and another not a musician? Yes. And which is wise and which is foolish? Clearly the musician is wise, and he who is not a musician is foolish. And he is good in as far as he is wise, and bad in as far as he isfoolish? Yes. And you would say the same sort of thing of the physician? Yes. And do you think, my excellent friend, that a musician when he adjuststhe lyre would desire or claim to exceed or go beyond a musician inthe tightening and loosening the strings? I do not think that he would. But he would claim to exceed the non-musician? Of course. And what would you say of the physician? In prescribing meats anddrinks would he wish to go beyond another physician or beyond thepractice of medicine?" "Summary: The speaker argues that injustice is actually wise and virtuous, while justice is not. The conversation turns to the nature of the just and unjust person and their desires. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Argumentative dialogue Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Thrasymachus, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Then he laughed and said: “You are very amusing, Socrates. I give you full marks for wit. But still, as far as the argument goes, it will be enough to say that, according to your view, injustice is a much finer thing than justice, and the man who is unjust is better off than the man who is just. You have been compelled to admit this. What do you think about it? And what’s more, you have also admitted that it’s wise and virtuous for a person to commit injustice when he can get away with it. Isn’t that so?” “Yes,” I said, “you’ve got me there.” Then he cried out in his rough voice, “There! That’s exactly the point of my argument. Injustice is fine and honorable, while justice is not. It’s wiser and better to be unjust and clever than to be just and stupid. In short, justice is something quite ridiculous.” “That was a most ridiculous speech,” I said, “and an extremely wicked one too.” “I don’t think so,” he replied. “On the contrary, I consider it wise and virtuous. In any case, it’s what happens in reality. The only question is whether it’s reasonable to praise people for doing what they can’t help doing. 14 14 "He would not. But he would wish to go beyond the non-physician? Yes. And about knowledge and ignorance in general; see whether you thinkthat any man who has knowledge ever would wish to have the choiceof saying or doing more than another man who has knowledge. Wouldhe not rather say or do the same as his like in the same case? That, I suppose, can hardly be denied. And what of the ignorant? would he not desire to have more than eitherthe knowing or the ignorant? I dare say. And the knowing is wise? Yes. And the wise is good? True. Then the wise and good will not desire to gain more than his like,but more than his unlike and opposite? I suppose so. Whereas the bad and ignorant will desire to gain more than both? Yes. But did we not say, Thrasymachus, that the unjust goes beyond bothhis like and unlike? Were not these your words? They were. They were. And you also said that the lust will not go beyond his like but hisunlike? Yes. Then the just is like the wise and good, and the unjust like the eviland ignorant? That is the inference. And each of them is such as his like is? That was admitted. Then the just has turned out to be wise and good and the unjust eviland ignorant. Thrasymachus made all these admissions, not fluently, as I repeatthem, but with extreme reluctance; it was a hot summer's day, andthe perspiration poured from him in torrents; and then I saw whatI had never seen before, Thrasymachus blushing. As we were now agreedthat justice was virtue and wisdom, and injustice vice and ignorance,I proceeded to another point: Well, I said, Thrasymachus, that matter is now settled; but were wenot also saying that injustice had strength; do you remember? Yes, I remember, he said, but do not suppose that I approve of whatyou are saying or have no answer; if however I were to answer, youwould be quite certain to accuse me of haranguing; therefore eitherpermit me to have my say out, or if you would rather ask, do so, andI will answer 'Very good,' as they say to story-telling old women,and will nod 'Yes' and 'No.' Certainly not, I said, if contrary to your real opinion. Yes, he said, I will, to please you, since you will not let me speak.What else would you have? Nothing in the world, I said; and if you are so disposed I will askand you shall answer. Proceed. Then I will repeat the question which I asked before, in order thatour examination of the relative nature of justice and injustice maybe carried on regularly. A statement was made that injustice is strongerand more powerful than justice, but now justice, having been identifiedwith wisdom and virtue, is easily shown to be stronger than injustice,if injustice is ignorance; this can no longer be questioned by anyone. But I want to view the matter, Thrasymachus, in a different way:You would not deny that a state may be unjust and may be unjustlyattempting to enslave other states, or may have already enslaved them,and may be holding many of them in subjection? True, he replied; and I will add the best and perfectly unjust statewill be most likely to do so. I know, I said, that such was your position; but what I would furtherconsider is, whether this power which is possessed by the superiorstate can exist or be exercised without justice. If you are right in you view, and justice is wisdom, then only withjustice; but if I am right, then without justice. I am delighted, Thrasymachus, to see you not only nodding assent anddissent, but making answers which are quite excellent. That is out of civility to you, he replied. You are very kind, I said; and would you have the goodness also toinform me, whether you think that a state, or an army, or a band ofrobbers and thieves, or any other gang of evil-doers could act atall if they injured one another? No indeed, he said, they could not. But if they abstained from injuring one another, then they might acttogether better? Yes. And this is because injustice creates divisions and hatreds and fighting,and justice imparts harmony and friendship; is not that true, Thrasymachus? I agree, he said, because I do not wish to quarrel with you." "Summary: A conversation between two characters about knowledge, justice, and power. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" When you have said that, you have said everything. 'That is a paradox.' Yes, I know, but not such a very startling one; and the reason for its not being so startling is that it hardly goes beyond common sense. Men have always thought that justice was something to be desired, even in their pleasures. And now I do not deny that justice is a fine thing and that man lives better when he is just. But my question is, What has justice to do with knowledge? What does knowledge matter, even though one were to acquire the whole of it? You will admit that in all these things to which you attribute excellence there is some end, and this end you call good. Most certainly. Then knowledge would seem to be the thing, the form of excellence? Not at all. Knowledge may be good or bad. The good man may be a good slave, and hence have no need of knowledge. Or he may be a thief, and therefore require knowledge, and yet his end is evil if theft is evil. So you see that neither in the life of the good nor of the bad is there any need of knowledge. Nay more, Socrates, how can knowledge benefit a man? Can you tell me that? In what way can it give him advantage in the acquisition of wealth, or strength, or honour? It cannot give him any of these advantages. 15 15 "How good of you, I said; but I should like to know also whether injustice,having this tendency to arouse hatred, wherever existing, among slavesor among freemen, will not make them hate one another and set themat variance and render them incapable of common action? Certainly. And even if injustice be found in two only, will they not quarreland fight, and become enemies to one another and to the just They will. And suppose injustice abiding in a single person, would your wisdomsay that she loses or that she retains her natural power? Let us assume that she retains her power. Yet is not the power which injustice exercises of such a nature thatwherever she takes up her abode, whether in a city, in an army, ina family, or in any other body, that body is, to begin with, renderedincapable of united action by reason of sedition and distraction;and does it not become its own enemy and at variance with all thatopposes it, and with the just? Is not this the case? Yes, certainly. And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person;in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he isnot at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemyto himself and the just? Is not that true, Thrasymachus? Yes. And O my friend, I said, surely the gods are just? Granted that they are. But if so, the unjust will be the enemy of the gods, and the justwill be their friend? Feast away in triumph, and take your fill of the argument; I willnot oppose you, lest I should displease the company. Well then, proceed with your answers, and let me have the remainderof my repast. For we have already shown that the just are clearlywiser and better and abler than the unjust, and that the unjust areincapable of common action; nay ing at more, that to speak as we didof men who are evil acting at any time vigorously together, is notstrictly true, for if they had been perfectly evil, they would havelaid hands upon one another; but it is evident that there must havebeen some remnant of justice in them, which enabled them to combine;if there had not been they would have injured one another as wellas their victims; they were but half --villains in their enterprises;for had they been whole villains, and utterly unjust, they would havebeen utterly incapable of action. That, as I believe, is the truthof the matter, and not what you said at first. But whether the justhave a better and happier life than the unjust is a further questionwhich we also proposed to consider. I think that they have, and forthe reasons which to have given; but still I should like to examinefurther, for no light matter is at stake, nothing less than the ruleof human life. Proceed. I will proceed by asking a question: Would you not say that a horsehas some end? I should. And the end or use of a horse or of anything would be that which couldnot be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by any other thing? I do not understand, he said. Let me explain: Can you see, except with the eye? Certainly not. Or hear, except with the ear? No. These then may be truly said to be the ends of these organs? They may. But you can cut off a vine-branch with a dagger or with a chisel,and in many other ways? Of course. And yet not so well as with a pruning-hook made for the purpose? True. May we not say that this is the end of a pruning-hook? We may. Then now I think you will have no difficulty in understanding my meaningwhen I asked the question whether the end of anything would be thatwhich could not be accomplished, or not so well accomplished, by anyother thing? I understand your meaning, he said, and assent. And that to which an end is appointed has also an excellence? NeedI ask again whether the eye has an end? It has. And has not the eye an excellence? Yes. And the ear has an end and an excellence also? True. And the same is true of all other things; they have each of them anend and a special excellence?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of injustice and its consequences, as well as the relationship between justice and happiness. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Active character: Socrates, Thrasymachus Language: English" "But this is not the only injustice which you have forgotten; there is another, of which you and I are guilty just now; for we ought to be examining the nature of justice and injustice, and instead of that we have fallen into conversation concerning their consequences; thence passing on to discuss temperance and courage, we are led on to consider the whole class of virtues; and by these diversions we have lost sight of our original question and have become like children's playthings, jostling one another, rather than serious disputants, even taking pleasure in being caught up by those who want to show off 64 THE REPUBLIC BOOK I. them. And if they happen to bump violently against each other, having no thought or care about the war which they are at once beginning and making an end of, do you suppose that they will be better justice when they grow up than they were as children? Is not that rather likely to make them worse?"" I am afraid that you are right,"" he said. Now then, I said, ""you must tell me whether any light is ever likely to be given to us in our inquiry by the opposite statements of good and bad men."" By all means,"" he replied. Why do you ask?"" I ask because I think that superior wisdom may perhaps be able to see the difference; whereas I am sure that I do not myself: I mean, if you look at the matter from another point of view. When you speak of courage, temperance, and justice, and of what is illiberal and unmanly, the honourable and the dishonourable, all these ideas, as I imagine, are sorts of images of vice and virtue which are seen in the reflection of another, and only in the reflection; but that of which they are the reflections are they known or unknown to you?"" Nay, he said, I do not think that even Glaucon will deny that they are known."" And you also are quite aware, that whatever has a better claim than another to the preservation of itself in an unchanged condition, is held dearer and more precious, and less likely to be subjected to injury than that which has a worse claim?"""" Certainly,"" he replied. Well, and you observe, that the image in water or any reflective substance is diminished in comparison with the reality?"""" True."" And that the truth is greater than the reflection in water? Certainly."" And smaller things get damaged more easily and more quickly, as well as altered, when they are blotted out of existence by a larger force than themselves? Very true."" And when the larger is destroyed, a smaller thing becomes easily visible? Yes."" And things which have come to an end are easily seen through, and are said to be thin and transparent? Certainly."" Now then would you not acknowledge that all these attributes of smaller things apply to the reflections in water; and that larger things are more difficult to see through though they may be less lasting, and harder to destroy, yet when they are destroyed, admit of being more clearly seen through? " 16 16 "That is so. Well, and can the eyes fulfil their end if they are wanting in theirown proper excellence and have a defect instead? How can they, he said, if they are blind and cannot see? You mean to say, if they have lost their proper excellence, whichis sight; but I have not arrived at that point yet. I would ratherask the question more generally, and only enquire whether the thingswhich fulfil their ends fulfil them by their own proper excellence,and fall of fulfilling them by their own defect? Certainly, he replied. I might say the same of the ears; when deprived of their own properexcellence they cannot fulfil their end? True. And the same observation will apply to all other things? I agree. Well; and has not the soul an end which nothing else can fulfil? forexample, to superintend and command and deliberate and the like. Arenot these functions proper to the soul, and can they rightly be assignedto any other? To no other. And is not life to be reckoned among the ends of the soul? Assuredly, he said. And has not the soul an excellence also? Yes. And can she or can she not fulfil her own ends when deprived of thatexcellence? She cannot. Then an evil soul must necessarily be an evil ruler and superintendent,and the good soul a good ruler? Yes, necessarily. And we have admitted that justice is the excellence of the soul, andinjustice the defect of the soul? That has been admitted. Then the just soul and the just man will live well, and the unjustman will live ill? That is what your argument proves. And he who lives well is blessed and happy, and he who lives ill thereverse of happy? Certainly. Then the just is happy, and the unjust miserable? So be it. But happiness and not misery is profitable. Of course. Then, my blessed Thrasymachus, injustice can never be more profitablethan justice. Let this, Socrates, he said, be your entertainment at the Bendidea. For which I am indebted to you, I said, now that you have grown gentletowards me and have left off scolding. Nevertheless, I have not beenwell entertained; but that was my own fault and not yours. As an epicuresnatches a taste of every dish which is successively brought to table,he not having allowed himself time to enjoy the one before, so haveI gone from one subject to another without having discovered whatI sought at first, the nature of justice. I left that enquiry andturned away to consider whether justice is virtue and wisdom or eviland folly; and when there arose a further question about the comparativeadvantages of justice and injustice, I could not refrain from passingon to that. And the result of the whole discussion has been that Iknow nothing at all. For I know not what justice is, and thereforeI am not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor canI say whether the just man is happy or unhappy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK II Socrates - GLAUCON With these words I was thinking that I had made an end of the discussion;but the end, in truth, proved to be only a beginning. For Glaucon,who is always the most pugnacious of men, was dissatisfied at Thrasymachus'retirement; he wanted to have the battle out. So he said to me: Socrates,do you wish really to persuade us, or only to seem to have persuadedus, that to be just is always better than to be unjust? I should wish really to persuade you, I replied, if I could. Then you certainly have not succeeded. Let me ask you now: --How wouldyou arrange goods --are there not some which we welcome for theirown sakes, and independently of their consequences, as, for example,harmless pleasures and enjoyments, which delight us at the time, althoughnothing follows from them? I agree in thinking that there is such a class, I replied. Is there not also a second class of goods, such as knowledge, sight,health, which are desirable not only in themselves, but also for theirresults?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and its relationship to happiness. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" For which, as I said, the cause must be that the justice which we were seeking seemed to be something of this kind and similar to it. But if anyone pursues any other sort of happiness in life he will think differently about it. Let us go back then to the point at which we digressed, and let us ask what sort of thing justice is in the soul of each man. Socrates: There is nothing harsher than your rebuke, Glaucon; but I suppose that one ought not to be afraid of speaking the truth and being refuted. If you think that I am still concealing anything, you are mistaken. Rather I am much more concerned that my argument may be weaker than it seems to me to be. So now let us once more try to discover whether there is some other kind of justice or not. And first of all let us again give our attention to the question which we asked just now: 'What is the nature of justice?' Is it a part of justice for a man to pay his debts, or is this only an accompaniment? Glaucon: I do not understand what you mean by an accompaniment. Socrates: By an accompaniment I mean such things as using a shuttle when weaving, or an axe when carpentering, or a lyre when singing, or a mouthpiece when playing the flute. All these things, I say, are mere accessories. Glaucon: Very true. Socrates: And would you call paying one's debts a part of justice, or merely an accessory? Glaucon: Certainly it is a part. Socrates: Then it is clear that we have found one kind of justice: a man must pay his debts. Glaucon: True. Socrates: That is, he must give back what he received, paying an equal sum if he received an equal sum, and so forth. Glaucon: Yes, that is clear enough. Socrates: Do you want to add anything further? Or shall we set aside this class of justice as being of a kind that belongs rather to paid servants than to freemen and pursue another kind? Glaucon: What kind? Socrates: The giving back of what a man has received from another, and that in equal measure if he received an equal amount. Glaucon: You mean, I suppose, that we must consider whether this class of justice belongs to the just man even in relation to himself, or rather whether it is a matter of mutual relations between man and man? 17 17 "Certainly, I said. And would you not recognize a third class, such as gymnastic, andthe care of the sick, and the physician's art; also the various waysof money-making --these do us good but we regard them as disagreeable;and no one would choose them for their own sakes, but only for thesake of some reward or result which flows from them? There is, I said, this third class also. But why do you ask? Because I want to know in which of the three classes you would placejustice? In the highest class, I replied, --among those goods which he whowould be happy desires both for their own sake and for the sake oftheir results. Then the many are of another mind; they think that justice is to bereckoned in the troublesome class, among goods which are to be pursuedfor the sake of rewards and of reputation, but in themselves are disagreeableand rather to be avoided. I know, I said, that this is their manner of thinking, and that thiswas the thesis which Thrasymachus was maintaining just now, when hecensured justice and praised injustice. But I am too stupid to beconvinced by him. I wish, he said, that you would hear me as well as him, and then Ishall see whether you and I agree. For Thrasymachus seems to me, likea snake, to have been charmed by your voice sooner than he ought tohave been; but to my mind the nature of justice and injustice havenot yet been made clear. Setting aside their rewards and results,I want to know what they are in themselves, and how they inwardlywork in the soul. If you, please, then, I will revive the argumentof Thrasymachus. And first I will speak of the nature and origin ofjustice according to the common view of them. Secondly, I will showthat all men who practise justice do so against their will, of necessity,but not as a good. And thirdly, I will argue that there is reasonin this view, for the life of the unjust is after all better far thanthe life of the just --if what they say is true, Socrates, since Imyself am not of their opinion. But still I acknowledge that I amperplexed when I hear the voices of Thrasymachus and myriads of othersdinning in my ears; and, on the other hand, I have never yet heardthe superiority of justice to injustice maintained by any one in asatisfactory way. I want to hear justice praised in respect of itself;then I shall be satisfied, and you are the person from whom I thinkthat I am most likely to hear this; and therefore I will praise theunjust life to the utmost of my power, and my manner of speaking willindicate the manner in which I desire to hear you too praising justiceand censuring injustice. Will you say whether you approve of my proposal? Indeed I do; nor can I imagine any theme about which a man of sensewould oftener wish to converse. I am delighted, he replied, to hear you say so, and shall begin byspeaking, as I proposed, of the nature and origin of justice. Glaucon They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice,evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when menhave both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both,not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think thatthey had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence therearise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by lawis termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the originand nature of justice; --it is a mean or compromise, between the bestof all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worstof all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation;and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is toleratednot as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of theinability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be calleda man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist;he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates,of the nature and origin of justice." "Summary: The text discusses the nature and origin of justice, arguing that it is a compromise between doing injustice and suffering injustice. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon Quoted character: Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I was, of course, right about the nature of justice; it is a compromise between doing injustice and suffering injustice. It means being unjust when you can get away with it, but not when you can't. It does not mean trying to be just all the time. Only suckers try to be just all the time. Now let's discuss the origin of justice."""" Glaucon wasn't going to let him get away with this. He shouted: """"That's an outright lie! You're a fool if you think that's what I believe!"""" The truth is,"" I said, ""that Thrasymachus believes in justice and hates it so much he doesn't dare admit it."""" It was true enough, but I didn't have to say it. Nobody could ever understand Thrasymachus. He always denied he meant exactly what he said, even when he went out of his way to prove he meant exactly what he said. He had the most contradictory ideas in the world. One moment he was coldly logical, the next he was hot-tempered and mad as a hornet. The only thing we could agree on was that Socrates was crazy. Socrates thought justice was beautiful and good, Thrasymachus said it was ugly and bad. We agreed on that. They yelled at each other for hours. Thrasymachus was loud and angry, Socrates was soft-spoken and reasonable. Both of them were wrong, and both of them knew it. That was why they kept arguing. If you're wrong and admit it, you can stop arguing. Wrong people who won't admit it are like bullies. They want to keep proving they're right because they don't know any other way to feel safe. They've got to make everybody else admit they're right too or they get furious. They're always starting fights and calling names. It was a relief when Adeimantus told us to shut up and listen to Polemarchus. At least he was polite and made sense. He agreed with Socrates. He said justice was good, and injustice was bad. Justice was the force that held society together, and without it there would be chaos. That was what he called it. Chaos was his favorite word. Maybe it was the name of some Greek play he'd seen in school. It sounded Greek, anyway, which is the main thing. Thrasymachus laughed at him. He said he was just talking like a mother, and mothers don't know what they're talking about. But Glaucon came to his rescue. He said Socrates was right after all. Society needed laws, and laws needed people to enforce them, and people to obey them. That gave us four different theories of justice: 1) Socrates: Justice was a kind of knowledge, a man's duty to do what was good for himself and for other people. 2) Polemarchus: Justice was what the strongest man wanted it to be. 3) Glaucon: Justice was what the rulers wanted it to be. 4) Thrasymachus: Justice was what the stronger man did to the weaker man. " 18 18 Now that those who practise justice do so involuntarily and becausethey have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imaginesomething of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjustpower to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire willlead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjustman to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest,which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted intothe path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we aresupposing may be most completely given to them in the form of sucha power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor ofCroesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherdin the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, andan earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he wasfeeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening,where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, havingdoors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature,as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a goldring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Nowthe shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might sendtheir monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assemblyhe came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting amongthem he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, wheninstantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and theybegan to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonishedat this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwardsand reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always withthe same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible,when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen oneof the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as hearrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired againstthe king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that therewere two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and theunjust the other;,no man can be imagined to be of such an iron naturethat he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands offwhat was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out ofthe market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure,or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respectsbe like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be asthe actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the samepoint. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a manis just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any goodto him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinksthat he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believein their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individualthan justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will saythat they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this powerof becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching whatwas another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a mostwretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces,and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they toomight suffer injustice. Enough of this. "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and the idea that people act justly out of necessity rather than choice. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Gyges Time setting: 1950s Absolute place: A clubhouse in Los Angeles Language: English" "She had kept him out of jail, and that was a lot to expect of a woman in those days. She had given him the break that made it possible for him to get back on his feet again, and he would have killed for her if she had asked him to. But I've seen the day when she wouldn't ask me to kill a fly."""" So what?"" And yet they were good together, Gyges and Cyprian. They understood each other perfectly. The job suited him; it fitted into his background, his character. It is said that Gyges was just because he could not be unjust; that is, because he acted as any man will act under necessity. If you want to see a man act justly, put a gun in his ribs and tell him to do it. Or better still, put a little girl in there instead of the gun. That's what makes policemen just. They are under orders; they have got to obey or go to prison. The poor devils in Korea are fighting for justice. What does that prove? That a man can't help being just, that it isn't a matter of choice but of compulsion, that he acts justly because he has no choice. He acts justly, if you like, out of weakness."""" The clubhouse was a two-story affair built of concrete blocks. It was painted white, with blue trimmings around the windows and doors, and a big sign over the front door that read """"The Silver Dollar"""" in red letters on a field of yellow. Behind it stretched a long rectangular parking lot, empty now except for three cars. A half-dozen orange-trees grew against the rear wall. There was a wooden porch running along the right-hand side of the building, and here Ben let us out, saying he would take the car around back. We climbed the steps and went into the barroom. It was a long narrow room, dimly lighted by a pair of lamps suspended from the ceiling, one at each end. The floor was covered with an imitation linoleum patterned after parquet, and there was a dance floor in the middle of the room. Against the walls ran a series of booths, upholstered in leatherette and separated from each other by partitions of glass. The bar, which took up most of the left-hand wall, was done in the same style: a polished counter with chromium foot-rails and four stools in front of it. Everything looked new and clean, very neat and attractive. Across the far end of the room was a double door, and through this we passed into another room, also long and narrow, but furnished like a living-room. Here too everything was new and spotlessly clean. There were a couple of couches upholstered in green leatherette and a number of chairs grouped about a low table of chrome and glass. An electric clock hung on the wall opposite the entrance, a radio in a corner, a phonograph, a bar, several bookcases containing magazines and books. " 19 19 "Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just andunjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way; and how is theisolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirelyunjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken awayfrom either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for thework of their respective lives. First, let the unjust be like otherdistinguished masters of craft; like the skilful pilot or physician,who knows intuitively his own powers and keeps within their limits,and who, if he fails at any point, is able to recover himself. Solet the unjust make his unjust attempts in the right way, and liehidden if he means to be great in his injustice (he who is found outis nobody): for the highest reach of injustice is: to be deemed justwhen you are not. Therefore I say that in the perfectly unjust manwe must assume the most perfect injustice; there is to be no deduction,but we must allow him, while doing the most unjust acts, to have acquiredthe greatest reputation for justice. If he have taken a false stephe must be able to recover himself; he must be one who can speak witheffect, if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his waywhere force is required his courage and strength, and command of moneyand friends. And at his side let us place the just man in his noblenessand simplicity, wishing, as Aeschylus says, to be and not to seemgood. There must be no seeming, for if he seem to be just he willbe honoured and rewarded, and then we shall not know whether he isjust for the sake of justice or for the sake of honours and rewards;therefore, let him be clothed in justice only, and have no other covering;and he must be imagined in a state of life the opposite of the former.Let him be the best of men, and let him be thought the worst; thenhe will have been put to the proof; and we shall see whether he willbe affected by the fear of infamy and its consequences. And let himcontinue thus to the hour of death; being just and seeming to be unjust.When both have reached the uttermost extreme, the one of justice andthe other of injustice, let judgment be given which of them is thehappier of the two. Socrates - GLAUCON Heavens! my dear Glaucon, I said, how energetically you polish themup for the decision, first one and then the other, as if they weretwo statues. I do my best, he said. And now that we know what they are like thereis no difficulty in tracing out the sort of life which awaits eitherof them. This I will proceed to describe; but as you may think thedescription a little too coarse, I ask you to suppose, Socrates, thatthe words which follow are not mine. --Let me put them into the mouthsof the eulogists of injustice: They will tell you that the just manwho is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound --will havehis eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil,he will be impaled: Then he will understand that he ought to seemonly, and not to be, just; the words of Aeschylus may be more trulyspoken of the unjust than of the just. For the unjust is pursuinga reality; he does not live with a view to appearances --he wantsto be really unjust and not to seem only:-- His mind has a soil deep and fertile, Out of which spring his prudent counsels. In the first place, he isthought just, and therefore bears rule in the city; he can marry whomhe will, and give in marriage to whom he will; also he can trade anddeal where he likes, and always to his own advantage, because he hasno misgivings about injustice and at every contest, whether in publicor private, he gets the better of his antagonists, and gains at theirexpense, and is rich, and out of his gains he can benefit his friends,and harm his enemies; moreover, he can offer sacrifices, and dedicategifts to the gods abundantly and magnificently, and can honour thegods or any man whom he wants to honour in a far better style thanthe just, and therefore he is likely to be dearer than they are tothe gods. And thus, Socrates, gods and men are said to unite in makingthe life of the unjust better than the life of the just. Adeimantus -SOCRATES I was going to say something in answer to Glaucon, when Adeimantus,his brother, interposed: Socrates, he said, you do not suppose thatthere is nothing more to be urged? Why, what else is there? I answered. The strongest point of all has not been even mentioned, he replied." "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and injustice, comparing the lives of a just and unjust person. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion and argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" And now, Glaucon, I want to pick out another kind of life which is very different from the last, and contains no element of injustice in it. I am afraid it may appear rather ridiculous, but I shall have to take the risk. Imagine a man who is a farmer or a merchant, and has any number of slaves, who are also farmers, gardeners, or merchants; he will have many opportunities of taking what he likes off them, and there will be nothing to prevent him, as they have nothing to say; and if we suppose that he is a man of temperance and self-control, always eating and drinking in moderation, and not excessive in anything else, preferring health to disease, and having no vicious or immoral habits, he will do extremely well, and will have plenty of leisure, too; he could easily work on at his own affairs, and will have time to learn other things. When he is ill, he will have doctors to look after him; he can lie in bed and give orders to his slaves; and when he wants to get up, they will dress and undress him, wash him, and generally take care of his wants. Also they will fetch his meals from the cookshop whenever he pleases and bring them to him at the proper hour. He need not even trouble about exercising or taking the air; they will carry him out in a litter, when he likes, into the fresh air, or to the gymnasia if he feels like going. 20 20 "Well, then, according to the proverb, 'Let brother help brother' --ifhe fails in any part do you assist him; although I must confess thatGlaucon has already said quite enough to lay me in the dust, and takefrom me the power of helping justice. Adeimantus Nonsense, he replied. But let me add something more: There is anotherside to Glaucon's argument about the praise and censure of justiceand injustice, which is equally required in order to bring out whatI believe to be his meaning. Parents and tutors are always tellingtheir sons and their wards that they are to be just; but why? notfor the sake of justice, but for the sake of character and reputation;in the hope of obtaining for him who is reputed just some of thoseoffices, marriages, and the like which Glaucon has enumerated amongthe advantages accruing to the unjust from the reputation of justice.More, however, is made of appearances by this class of persons thanby the others; for they throw in the good opinion of the gods, andwill tell you of a shower of benefits which the heavens, as they say,rain upon the pious; and this accords with the testimony of the nobleHesiod and Homer, the first of whom says, that the gods make the oaksof the just-- To hear acorns at their summit, and bees I the middle; And the sheep the bowed down bowed the with the their fleeces. andmany other blessings of a like kind are provided for them. And Homerhas a very similar strain; for he speaks of one whose fame is-- As the fame of some blameless king who, like a god, Maintains justice to whom the black earth brings forth Wheat and barley, whose trees are bowed with fruit, And his sheep never fail to bear, and the sea gives him fish. Stillgrander are the gifts of heaven which Musaeus and his son vouchsafeto the just; they take them down into the world below, where theyhave the saints lying on couches at a feast, everlastingly drunk,crowned with garlands; their idea seems to be that an immortalityof drunkenness is the highest meed of virtue. Some extend their rewardsyet further; the posterity, as they say, of the faithful and justshall survive to the third and fourth generation. This is the stylein which they praise justice. But about the wicked there is anotherstrain; they bury them in a slough in Hades, and make them carry waterin a sieve; also while they are yet living they bring them to infamy,and inflict upon them the punishments which Glaucon described as theportion of the just who are reputed to be unjust; nothing else doestheir invention supply. Such is their manner of praising the one andcensuring the other. Once more, Socrates, I will ask you to consider another way of speakingabout justice and injustice, which is not confined to the poets, butis found in prose writers. The universal voice of mankind is alwaysdeclaring that justice and virtue are honourable, but grievous andtoilsome; and that the pleasures of vice and injustice are easy ofattainment, and are only censured by law and opinion. They say alsothat honesty is for the most part less profitable than dishonesty;and they are quite ready to call wicked men happy, and to honour themboth in public and private when they are rich or in any other wayinfluential, while they despise and overlook those who may be weakand poor, even though acknowledging them to be better than the others.But most extraordinary of all is their mode of speaking about virtueand the gods: they say that the gods apportion calamity and miseryto many good men, and good and happiness to the wicked. And mendicantprophets go to rich men's doors and persuade them that they have apower committed to them by the gods of making an atonement for a man'sown or his ancestor's sins by sacrifices or charms, with rejoicingsand feasts; and they promise to harm an enemy, whether just or unjust,at a small cost; with magic arts and incantations binding heaven,as they say, to execute their will. And the poets are the authoritiesto whom they appeal, now smoothing the path of vice with the wordsof Hesiod; --" "Summary: The text discusses the praise and censure of justice and injustice, as well as the contradictions and misconceptions surrounding it. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Glaucon, Adeimantus, Socrates Quoted work: Homer, Hesiod Language: English" But Glaucon and the rest of us, who were still young, thought that justice was virtue, and injustice vice; but we did not agree about their natures and effects, any more than the poets did. Some of them said that absolute good was bad, and absolute evil good; others that absolutely evil was bad, and absolutely good good. And this difference of opinion among them and of judgement about justice and injustice had a very confused effect on us; for we thought that justice and goodness sat very lightly on those who, as we imagined, lived wickedly, and that they were the companions of the unrighteous and unjust; but that injustice was an easy thing, and right and good behaviour in another light. Nay even now, when I look at the matter in another point of view, I am struck with wonder. For opposed to the philosophers, who are the defenders of justice only, there are the poets, who from time immemorial have been the eulogists of injustice; and the wrongdoer has always seemed to me in a quite different light from what he is in their eyes. You know that in comedies whenever someone takes the part of the unjust, he is always introduced laughing; and in serious dramas too the misery brought upon the unjust by justice makes us laugh through our tears; the reason being that comedy imitates in jest what tragedy imitates in earnest. Comedy is, in fact, nothing but tragic parody; and tragedy appears to be begun by Homer himself, and to have been continued by later tragedians who imitated him in this respect. Now you know that Homer, in his epics, sometimes laughs at one who suffers for his wrongdoing, and again, when he represents the gods as speaking to one another, he introduces them praising or blaming some act of the same person, not understanding how they can at different times be so inconsistent about the same man. But now let us leave these matters to the poets, and turn to the cause which made us originally debate about justice. Was not the question whether it is better to be just and obey the laws, or unjust and violate them, impelled by the fear of the superior power of the government and the retribution which it inflicts on wrong-doers? May not the same fear constrain those who wish to break the law to pretend that all their actions are done in obedience to it? 21 21 "Vice may be had in abundance without trouble; the way is smooth andher dwelling-place is near. But before virtue the gods have set toil,and a tedious and uphill road: then citing Homer as a witness thatthe gods may be influenced by men; for he also says: The gods, too, may he turned from their purpose; and men pray to themand avert their wrath by sacrifices and soothing entreaties, and bylibations and the odour of fat, when they have sinned and transgressed.And they produce a host of books written by Musaeus and Orpheus, whowere children of the Moon and the Muses --that is what they say --accordingto which they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals,but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be madeby sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equallyat the service of the living and the dead; the latter sort they callmysteries, and they redeem us from the pains of hell, but if we neglectthem no one knows what awaits us. He proceeded: And now when the young hear all this said about virtueand vice, and the way in which gods and men regard them, how are theirminds likely to be affected, my dear Socrates, --those of them, Imean, who are quickwitted, and, like bees on the wing, light on everyflower, and from all that they hear are prone to draw conclusionsas to what manner of persons they should be and in what way they shouldwalk if they would make the best of life? Probably the youth willsay to himself in the words of Pindar-- Can I by justice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier towerwhich may he a fortress to me all my days? For what men say is that,if I am really just and am not also thought just profit there is none,but the pain and loss on the other hand are unmistakable. But if,though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly lifeis promised to me. Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizesover truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself.I will describe around me a picture and shadow of virtue to be thevestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail the subtleand crafty fox, as Archilochus, greatest of sages, recommends. ButI hear some one exclaiming that the concealment of wickedness is oftendifficult; to which I answer, Nothing great is easy. Nevertheless,the argument indicates this, if we would be happy, to be the pathalong which we should proceed. With a view to concealment we willestablish secret brotherhoods and political clubs. And there are professorsof rhetoric who teach the art of persuading courts and assemblies;and so, partly by persuasion and partly by force, I shall make unlawfulgains and not be punished. Still I hear a voice saying that the godscannot be deceived, neither can they be compelled. But what if thereare no gods? or, suppose them to have no care of human things --whyin either case should we mind about concealment? And even if thereare gods, and they do care about us, yet we know of them only fromtradition and the genealogies of the poets; and these are the verypersons who say that they may be influenced and turned by 'sacrificesand soothing entreaties and by offerings.' Let us be consistent then,and believe both or neither. If the poets speak truly, why then wehad better be unjust, and offer of the fruits of injustice; for ifwe are just, although we may escape the vengeance of heaven, we shalllose the gains of injustice; but, if we are unjust, we shall keepthe gains, and by our sinning and praying, and praying and sinning,the gods will be propitiated, and we shall not be punished. 'But thereis a world below in which either we or our posterity will suffer forour unjust deeds.' Yes, my friend, will be the reflection, but thereare mysteries and atoning deities, and these have great power. Thatis what mighty cities declare; and the children of the gods, who weretheir poets and prophets, bear a like testimony." "Summary: The text discusses the influence of gods and the idea of virtue and vice in human life. Narrative arc: Philosophical reflection Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Active character: Socrates, young people Quoted work: Homer, Pindar, Archilochus Language: English" If a god, or if the goddess of love, is going to have anything to say about it, he will certainly manage to get into the house of the rich man and not that of the poor man; for that is the way with gods and goddesses: they are always giving the preference either to the rich or else to the noble. But as for human virtue and vice, what part do they play in our lives? They are merely ornamental, my dear Socrates, like gold and ivory and such-like things; the useful things are wealth, strength, beauty, and the like. And then again I was thinking that these young people here were beginning to have their minds corrupted by you, so I came to bring them back to reality. For surely, Socrates, we ought not to let ourselves be corrupted by anyone.” “Why, Prodicus,” said Socrates, “do you suppose that there is anyone who corrupts me? Or rather, tell me, why do you think that I am corruptible?” “Because you are a man, Socrates,” said Prodicus. “That’s just what I mean,” said Socrates. “A man is a mortal, and corruptible, and therefore must be corruptible; but I am not a man, Prodicus, nor do I inhabit a body, and therefore I am incorruptible.” And now, gentlemen,” he went on, “you may ask me how I know this about myself. Well, when I wish to examine myself and see whether I am in a sound condition or not, I take this method. I imagine a line divided into two unequal parts, and I call the shorter part M and the longer part B. Next I fancy that there are two sorts of knowledge; one of which I describe as holy and true, but the other impure; and I give the names of Moral Virtue and Vice to these two respectively. Then I suppose that Moral Virtue dwells at B and Vice at M, because the one is better and the other worse. Now when I want to test myself, I fancy that there are also two kinds of pleasure, the one natural and coming from a good source, the other spurious and from an evil source. And I place these in the same way as Moral Virtue and Vice, putting the natural pleasure at B and the spurious at M. Again, I fancy that there are two kinds of desires, one class having its seat in a bad part of the soul, the other in a good part. And I place these too in the same order as before, making the baser sort come first and the better second; for the more vicious desire is naturally the stronger, while the more virtuous is weaker by nature. 22 22 "On what principle, then, shall we any longer choose justice ratherthan the worst injustice? when, if we only unite the latter with adeceitful regard to appearances, we shall fare to our mind both withgods and men, in life and after death, as the most numerous and thehighest authorities tell us. Knowing all this, Socrates, how can aman who has any superiority of mind or person or rank or wealth, bewilling to honour justice; or indeed to refrain from laughing whenhe hears justice praised? And even if there should be some one whois able to disprove the truth of my words, and who is satisfied thatjustice is best, still he is not angry with the unjust, but is veryready to forgive them, because he also knows that men are not justof their own free will; unless, peradventure, there be some one whomthe divinity within him may have inspired with a hatred of injustice,or who has attained knowledge of the truth --but no other man. Heonly blames injustice who, owing to cowardice or age or some weakness,has not the power of being unjust. And this is proved by the factthat when he obtains the power, he immediately becomes unjust as faras he can be. The cause of all this, Socrates, was indicated by us at the beginningof the argument, when my brother and I told you how astonished wewere to find that of all the professing panegyrists of justice --beginningwith the ancient heroes of whom any memorial has been preserved tous, and ending with the men of our own time --no one has ever blamedinjustice or praised justice except with a view to the glories, honours,and benefits which flow from them. No one has ever adequately describedeither in verse or prose the true essential nature of either of themabiding in the soul, and invisible to any human or divine eye; orshown that of all the things of a man's soul which he has within him,justice is the greatest good, and injustice the greatest evil. Hadthis been the universal strain, had you sought to persuade us of thisfrom our youth upwards, we should not have been on the watch to keepone another from doing wrong, but every one would have been his ownwatchman, because afraid, if he did wrong, of harbouring in himselfthe greatest of evils. I dare say that Thrasymachus and others wouldseriously hold the language which I have been merely repeating, andwords even stronger than these about justice and injustice, grossly,as I conceive, perverting their true nature. But I speak in this vehementmanner, as I must frankly confess to you, because I want to hear fromyou the opposite side; and I would ask you to show not only the superioritywhich justice has over injustice, but what effect they have on thepossessor of them which makes the one to be a good and the other anevil to him. And please, as Glaucon requested of you, to exclude reputations;for unless you take away from each of them his true reputation andadd on the false, we shall say that you do not praise justice, butthe appearance of it; we shall think that you are only exhorting usto keep injustice dark, and that you really agree with Thrasymachusin thinking that justice is another's good and the interest of thestronger, and that injustice is a man's own profit and interest, thoughinjurious to the weaker. Now as you have admitted that justice isone of that highest class of goods which are desired indeed for theirresults, but in a far greater degree for their own sakes --like sightor hearing or knowledge or health, or any other real and natural andnot merely conventional good --I would ask you in your praise of justiceto regard one point only: I mean the essential good and evil whichjustice and injustice work in the possessors of them. Let others praisejustice and censure injustice, magnifying the rewards and honoursof the one and abusing the other; that is a manner of arguing which,coming from them, I am ready to tolerate, but from you who have spentyour whole life in the consideration of this question, unless I hearthe contrary from your own lips, I expect something better. And therefore,I say, not only prove to us that justice is better than injustice,but show what they either of them do to the possessor of them, whichmakes the one to be a good and the other an evil, whether seen orunseen by gods and men. Socrates - ADEIMANTUS" "Summary: The text explores the nature of justice and injustice, questioning why people choose justice over injustice. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "Can you tell me why a man who is unjust is always thought to be doing what is not just, but a man who does what is just is thought to be doing what is just?"""" Yes, I can tell you that."" Why?"" Because the just man does what he ought to do, and the unjust man does what he ought not to do. He who does what he ought to do will always seem to be doing what is just, whereas he who does what he ought not to do will always seem to be doing what is unjust."""" Ah! but why is one man as you say unjust the same as doing what one ought not to do? And why is another man just the same as doing what he ought to do? If you deny my statement are you prepared to maintain that the just man is the same as the unjust in respect of doing what he ought or ought not to do? May there not be some other reason which makes the former just and the latter unjust?"""" No, there is no other reason, Socrates."" Then I argue that if this is true, justice is the same for gods and men, in the sense that it is the having of knowledge, and wisdom is the most just, and the wise are most just; but if there is no knowledge, neither among gods nor men, then justice too cannot exist, since it is impossible that knowledge should be present in that which has not soul. But still, Adimantus, in spite of all this, may one not be justified in supposing that even without knowledge the just life is better than the unjust?"""" The case requires proof."" Nay, if we had only proved that justice is wisdom, surely we might reasonably infer that the just life is the better, and that the just man is happier than the unjust?"""" No doubt we might. But would it not need further proof to convince us of this?"""" To be sure,"" said Glaucon; ""I thought you would never have done with asking 'why?' He replied: Well, then, shall I proceed to show that the just man is happier, and the unjust man more miserable?"""" You may, and I hope that you will."" Then suppose you take up your position again, and assume first of all the following premiss: Let us acknowledge that whatever knowledge, power, insight, or courage the just man may show about matters of his own concerns, these same qualities when manifested by the unjust man in relation to himself, pass under other names which denote their opposite;—knowledge and understanding become folly, courage becomes rashness, and wisdom becomes trickery; do you admit the point?"""" Certainly, he said. And further, let this be agreed: the unjust man, being stronger than the just man, is able to harm him, and injure him in many ways; but the just man is powerless and, except for the fear of public opinion, will stand by and see the unjust man taking away his property, offering insults to him and those dearest to him, doing him any quantity of harm. " 23 23 "I had always admired the genius of Glaucon and Adeimantus, but onhearing these words I was quite delighted, and said: Sons of an illustriousfather, that was not a bad beginning of the Elegiac verses which theadmirer of Glaucon made in honour of you after you had distinguishedyourselves at the battle of Megara:-- 'Sons of Ariston,' he sang, 'divine offspring of an illustrious hero.'The epithet is very appropriate, for there is something truly divinein being able to argue as you have done for the superiority of injustice,and remaining unconvinced by your own arguments. And I do believethat you are not convinced --this I infer from your general character,for had I judged only from your speeches I should have mistrustedyou. But now, the greater my confidence in you, the greater is mydifficulty in knowing what to say. For I am in a strait between two;on the one hand I feel that I am unequal to the task; and my inabilityis brought home to me by the fact that you were not satisfied withthe answer which I made to Thrasymachus, proving, as I thought, thesuperiority which justice has over injustice. And yet I cannot refuseto help, while breath and speech remain to me; I am afraid that therewould be an impiety in being present when justice is evil spoken ofand not lifting up a hand in her defence. And therefore I had bestgive such help as I can. Glaucon and the rest entreated me by all means not to let the questiondrop, but to proceed in the investigation. They wanted to arrive atthe truth, first, about the nature of justice and injustice, and secondly,about their relative advantages. I told them, what I --really thought,that the enquiry would be of a serious nature, and would require verygood eyes. Seeing then, I said, that we are no great wits, I thinkthat we had better adopt a method which I may illustrate thus; supposethat a short-sighted person had been asked by some one to read smallletters from a distance; and it occurred to some one else that theymight be found in another place which was larger and in which theletters were larger --if they were the same and he could read thelarger letters first, and then proceed to the lesser --this wouldhave been thought a rare piece of good fortune. Very true, said Adeimantus; but how does the illustration apply toour enquiry? I will tell you, I replied; justice, which is the subject of our enquiry,is, as you know, sometimes spoken of as the virtue of an individual,and sometimes as the virtue of a State. True, he replied. And is not a State larger than an individual? It is. Then in the larger the quantity of justice is likely to be largerand more easily discernible. I propose therefore that we enquire intothe nature of justice and injustice, first as they appear in the State,and secondly in the individual, proceeding from the greater to thelesser and comparing them. That, he said, is an excellent proposal. And if we imagine the State in process of creation, we shall see thejustice and injustice of the State in process of creation also. I dare say. When the State is completed there may be a hope that the object ofour search will be more easily discovered. Yes, far more easily. But ought we to attempt to construct one? I said; for to do so, asI am inclined to think, will be a very serious task. Reflect therefore. I have reflected, said Adeimantus, and am anxious that you shouldproceed. A State, I said, arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind;no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants. Can any otherorigin of a State be imagined? There can I be no other. Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supplythem, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another;and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitationthe body of inhabitants is termed a State. True, he said. And they exchange with one another, and one gives, and another receives,under the idea that the exchange will be for their good." "Summary: The narrator is discussing the nature of justice and injustice with Glaucon and Adeimantus, and proposes to investigate the topic by first examining it in the context of a State. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Adeimantus Quoted character: Thrasymachus Language: English" “That’s the sort of talk we get from you. You’re a clever young man, Glaucon, but Thrasymachus is right about you.” “He’s not,” I said. “I’m not a clever young man at all.” “Then who is?” he asked. “Who else than a clever young man? Cleverness is the only thing that counts in this world, and a fool would be just as much out of place in a court of law or an assembly as he would be on the Olympic rostrum. And what does it matter if you’ve got the wrong idea about me being clever or not, so long as I really am? And my idea of cleverness is what Thrasymachus says it is: cleverness means always getting your own way, and if you don’t get it you’re a fool. I can’t help agreeing with him there.” “You agree too readily,” Adeimantus said. “But come along, let’s hear what Thrasymachus has to say for himself next time.” He was still laughing when I left them and went away. * * * * * The next day Thrasymachus came up to me after school and asked me to go for a walk with him. When we were out of earshot he began again on the same theme. “Of course justice isn’t any good to the strong,” he said. “It’s only good to the weak, and they get their own back by calling it justice. Take a look at our political system. There are the poor, the slaves, the people who do the work and pay taxes, and then there are the rich, the rulers, who have no work but enjoy all the pleasures. Of course it’s the latter who make the laws, and of course they make them in their own interest, because they’re stronger than everyone else. So they claim that doing injustice and not paying attention to justice is what gives them their position, and anyone who tries to stop them from doing injustice is a public enemy, a trouble-maker, a revolutionary, whereas they themselves are patriots and lovers of their country. That’s why they punish anyone who dares to say that injustice is more profitable than justice. They don’t call it ‘injustice’ either; they call it ‘being unjust,’ and say that it’s a bad thing, and that justice is a good thing. But they don’t mean that the just person is a good man and the unjust one a bad one; they mean that for a just person to be just is good for him, and for an unjust person to be unjust is bad for him. Now, someone who enjoys something and calls it good isn’t going to give it up voluntarily, even though it may harm other people. If we want to find out whether justice is good for the just person or not, we must see whether it makes him happier than injustice would.” 24 24 "Very true. Then, I said, let us begin and create in idea a State; and yet thetrue creator is necessity, who is the mother of our invention. Of course, he replied. Now the first and greatest of necessities is food, which is the conditionof life and existence. Certainly. The second is a dwelling, and the third clothing and the like. True. And now let us see how our city will be able to supply this greatdemand: We may suppose that one man is a husbandman, another a builder,some one else a weaver --shall we add to them a shoemaker, or perhapssome other purveyor to our bodily wants? Quite right. The barest notion of a State must include four or five men. Clearly. And how will they proceed? Will each bring the result of his laboursinto a common stock? --the individual husbandman, for example, producingfor four, and labouring four times as long and as much as he needin the provision of food with which he supplies others as well ashimself; or will he have nothing to do with others and not be at thetrouble of producing for them, but provide for himself alone a fourthof the food in a fourth of the time, and in the remaining three-fourthsof his time be employed in making a house or a coat or a pair of shoes,having no partnership with others, but supplying himself all his ownwants? Adeimantus thought that he should aim at producing food only and notat producing everything. Probably, I replied, that would be the better way; and when I hearyou say this, I am myself reminded that we are not all alike; thereare diversities of natures among us which are adapted to differentoccupations. Very true. And will you have a work better done when the workman has many occupations,or when he has only one? When he has only one. Further, there can be no doubt that a work is spoilt when not doneat the right time? No doubt. For business is not disposed to wait until the doer of the businessis at leisure; but the doer must follow up what he is doing, and makethe business his first object. He must. And if so, we must infer that all things are produced more plentifullyand easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing whichis natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves otherthings. Undoubtedly.. Then more than four citizens will be required; for the husbandmanwill not make his own plough or mattock, or other implements of agriculture,if they are to be good for anything. Neither will the builder makehis tools --and he too needs many; and in like manner the weaver andshoemaker. True. Then carpenters, and smiths, and many other artisans, will be sharersin our little State, which is already beginning to grow? True. Yet even if we add neatherds, shepherds, and other herdsmen, in orderthat our husbandmen may have oxen to plough with, and builders aswell as husbandmen may have draught cattle, and curriers and weaversfleeces and hides, --still our State will not be very large. That is true; yet neither will it be a very small State which containsall these. Then, again, there is the situation of the city --to find a placewhere nothing need be imported is well-nigh impossible. Impossible. Then there must be another class of citizens who will bring the requiredsupply from another city? There must. But if the trader goes empty-handed, having nothing which they requirewho would supply his need, he will come back empty-handed. That is certain. And therefore what they produce at home must be not only enough forthemselves, but such both in quantity and quality as to accommodatethose from whom their wants are supplied. Very true. Then more husbandmen and more artisans will be required? They will. Not to mention the importers and exporters, who are called merchants? Yes. Then we shall want merchants? We shall. And if merchandise is to be carried over the sea, skilful sailorswill also be needed, and in considerable numbers? Yes, in considerable numbers. Then, again, within the city, how will they exchange their productions?To secure such an exchange was, as you will remember, one of our principalobjects when we formed them into a society and constituted a State." "Summary: The text discusses the creation of a State and the need for different occupations to support it. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" In fact, he said, if the State is to have a perfect justice, this is not enough, but it must also have two other kinds of men besides warriors; one of which may be termed, wholesale merchants or vendors, and the other retail dealers. The following was an example: A sort of farmer who had some gold or silver or bronze or iron or wood in his possession, might be supposed naturally to incline towards the arts which manufacture such things, e.g. as a smith or a carpenter or a builder; and again the manufacturers would naturally be inclined towards trade and towards selling their goods. Now when the various necessities of life are established by nature, then the natural potters, smiths, and builders are those whose souls, of all others, desire the art of feeding and furnishing them. But when land is granted to individuals, there will be no place for them in the new State. There must be some political expedient: how shall we turn them away? Shall we send them like Socrates, on a star-chamber mission to another city? And if they are dissatisfied with that, shall we say to them as we did to our former colonists, ‘Stay at home and tend the acorns and be content with what is home-grown?’ Which will suit their pride best? Then you will invent some expedient. Or do you think that you will use force, and compel them to be shoemakers or farmers? If you are hard-pressed you may do so. Then come war and plenty. As you are a lover of gymnastics, I presume that you know how our soldiers equalise their food, more especially when on active service? When supplies are abundant they are temperate, but when they are scanty they relieve themselves of their superfluous fat. In like manner, when there is the abundance of riches, they practise thrift, and when they are in want they learn to do without. And in general, Adeimantus, you say very rightly that our rulers ought to be such as will make the citizens good guardians of the State. But do you mean to say that they are good guardians of a State who are lazy, and do not care about anything but feeding and cooking, and when they are ill are happier than when they are well? For answering your objection, that they are only doing what nature tells them, may be said to hold good of many other animals. To guard against the possibility which you describe of their turning into hucksters and shopkeepers, would be right enough if this were the only way in which our citizens could lose their character as defenders of the State; but the truth is that the loyal guardian spirit cannot be exhaled from the excellence of the body until after death, when, as we may imagine, the souls of them who are in every other respect good men enter into the presence of the gods on this very account, that they have honoured and nurtured the excellence of the mind which is followed now by the satisfaction of courage and mildness; 25 25 "Clearly they will buy and sell. Then they will need a market-place, and a money-token for purposesof exchange. Certainly. Suppose now that a husbandman, or an artisan, brings some productionto market, and he comes at a time when there is no one to exchangewith him, --is he to leave his calling and sit idle in the market-place? Not at all; he will find people there who, seeing the want, undertakethe office of salesmen. In well-ordered States they are commonly thosewho are the weakest in bodily strength, and therefore of little usefor any other purpose; their duty is to be in the market, and to givemoney in exchange for goods to those who desire to sell and to takemoney from those who desire to buy. This want, then, creates a class of retail-traders in our State. Isnot 'retailer' the term which is applied to those who sit in the market-placeengaged in buying and selling, while those who wander from one cityto another are called merchants? Yes, he said. And there is another class of servants, who are intellectually hardlyon the level of companionship; still they have plenty of bodily strengthfor labour, which accordingly they sell, and are called, if I do notmistake, hirelings, hire being the name which is given to the priceof their labour. True. Then hirelings will help to make up our population? Yes. And now, Adeimantus, is our State matured and perfected? I think so. Where, then, is justice, and where is injustice, and in what partof the State did they spring up? Probably in the dealings of these citizens with one another. cannotimagine that they are more likely to be found anywhere else. I dare say that you are right in your suggestion, I said; we had betterthink the matter out, and not shrink from the enquiry. Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life,now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn,and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves?And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, strippedand barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and shod. They willfeed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them,making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat ofreeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon bedsstrewn with yew or myrtle. And they and their children will feast,drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on theirheads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse withone another. And they will take care that their families do not exceedtheir means; having an eye to poverty or war. Socrates - GLAUCON But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish totheir meal. True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish-salt,and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such ascountry people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, andpeas, and beans; and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns atthe fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may beexpected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeatha similar life to their children after them. Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs,how else would you feed the beasts? But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied. Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life.People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas, anddine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modernstyle." "Summary: The text discusses the creation of a market-place and the need for exchange, as well as the different classes of citizens in the State. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "So the first thing we shall have to do is to make a market-place; and when we've done that, how can we get them to exchange with one another?"""" I suppose they must be allowed to meet face to face."" Yes, but then they'd start fighting, and then there'd be no end of trouble. So we mustn't let them come together in that way."""" How are you going to prevent it?"" By making them speak to one another from a distance, through windows. Then they'll be able to see each other all right, but they won't be able to hurt one another; and if they want to give one another anything, they'll have to put it into a box and drop it down a tube."""" That's quite an idea,"" said Glaucon. ""But what will they talk about?"" Anything you like,"" said Socrates; ""only let them keep quiet about politics. And as they'll all have something to sell, they'll have something to say; and as they'll all want to buy, they'll have something to listen for; so they won't feel bored. But don't worry about their finding things to talk about; there are plenty of topics of conversation already discovered. If you like, I could tell you a list of them: love, anger, courage, ambition, enmity, and so on. These are things which are always happening, and everybody knows all about them already, so they'll have no difficulty in talking about them."""" They'll certainly have plenty to say about those,"" said Glaucon. ""And now, since they have everything they need, we must organize them in some sort of way. So let us begin by dividing them into four classes: gold, silver, bronze, and iron. The gold people will be our guardians, the soldiers; the silver ones will be our auxiliaries; the bronzes will be farmers, and the iron ones will be labourers."""" Is that all?"" asked Glaucon. ""I thought there were more than four classes."""" There are only these,"" said Socrates; ""but I'm not going to tell you yet what the order of rank will be. You'll find out that later on for yourselves. But here's how they'll work. Each class will look after its own interests, and nobody else's. The gold people will look after the soldiers' affairs, and the silver people will look after the auxiliaries'; the farmers will look after themselves, and the labourers will look after the labourers. And I'll explain why they'll do this in a minute. First, however, I'll describe what sort of lives they'll lead. The gold people will live together in the centre of the State, in the light of the flame, and will wear white clothes. They will have no private property except their bodies and their weapons, and they will spend their time guarding the State and being on duty in turn. " 26 26 "Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have meconsider is, not only how a State, but how a luxurious State is created;and possibly there is no harm in this, for in such a State we shallbe more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinionthe true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which Ihave described. But if you wish also to see a State at fever heat,I have no objection. For I suspect that many will not be satisfiedwith the simpler way of way They will be for adding sofas, and tables,and other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, andcourtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in everyvariety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at firstspeaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of thepainter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and goldand ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured. True, he said. Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State isno longer sufficient. Now will the city have to fill and swell witha multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want;such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large classhave to do with forms and colours; another will be the votaries ofmusic --poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers,contractors; also makers of divers kinds of articles, including women'sdresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be alsoin request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as wellas confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not neededand therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, butare needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animalsof many other kinds, if people eat them. Certainly. And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physiciansthan before? Much greater. And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitantswill be too small now, and not enough? Quite true. Then a slice of our neighbours' land will be wanted by us for pastureand tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves,they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to theunlimited accumulation of wealth? That, Socrates, will be inevitable. And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not? Most certainly, he replied. Then without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thusmuch we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derivedfrom causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States,private as well as public. Undoubtedly. And our State must once more enlarge; and this time the will be nothingshort of a whole army, which will have to go out and fight with theinvaders for all that we have, as well as for the things and personswhom we were describing above. Why? he said; are they not capable of defending themselves? No, I said; not if we were right in the principle which was acknowledgedby all of us when we were framing the State: the principle, as youwill remember, was that one man cannot practise many arts with success. Very true, he said. But is not war an art? Certainly. And an art requiring as much attention as shoemaking? Quite true. And the shoemaker was not allowed by us to be husbandman, or a weaver,a builder --in order that we might have our shoes well made; but tohim and to every other worker was assigned one work for which he wasby nature fitted, and at that he was to continue working all his lifelong and at no other; he was not to let opportunities slip, and thenhe would become a good workman. Now nothing can be more importantthan that the work of a soldier should be well done. But is war anart so easily acquired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman,or shoemaker, or other artisan; although no one in the world wouldbe a good dice or draught player who merely took up the game as arecreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself tothis and nothing else? No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence,nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, andhas never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takesup a shield or other implement of war become a good fighter all ina day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops? Yes, he said, the tools which would teach men their own use wouldbe beyond price. And the higher the duties of the guardian, I said, the more time,and skill, and art, and application will be needed by him?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the creation and expansion of a luxurious state, as well as the necessity for war and military training. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker and Glaucon Quoted work: Not mentioned Language: English" It's a beautiful state you've given us, Glaucon; a luxurious state, I said. And now make the transition, as it were, in your own person, and tell me something of its laws: their nature and purpose and grandeur. (3) What laws? he said. (4) Why, the military laws which we mentioned just now, and those relating to the education of the soldiers. (5) Yes; but do you mean their drill and so forth? (6) Yes, that sort of thing. (7) We shall soon see whether that is what I mean. The whole State, I think, must be armed. (8) Certainly. (9) Tell me then, what do you say about our soldiers' food? Shall we give them the same kind of food as the other citizens, or rather, do you not suppose that every one will want them to have more rather than less? (10) Certainly, more. (11) But do you think that they ought to have all things in common? (12) Certainly not. (13) Then will not their diet be different from that of the other citizens? (14) Very different. (15) And at public meals will they care about eating with their parents and relations, or rather, will they eat in companies separate from them? (16) In separate companies. (17) Yes, indeed, for you will never find lions dancing together, as we were saying a moment ago. (18) True. (19) And there is no need of telling us that after dinner they will go out and hunt. (20) Certainly not. (21) And when they catch, what do you imagine will be the regiments into which they will divide of horses and cattle and anything else? (22) Into bands of twelves, as we heard. (23) And these will stream away in troops of twelve and hundreds and thousands, just like those of bees? (24) Of course. (25) Then they will take their proper stand in the army, the least number dividing with the rest into companies, and the greatest taking command of divisions and cohorts and brigades? (26) Now, in the regulated army of a sensible State, does each soldier receive his equal share, whether the division has been made into two or into twelves or into thousands? (27) Certainly not. (28) But when divided into battalions and companies, does the company take the leader or the leader the company? (29) The latter, he said. (30) Do you ever see any one taking command over himself, or rather, does not every one willingly obey himself? (31) Certainly. (32) And when the other parts of the State are under arms, will not the several parts be obedient to the legislator and the generals? (33) To be sure. (34) But can there be a more excellent regime than this? 27 27 "No doubt, he replied. Will he not also require natural aptitude for his calling? Certainly. Then it will be our duty to select, if we can, natures which are fittedfor the task of guarding the city? It will. And the selection will be no easy matter, I said; but we must be braveand do our best. We must. Is not the noble youth very like a well-bred dog in respect of guardingand watching? What do you mean? I mean that both of them ought to be quick to see, and swift to overtakethe enemy when they see him; and strong too if, when they have caughthim, they have to fight with him. All these qualities, he replied, will certainly be required by them. Well, and your guardian must be brave if he is to fight well? Certainly. And is he likely to be brave who has no spirit, whether horse or dogor any other animal? Have you never observed how invincible and unconquerableis spirit and how the presence of it makes the soul of any creatureto be absolutely fearless and indomitable? I have. Then now we have a clear notion of the bodily qualities which arerequired in the guardian. True. And also of the mental ones; his soul is to be full of spirit? Yes. But are not these spirited natures apt to be savage with one another,and with everybody else? A difficulty by no means easy to overcome, he replied. Whereas, I said, they ought to be dangerous to their enemies, andgentle to their friends; if not, they will destroy themselves withoutwaiting for their enemies to destroy them. True, he said. What is to be done then? I said; how shall we find a gentle naturewhich has also a great spirit, for the one is the contradiction ofthe other? True. He will not be a good guardian who is wanting in either of these twoqualities; and yet the combination of them appears to be impossible;and hence we must infer that to be a good guardian is impossible. I am afraid that what you say is true, he replied. Here feeling perplexed I began to think over what had preceded. Myfriend, I said, no wonder that we are in a perplexity; for we havelost sight of the image which we had before us. What do you mean? he said. I mean to say that there do exist natures gifted with those oppositequalities. And where do you find them? Many animals, I replied, furnish examples of them; our friend thedog is a very good one: you know that well-bred dogs are perfectlygentle to their familiars and acquaintances, and the reverse to strangers. Yes, I know. Then there is nothing impossible or out of the order of nature inour finding a guardian who has a similar combination of qualities? Certainly not. Would not he who is fitted to be a guardian, besides the spiritednature, need to have the qualities of a philosopher? I do not apprehend your meaning. The trait of which I am speaking, I replied, may be also seen in thedog, and is remarkable in the animal. What trait? Why, a dog, whenever he sees a stranger, is angry; when an acquaintance,he welcomes him, although the one has never done him any harm, northe other any good. Did this never strike you as curious? The matter never struck me before; but I quite recognise the truthof your remark. And surely this instinct of the dog is very charming; --your dog isa true philosopher. Why? Why, because he distinguishes the face of a friend and of an enemyonly by the criterion of knowing and not knowing. And must not ananimal be a lover of learning who determines what he likes and dislikesby the test of knowledge and ignorance? Most assuredly. And is not the love of learning the love of wisdom, which is philosophy? They are the same, he replied. And may we not say confidently of man also, that he who is likelyto be gentle to his friends and acquaintances, must by nature be alover of wisdom and knowledge?" "Summary: The text discusses the qualities and characteristics of a guardian and how they should be selected. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" The guardian must be a lover of the truth and a man of courage. He must also be quick to learn, have a good memory, a firm will, be healthy and strong, and as far as possible have no property. ‘This last requirement,’ I said, ‘is bound to create surprise; it is indeed the very thing that most people are always saying we should look for in a guardian. “He must have property,” they say, “a great deal of property.”’ ‘I’m afraid you’re right,’ he said. ‘What with wealth and birth and family connections and all the rest of it, people think these are the qualities which make a perfect guardian.’ ‘And yet you would agree that there’s nothing more likely to make him careless about the interests of the state?’ ‘Of course there is,’ he said. ‘Property makes men soft and lazy and cowardly. The only man who’s going to be willing to fight for his country is the one who doesn’t own anything worth fighting for.’ ‘Quite so,’ I said. ‘So what other reason could there be for excluding him from the ranks of the guardians? Except, of course, that you’re right when you say that a poor man will be both cleverer and braver than a rich one.’ ‘That’s obvious enough,’ he said. ‘Very well then. A guardian should be free from possessions, and young and light-hearted and vigorous and single-minded, and completely free from the burden of private family life and its worries. He must not be allowed to marry or have children. No, Glaucon, it is better for him to live like this; better, too, for the city as a whole, if each of us does our bit. But don’t let’s talk about it any more, because if we do we’ll never stop. So let’s go back to the qualifications which we were discussing just now, shall we? You can see for yourself how a potential guardian must be tested: first for the courage to endure pain and danger, next for the ability to put up with hardship and cold and heat and the other sorts of privation which are bound to come his way; thirdly, he must be tried for his skill at running and wrestling and dancing and riding and hunting and gymnastics generally. Then we must test his power of endurance, to see whether he can stand up under strain and fatigue and hunger and thirst and sleeplessness and the whole panoply of physical sufferings, and also whether he can control his temper. We shall also want to see whether he can keep quiet and play the part of an actor on the stage, and whether he has the capacity for friendship and companionship and the ability to enjoy living with others. All these things must be carefully examined. 28 28 "That we may safely affirm. Then he who is to be a really good and noble guardian of the Statewill require to unite in himself philosophy and spirit and swiftnessand strength? Undoubtedly. Then we have found the desired natures; and now that we have foundthem, how are they to be reared and educated? Is not this enquirywhich may be expected to throw light on the greater enquiry whichis our final end --How do justice and injustice grow up in States?for we do not want either to omit what is to the point or to drawout the argument to an inconvenient length. Socrates - ADEIMANTUS Adeimantus thought that the enquiry would be of great service to us. Then, I said, my dear friend, the task must not be given up, evenif somewhat long. Certainly not. Come then, and let us pass a leisure hour in story-telling, and ourstory shall be the education of our heroes. By all means. And what shall be their education? Can we find a better than the traditionalsort? --and this has two divisions, gymnastic for the body, and musicfor the soul. True. Shall we begin education with music, and go on to gymnastic afterwards? By all means. And when you speak of music, do you include literature or not? I do. And literature may be either true or false? Yes. And the young should be trained in both kinds, and we begin with thefalse? I do not understand your meaning, he said. You know, I said, that we begin by telling children stories which,though not wholly destitute of truth, are in the main fictitious;and these stories are told them when they are not of an age to learngymnastics. Very true. That was my meaning when I said that we must teach music before gymnastics. Quite right, he said. You know also that the beginning is the most important part of anywork, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for thatis the time at which the character is being formed and the desiredimpression is more readily taken. Quite true. And shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual taleswhich may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into theirminds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which weshould wish them to have when they are grown up? We cannot. Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writersof fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction whichis good, and reject the bad; and we will desire mothers and nursesto tell their children the authorised ones only. Let them fashionthe mind with such tales, even more fondly than they mould the bodywith their hands; but most of those which are now in use must be discarded. Of what tales are you speaking? he said. You may find a model of the lesser in the greater, I said; for theyare necessarily of the same type, and there is the same spirit inboth of them. Very likely, he replied; but I do not as yet know what you would termthe greater. Those, I said, which are narrated by Homer and Hesiod, and the restof the poets, who have ever been the great story-tellers of mankind. But which stories do you mean, he said; and what fault do you findwith them? A fault which is most serious, I said; the fault of telling a lie,and, what is more, a bad lie. But when is this fault committed? Whenever an erroneous representation is made of the nature of godsand heroes, --as when a painter paints a portrait not having the shadowof a likeness to the original. Yes, he said, that sort of thing is certainly very blamable; but whatare the stories which you mean?" "Summary: The text discusses the importance of education and the need for censorship in storytelling. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Quoted character: Homer, Hesiod Language: English" "I do not see why the gods should be jealous of education, since they gave it to mankind in the first place."""" You are always talking about the first place,"" said Socrates, ""but you seem to forget that you are now living in the second. When I am dead and gone you will find that if there is any truth in what I say you will have to exercise censorship over story-tellers if your children are to be properly brought up."""" Adeimantus shook his head doubtfully. But why? What harm can stories do?"" The harm is this: every one knows that Homer wrote his poems for money; so did Hesiod, and the same was true of all those who wrote legends about the gods and heroes, who composed the epics, tragedies, comedies, and all such rubbish which nowadays we call Literature. These people were paid by the state to write these stories, and the more immoral their books the greater their reward. Now the state cannot pay poets unless somebody buys their books; so the buying public is really responsible for all the rubbish that has been written in the world. Therefore I maintain that the best way to deal with Literature is to stop the public from buying it. Censorship, my dear fellow, is a form of education."""" Adeimantus looked even more doubtful than before. " 29 29 "First of all, I said, there was that greatest of all lies, in highplaces, which the poet told about Uranus, and which was a bad lietoo, --I mean what Hesiod says that Uranus did, and how Cronus retaliatedon him. The doings of Cronus, and the sufferings which in turn hisson inflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought certainly notto be lightly told to young and thoughtless persons; if possible,they had better be buried in silence. But if there is an absolutenecessity for their mention, a chosen few might hear them in a mystery,and they should sacrifice not a common [Eleusinian] pig, but somehuge and unprocurable victim; and then the number of the hearers willbe very few indeed. Why, yes, said he, those stories are extremely objectionable. Yes, Adeimantus, they are stories not to be repeated in our State;the young man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimeshe is far from doing anything outrageous; and that even if he chastiseshis father when does wrong, in whatever manner, he will only be followingthe example of the first and greatest among the gods. I entirely agree with you, he said; in my opinion those stories arequite unfit to be repeated. Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrellingamong themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be saidto them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of thegods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall nevermention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments;and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of godsand heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believeus we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never upto this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this iswhat old men and old women should begin by telling children; and whenthey grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them ina similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here hismother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for takingher part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the godsin Homer --these tales must not be admitted into our State, whetherthey are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a youngperson cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anythingthat he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelibleand unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the taleswhich the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts. There you are right, he replied; but if any one asks where are suchmodels to be found and of what tales are you speaking --how shallwe answer him? I said to him, You and I, Adeimantus, at this moment are not poets,but founders of a State: now the founders of a State ought to knowthe general forms in which poets should cast their tales, and thelimits which must be observed by them, but to make the tales is nottheir business. Very true, he said; but what are these forms of theology which youmean? Something of this kind, I replied: --God is always to be representedas he truly is, whatever be the sort of poetry, epic, lyric or tragic,in which the representation is given. Right. And is he not truly good? and must he not be represented as such? Certainly. And no good thing is hurtful? No, indeed. And that which is not hurtful hurts not? Certainly not. And that which hurts not does no evil? No. And can that which does no evil be a cause of evil? Impossible. And the good is advantageous? Yes. And therefore the cause of well-being? Yes. It follows therefore that the good is not the cause of all things,but of the good only? Assuredly. Then God, if he be good, is not the author of all things, as the manyassert, but he is the cause of a few things only, and not of mostthings that occur to men. For few are the goods of human life, andmany are the evils, and the good is to be attributed to God alone;of the evils the causes are to be sought elsewhere, and not in him. That appears to me to be most true, he said. Then we must not listen to Homer or to any other poet who is guiltyof the folly of saying that two casks Lie at the threshold of Zeus,full of lots, one of good, the other of evil lots, and that he towhom Zeus gives a mixture of the two Sometimes meets with evil fortune,at other times with good; but that he to whom is given the cup ofunmingled ill," "Summary: The narrator discusses the importance of not telling certain stories to young people and suggests that only a few should hear them. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Narrator, Adeimantus Quoted work: Homer's poems Language: English" 'Tell them to the grown men,' I said. 'They'll have their reasons for wanting to hear them, and they'll be able to choose how much of it they want to take in. But these youngsters won't know what's good for them and they'll just get confused.' 'But you're only using them as a pretext for telling me that those stories shouldn't be told at all to anyone. And I know why. You don't believe in Homer's gods. So you say that his poems aren't really about them but about human passions. You think that the poets are lying when they make their gods do things like having affairs and behaving just like human beings. What you mean is that you can't bear to listen to these lies because they upset you so much. And you've made up your mind that no one should ever hear them who doesn't have to. That's why you can't let the young people be told even the good parts, like Achilles' grief for Patroclus or Hector's love for Andromache. The best bits in Homer will always remind you of the bad ones, and you hate them both equally. You'd rather destroy the whole thing than allow any young person to see the truth about human nature as he sees it. If you were trying to suppress the truth you wouldn't do it more effectively yourself. You don't realize how serious this is. It'll be a terrible responsibility for us to have brought you up in the belief that our ancestors were a lot of silly liars who made up false tales without any meaning.' 'You're right,' I said. 'And you can tell Adeimantus what I've been thinking. There's another reason besides the one we've been talking about. 30 30 "Him wild hunger drives o'er the beauteous earth. And again Zeus, who is the dispenser of good and evil to us. And if any oneasserts that the violation of oaths and treaties, which was reallythe work of Pandarus, was brought about by Athene and Zeus, or thatthe strife and contention of the gods was instigated by Themis andZeus, he shall not have our approval; neither will we allow our youngmen to hear the words of Aeschylus, that God plants guilt among menwhen he desires utterly to destroy a house. And if a poet writes ofthe sufferings of Niobe --the subject of the tragedy in which theseiambic verses occur --or of the house of Pelops, or of the Trojanwar or on any similar theme, either we must not permit him to saythat these are the works of God, or if they are of God, he must devisesome explanation of them such as we are seeking; he must say thatGod did what was just and right, and they were the better for beingpunished; but that those who are punished are miserable, and thatGod is the author of their misery --the poet is not to be permittedto say; though he may say that the wicked are miserable because theyrequire to be punished, and are benefited by receiving punishmentfrom God; but that God being good is the author of evil to any oneis to be strenuously denied, and not to be said or sung or heard inverse or prose by any one whether old or young in any well-orderedcommonwealth. Such a fiction is suicidal, ruinous, impious. I agree with you, he replied, and am ready to give my assent to thelaw. Let this then be one of our rules and principles concerning the gods,to which our poets and reciters will be expected to conform --thatGod is not the author of all things, but of good only. That will do, he said. And what do you think of a second principle? Shall I ask you whetherGod is a magician, and of a nature to appear insidiously now in oneshape, and now in another --sometimes himself changing and passinginto many forms, sometimes deceiving us with the semblance of suchtransformations; or is he one and the same immutably fixed in hisown proper image? I cannot answer you, he said, without more thought. Well, I said; but if we suppose a change in anything, that changemust be effected either by the thing itself, or by some other thing? Most certainly. And things which are at their best are also least liable to be alteredor discomposed; for example, when healthiest and strongest, the humanframe is least liable to be affected by meats and drinks, and theplant which is in the fullest vigour also suffers least from windsor the heat of the sun or any similar causes. Of course. And will not the bravest and wisest soul be least confused or derangedby any external influence? True. And the same principle, as I should suppose, applies to all compositethings --furniture, houses, garments; when good and well made, theyare least altered by time and circumstances. Very true. Then everything which is good, whether made by art or nature, or both,is least liable to suffer change from without? True. But surely God and the things of God are in every way perfect? Of course they are. Then he can hardly be compelled by external influence to take manyshapes? He cannot. But may he not change and transform himself? Clearly, he said, that must be the case if he is changed at all. And will he then change himself for the better and fairer, or forthe worse and more unsightly? If he change at all he can only change for the worse, for we cannotsuppose him to be deficient either in virtue or beauty. Very true, Adeimantus; but then, would any one, whether God or man,desire to make himself worse? Impossible. Then it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change; being,as is supposed, the fairest and best that is conceivable, every godremains absolutely and for ever in his own form. That necessarily follows, he said, in my judgment. Then, I said, my dear friend, let none of the poets tell us that" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of God and his relationship to human suffering and punishment. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Zeus, Pandarus, Athene Quoted work: Aeschylus' tragedy Language: English" And God replied, ‘My son, I have often heard that you are a great liar and a great thief, but this is the first time I have ever heard that you are a great philosopher. You are wrong to say that I am the cause of human suffering. The cause of human suffering is men like you: you who lie and steal and murder.’ And Zeus answered, ‘You are right, O God; but what are we to do? We cannot destroy them. They are too strong for us.’ ‘Then,’ said God, ‘I will make a law which shall prevent you from destroying them, and since they are strong enough to defy you, they will be strong enough to obey my law. They shall not be destroyed by natural disasters, but they shall be punished for their sins in another world.’” And here the narrator turned to me with a harsh, cold smile, and said, “That, Mr Campion, is the story of the Fall, as it is told in Aeschylus’ tragedy Prometheus Bound.” * * * * * It was as though he had been reading out some dreadful piece of Latin prose which he did not understand himself. There was no point to his remark at all. He might just as well have quoted the rules of chess or the tenth book of the Iliad. Then he went on with his story again. But I could see that he was uncomfortable. His eyes were bulging and his hands shook. And all the time he kept staring at Athene’s bent head. When he had finished he sat there for a long while, looking down at the tablecloth and fiddling with his pipe. I thought he had done for good this time. At last I felt compelled to speak. “Well,” I said, “I suppose that’s all very interesting. But why on earth don’t you get on with your story?” He looked up suddenly and then he laughed. “All very interesting!” he said. “It’s a little thing I picked up from old Pandarus when I was a kid. Why don’t I get on with my story? Well, I’ll tell you something, young man, if you’ve got the nerve to listen. That’s the one thing I’m going to do.” Chapter III THE BRUTE AND THE CHICKEN AT ten o’clock that night I was sitting in the smoking-room of the hotel with Psmith, who had arrived back from Oxford about an hour before. As usual, he had brought with him a small suitcase containing certain clothes and toilet necessaries, and these he deposited beside his chair with the air of one who has performed an act of service. Then, having assisted himself to a whisky-and-soda, he drew up his chair and stared across the table at me. “Well,” he said, “how goes the case of the mysterious death in the Surrey hills?” “Very much as it did last time we spoke on the subject. I have seen both Dr Jerningham and his wife, and am now awaiting developments.” “Ah, yes! I remember now. The lady of the house is your fiancée, is she not?” “Yes.” “A charming girl, I believe. 31 31 "The gods, taking the disguise of strangers from other lands, walkup and down cities in all sorts of forms; and let no one slander Proteusand Thetis, neither let any one, either in tragedy or in any otherkind of poetry, introduce Here disguised in the likeness of a priestessasking an alms For the life-giving daughters of Inachus the river of Argos; --letus have no more lies of that sort. Neither must we have mothers underthe influence of the poets scaring their children with a bad versionof these myths --telling how certain gods, as they say, 'Go aboutby night in the likeness of so many strangers and in divers forms';but let them take heed lest they make cowards of their children, andat the same time speak blasphemy against the gods. Heaven forbid, he said. But although the gods are themselves unchangeable, still by witchcraftand deception they may make us think that they appear in various forms? Perhaps, he replied. Well, but can you imagine that God will be willing to lie, whetherin word or deed, or to put forth a phantom of himself? I cannot say, he replied. Do you not know, I said, that the true lie, if such an expressionmay be allowed, is hated of gods and men? What do you mean? he said. I mean that no one is willingly deceived in that which is the truestand highest part of himself, or about the truest and highest matters;there, above all, he is most afraid of a lie having possession ofhim. Still, he said, I do not comprehend you. The reason is, I replied, that you attribute some profound meaningto my words; but I am only saying that deception, or being deceivedor uninformed about the highest realities in the highest part of themselves,which is the soul, and in that part of them to have and to hold thelie, is what mankind least like; --that, I say, is what they utterlydetest. There is nothing more hateful to them. And, as I was just now remarking, this ignorance in the soul of himwho is deceived may be called the true lie; for the lie in words isonly a kind of imitation and shadowy image of a previous affectionof the soul, not pure unadulterated falsehood. Am I not right? Perfectly right. The true lie is hated not only by the gods, but also by men? Yes. Whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful;in dealing with enemies --that would be an instance; or again, whenthose whom we call our friends in a fit of madness or illusion aregoing to do some harm, then it is useful and is a sort of medicineor preventive; also in the tales of mythology, of which we were justnow speaking --because we do not know the truth about ancient times,we make falsehood as much like truth as we can, and so turn it toaccount. Very true, he said. But can any of these reasons apply to God? Can we suppose that heis ignorant of antiquity, and therefore has recourse to invention? That would be ridiculous, he said. Then the lying poet has no place in our idea of God? I should say not. Or perhaps he may tell a lie because he is afraid of enemies? That is inconceivable. But he may have friends who are senseless or mad? But no mad or senseless person can be a friend of God. Then no motive can be imagined why God should lie? None whatever. Then the superhuman and divine is absolutely incapable of falsehood? Yes. Then is God perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changesnot; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision. Your thoughts, he said, are the reflection of my own. You agree with me then, I said, that this is the second type or formin which we should write and speak about divine things. The gods arenot magicians who transform themselves, neither do they deceive mankindin any way. I grant that. Then, although we are admirers of Homer, we do not admire the lyingdream which Zeus sends to Agamemnon; neither will we praise the versesof Aeschylus in which Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of lies and deception in relation to the gods. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I was always ready for a joke with them, but I never could bring myself to believe that they were anything else but lies. I suppose it's because I'm half English."""" But the gods are Greek, Socrates,"" protested his companion; ""and how do you know they aren't true?"""" I know they're not true,"" said Socrates; ""and if they were, I'd be just as much against them."" Well, at any rate, some people believe in them,"" said the other rather sheepishly; ""I mean, they don't have to invent a god for every crime like that fool of an alibi man who invented Dionysus and the Mysteries."""" You can invent all sorts of gods and miracles and visitations and prophecies and visions and revelations and everything else you like,"" said Socrates; ""but when you've done so, and you come to prove what your god said or didn't say, or what happened or didn't happen, you'll find it's no good. For one thing, you may have made your god say or do something which another man says he said or did ten years before; and then where are you? And for another, you may think you remember yourself what your god said or did on a certain occasion, but you can't be sure you haven't dreamt it or been mistaken, or are mistaken now."""" That's why I hate those damned lying gods,"" said Socrates. ""They are always interfering with my work and making fools of people."""" What did they do now?"" asked the interlocutor curiously. They deceived me most horribly last night,"" said Socrates. What! Deceived you?"" Yes. I had a nice case on, but I couldn't get any further with it last night. So I went up into the Pnyx hill to take some exercise, and sat down on a stone to rest. After a bit, a little bird came along and perched on my shoulder, and began to talk to me. He told me that I had better go back to bed, for I would find nothing that day that would help me forward in my work."""" Did you believe him?"" No,"" said Socrates, ""though I wished I could. But I knew it was no use. So I got up and walked home; but I felt disappointed and discouraged all the way. And when I got home I found I hadn't missed anything after all."""" Then your gods are worse than fools,"" said the other angrily. They're deucedly sarcastic, anyhow,"" said Socrates. """"And I'll bet the little bird was a figment of my own brain."""" I hope you won't mind our introducing our conversation again with an apology,"" said the Dean; ""but we have been trying to follow out the line of thought which led up to the discovery of the mysterious guest, and we found ourselves talking rather loud."""" " 32 32 "Was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to he long,and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in allthings blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered mysoul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus being divine and fullof prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the strain,he who was present at the banquet, and who said this --he it is whohas slain my son. These are the kind of sentiments about the gods which will arouseour anger; and he who utters them shall be refused a chorus; neithershall we allow teachers to make use of them in the instruction ofthe young, meaning, as we do, that our guardians, as far as men canbe, should be true worshippers of the gods and like them. I entirely agree, be said, in these principles, and promise to makethem my laws. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK III Socrates - ADEIMANTUS Such then, I said, are our principles of theology --some tales areto be told, and others are not to be told to our disciples from theiryouth upwards, if we mean them to honour the gods and their parents,and to value friendship with one another. Yes; and I think that our principles are right, he said. But if they are to be courageous, must they not learn other lessonsbesides these, and lessons of such a kind as will take away the fearof death? Can any man be courageous who has the fear of death in him? Certainly not, he said. And can he be fearless of death, or will he choose death in battlerather than defeat and slavery, who believes the world below to bereal and terrible? Impossible. Then we must assume a control over the narrators of this class oftales as well as over the others, and beg them not simply to but ratherto commend the world below, intimating to them that their descriptionsare untrue, and will do harm to our future warriors. That will be our duty, he said. Then, I said, we shall have to obliterate many obnoxious passages,beginning with the verses, I would rather he a serf on the land of a poor and portionless manthan rule over all the dead who have come to nought. We must alsoexpunge the verse, which tells us how Pluto feared, Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the gods abhor should heseen both of mortals and immortals. And again: O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostlyform but no mind at all! Again of Tiresias: -- [To him even after death did Persephone grant mind,] that he aloneshould be wise; but the other souls are flitting shades. Again: -- The soul flying from the limbs had gone to Hades, lamentng her fate,leaving manhood and youth. Again: -- And the soul, with shrilling cry, passed like smoke beneath the earth.And, -- As bats in hollow of mystic cavern, whenever any of the has droppedout of the string and falls from the rock, fly shrilling and clingto one another, so did they with shrilling cry hold together as theymoved. And we must beg Homer and the other poets not to be angry ifwe strike out these and similar passages, not because they are unpoetical,or unattractive to the popular ear, but because the greater the poeticalcharm of them, the less are they meet for the ears of boys and menwho are meant to be free, and who should fear slavery more than death. Undoubtedly. Also we shall have to reject all the terrible and appalling namesdescribe the world below --Cocytus and Styx, ghosts under the earth,and sapless shades, and any similar words of which the very mentioncauses a shudder to pass through the inmost soul of him who hearsthem. I do not say that these horrible stories may not have a useof some kind; but there is a danger that the nerves of our guardiansmay be rendered too excitable and effeminate by them. There is a real danger, he said. Then we must have no more of them. True. Another and a nobler strain must be composed and sung by us." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of teaching children about the gods and the afterlife, and how certain stories should be avoided due to their negative effects. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Quoted work: Homer's poems Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" I am not going to teach you the story of what happened to Zeus after he had got rid of his father, nor about all the other wars and robberies which Homer and Hesiod have written of their gods; I know that they are only stories made up by poets. But still, if you ask me whether the gods take any part in human affairs, my answer will be Yes. And now I will make a beginning at the Creation of the World, lest I forget the whole story; for you and I cannot expect to remember forever all the preliminary discussions.” “Oh yes, we must make a beginning,” said Adeimantus; “though I wish that someone else would do the speaking, and that we might hear; I should certainly have no objection to hearing you yourself, Socrates.” “Well then, the tale which I proceed to tell is not indeed a creation of either of us, but the common property of the Hellenes—no matter; though I ought to caution you that you must not be surprised if you find that in following this tale I depart sometimes from the ordinary tradition and make Helen not fair but dark, and in like manner Hephaestus not altogether lame, and Zeus not universally the greatest god, but with some blemishes, and so on; for a man who tells a lie may be allowed to tell a big one now and then.” “And do you think that the telling of all this, as you are going to tell it, will be useful?” asked Glaucon. “Yes, because even a falsehood, if artfully told, does good when it is useful,” replied Socrates; “and I shall assume that what I am saying is true, and will proceed to expound the state of feeling attained by us when the creation of the world came to an end.” 33 33 "Clearly. And shall we proceed to get rid of the weepings and wailings of famousmen? They will go with the rest. But shall we be right in getting rid of them? Reflect: our principleis that the good man will not consider death terrible to any othergood man who is his comrade. Yes; that is our principle. And therefore he will not sorrow for his departed friend as thoughhe had suffered anything terrible? He will not. Such an one, as we further maintain, is sufficient for himself andhis own happiness, and therefore is least in need of other men. True, he said. And for this reason the loss of a son or brother, or the deprivationof fortune, is to him of all men least terrible. Assuredly. And therefore he will be least likely to lament, and will bear withthe greatest equanimity any misfortune of this sort which may befallhim. Yes, he will feel such a misfortune far less than another. Then we shall be right in getting rid of the lamentations of famousmen, and making them over to women (and not even to women who aregood for anything), or to men of a baser sort, that those who arebeing educated by us to be the defenders of their country may scornto do the like. That will be very right. Then we will once more entreat Homer and the other poets not to depictAchilles, who is the son of a goddess, first lying on his side, thenon his back, and then on his face; then starting up and sailing ina frenzy along the shores of the barren sea; now taking the sootyashes in both his hands and pouring them over his head, or weepingand wailing in the various modes which Homer has delineated. Nor shouldhe describe Priam the kinsman of the gods as praying and beseeching, Rolling in the dirt, calling each man loudly by his name. Still moreearnestly will we beg of him at all events not to introduce the godslamenting and saying, Alas! my misery! Alas! that I bore the harvest to my sorrow. But ifhe must introduce the gods, at any rate let him not dare so completelyto misrepresent the greatest of the gods, as to make him say -- O heavens! with my eyes verily I behold a dear friend of mine chasedround and round the city, and my heart is sorrowful. Or again: -- Woe is me that I am fated to have Sarpedon, dearest of men to me,subdued at the hands of Patroclus the son of Menoetius. For if, mysweet Adeimantus, our youth seriously listen to such unworthy representationsof the gods, instead of laughing at them as they ought, hardly willany of them deem that he himself, being but a man, can be dishonouredby similar actions; neither will he rebuke any inclination which mayarise in his mind to say and do the like. And instead of having anyshame or self-control, he will be always whining and lamenting onslight occasions. Yes, he said, that is most true. Yes, I replied; but that surely is what ought not to be, as the argumenthas just proved to us; and by that proof we must abide until it isdisproved by a better. It ought not to be. Neither ought our guardians to be given to laughter. For a fit oflaughter which has been indulged to excess almost always producesa violent reaction. So I believe. Then persons of worth, even if only mortal men, must not be representedas overcome by laughter, and still less must such a representationof the gods be allowed. Still less of the gods, as you say, he replied. Then we shall not suffer such an expression to be used about the godsas that of Homer when he describes how Inextinguishable laughter arose among the blessed gods, when theysaw Hephaestus bustling about the mansion. On your views, we mustnot admit them. On my views, if you like to father them on me; that we must not admitthem is certain. Again, truth should be highly valued; if, as we were saying, a lieis useless to the gods, and useful only as a medicine to men, thenthe use of such medicines should be restricted to physicians; privateindividuals have no business with them." "Summary: The text discusses the idea that famous men should not be depicted lamenting or expressing weakness, as it sets a bad example for those being educated. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" Never again,’ he said, ‘will I have to watch any famous man in the cinema with his arm round a woman’s shoulder, and his eyes all soft and sorrowful, while some broken-down bum of a poet sings about “the pallor of her cheek” and “the darkness of her hair.” If you ever see me like that, put a bullet through my head. It is the kind of thing which sets a bad example to those who are being educated. And now, Major-General Sir Harold Jordan, what are you going to do with your right hand?’ The General looked at his hand. He had been holding it against his stomach, with the thumb up, as though he had been measuring it for a suit. ‘I think perhaps I will drop it,’ he said. ‘I don’t feel like doing anything else with it.’ ‘Perhaps you would be interested in this,’ said Mr Crocker. ‘It’s a little trick I picked up during the war. You take your right hand, and clasp it behind you with the fingers pointing up, and then turn it over so that the palm faces you. See? Now, with the left hand, if you want to be tidy, give the first one a quick flick over the knuckles, and then let go. The second hand does everything except pick up the cigarette. You can get the knack of it in a few minutes.’ The General watched him closely. ‘A very useful trick,’ he said. ‘I must try to remember it. It’s just the sort of thing I always forget. Thank you very much.’ ‘You’re welcome,’ said Mr Crocker. ‘Now we’ll leave you two together for a bit, shall we? I have some things to attend to.’ He stepped back, and the door closed behind him. There was a long silence. Then Lady Agatha spoke. ‘What is all this?’ she asked. ‘All what?’ said the General. ‘This business of murder, I mean.’ ‘Murder!’ cried the General. ‘Good Lord! Is someone actually going to be murdered here?’ ‘I expect so,’ said Lady Agatha calmly. ‘In fact, I’m rather surprised it hasn’t happened yet. Where’s the body?’ ‘Body?’ said the General. ‘Who said anything about a body?’ ‘Mr Crocker did, that’s all,’ said Lady Agatha. ‘And Mr Mudie-Barton, when he was talking to me after dinner. And Inspector Byrd, too.’ ‘I don’t know why they should talk about bodies,’ said the General. ‘I can’t understand it.’ ‘Oh, but I can,’ said Lady Agatha. ‘I’ve been thinking it all out since you went away. Of course, if you’ve got an idea of using poison or something like that, naturally you wouldn’t want to mention the fact till the last moment, because otherwise everyone would be on their guard. But if you were going to use something more violent, like shooting or stabbing, of course you’d want to give warning beforehand, so that people could get excited and jumpy, and the shock would help the effect of the bullet or whatever it was. 34 34 "Clearly not, he said. Then if any one at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulersof the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings eitherwith enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie forthe public good. But nobody else should meddle with anything of thekind; and although the rulers have this privilege, for a private manto lie to them in return is to be deemed a more heinous fault thanfor the patient or the pupil of a gymnasium not to speak the truthabout his own bodily illnesses to the physician or to the trainer,or for a sailor not to tell the captain what is happening about theship and the rest of the crew, and how things are going with himselfor his fellow sailors. Most true, he said. If, then, the ruler catches anybody beside himself lying in the State, Any of the craftsmen, whether he priest or physician or carpenter.he will punish him for introducing a practice which is equally subversiveand destructive of ship or State. Most certainly, he said, if our idea of the State is ever carriedout. In the next place our youth must be temperate? Certainly. Are not the chief elements of temperance, speaking generally, obedienceto commanders and self-control in sensual pleasures? True. Then we shall approve such language as that of Diomede in Homer, Friend, sit still and obey my word, and the verses which follow, The Greeks marched breathing prowess, ...in silent awe of their leaders, and other sentiments of the samekind. We shall. What of this line, O heavy with wine, who hast the eyes of a dog and the heart of a stag,and of the words which follow? Would you say that these, or any similarimpertinences which private individuals are supposed to address totheir rulers, whether in verse or prose, are well or ill spoken? They are ill spoken. They may very possibly afford some amusement, but they do not conduceto temperance. And therefore they are likely to do harm to our youngmen --you would agree with me there? Yes. And then, again, to make the wisest of men say that nothing in hisopinion is more glorious than When the tables are full of bread and meat, and the cup-bearer carriesround wine which he draws from the bowl and pours into the cups, isit fit or conducive to temperance for a young man to hear such words?Or the verse The saddest of fates is to die and meet destiny from hunger? Whatwould you say again to the tale of Zeus, who, while other gods andmen were asleep and he the only person awake, lay devising plans,but forgot them all in a moment through his lust, and was so completelyovercome at the sight of Here that he would not even go into the hut,but wanted to lie with her on the ground, declaring that he had neverbeen in such a state of rapture before, even when they first met oneanother Without the knowledge of their parents; or that other tale of howHephaestus, because of similar goings on, cast a chain around Aresand Aphrodite? Indeed, he said, I am strongly of opinion that they ought not to hearthat sort of thing. But any deeds of endurance which are done or told by famous men, thesethey ought to see and hear; as, for example, what is said in the verses, He smote his breast, and thus reproached his heart, Endure, my heart; far worse hast thou endured! Certainly, he said. In the next place, we must not let them be receivers of gifts or loversof money. Certainly not. Neither must we sing to them of Gifts persuading gods, and persuading reverend kings. Neither is Phoenix,the tutor of Achilles, to be approved or deemed to have given hispupil good counsel when he told him that he should take the giftsof the Greeks and assist them; but that without a gift he should notlay aside his anger. Neither will we believe or acknowledge Achilleshimself to have been such a lover of money that he took Agamemnon'sor that when he had received payment he restored the dead body ofHector, but that without payment he was unwilling to do so." "Summary: The text discusses the idea that rulers should be allowed to lie for the sake of the public good, but not ordinary citizens. It also explores themes of obedience and self-control in relation to temperance. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Rulers, physicians, trainers, sailors, youth Quoted work: Homer's ""The Iliad Language: English" So you see how the rulers are to be allowed to lie for the public good, and yet at the same time keep their word with each other; and physicians when they give medicine may do harm to individual patients but benefit the state; and trainers may sometimes beat their boys, sailors have to be flogged, and fathers chastise their sons when they will not obey them; and the art of war teaches us to use iron and fire against men. Then again in private life a father may strike his son and yet not be guilty of any impiety; and you would admit that many other things of the same kind are necessary. Now from these examples, as I said before, we can learn that there is a class of acts which it is right to do, and yet not right to intend: and therefore in some cases we should wish to do the contrary of what we mean; for while we ought to follow our physicians and trainers, yet we ought not to advise them to cut or burn, and the like. And so too the law commands us to honour our parents and yet forbids us to let them rob us of what is theirs; and on the other hand, if we were to attempt to rob them, the law would be right in inflicting penalties upon us; and in all such cases a man is right in doing the contrary of what he intends and saying the contrary of what he means; and this is the reason why we praise him who speaks or acts from necessity, either because he is ignorant, or because he does not know any better, or because some compulsion has hindered him from speaking or acting in another way. And here, my friend, is the reason which made me say that both in war and in peace we ought to meet the worse with the worse and the better with the better; for evil-doers deserve an evil death, and the good, who are our saviours and benefactors, a noble and gentle one: but if we kill them all in the same manner, and without discrimination, knowing them neither by their actions nor their character, then we shall be tripping ourselves up in our own nets. For when you make a mistake about a person and do him an injury, you must expect that the injured person will return the injury which you first inflicted; and he may perhaps be able to inflict more, especially if he is an angry man and has great power. This is the reason why in temples and law-courts we pray that judges may be given to us who distinguish between good and evil, and do not confound them; for when the good and the evil are rightly divided, every one of us will take his proper portion of good or evil life, and will fare as is fitting. Now temperance, which is the order of the soul, implies two things an outward order of the passions when they are subject to the reason, and an inward order when reason herself obeys and is subject to law. 35 35 "Undoubtedly, he said, these are not sentiments which can be approved. Loving Homer as I do, I hardly like to say that in attributing thesefeelings to Achilles, or in believing that they are truly to him,he is guilty of downright impiety. As little can I believe the narrativeof his insolence to Apollo, where he says, Thou hast wronged me, O far-darter, most abominable of deities. VerilyI would he even with thee, if I had only the power, or his insubordinationto the river-god, on whose divinity he is ready to lay hands; or hisoffering to the dead Patroclus of his own hair, which had been previouslydedicated to the other river-god Spercheius, and that he actuallyperformed this vow; or that he dragged Hector round the tomb of Patroclus,and slaughtered the captives at the pyre; of all this I cannot believethat he was guilty, any more than I can allow our citizens to believethat he, the wise Cheiron's pupil, the son of a goddess and of Peleuswho was the gentlest of men and third in descent from Zeus, was sodisordered in his wits as to be at one time the slave of two seeminglyinconsistent passions, meanness, not untainted by avarice, combinedwith overweening contempt of gods and men. You are quite right, he replied. And let us equally refuse to believe, or allow to be repeated, thetale of Theseus son of Poseidon, or of Peirithous son of Zeus, goingforth as they did to perpetrate a horrid rape; or of any other heroor son of a god daring to do such impious and dreadful things as theyfalsely ascribe to them in our day: and let us further compel thepoets to declare either that these acts were not done by them, orthat they were not the sons of gods; --both in the same breath theyshall not be permitted to affirm. We will not have them trying topersuade our youth that the gods are the authors of evil, and thatheroes are no better than men-sentiments which, as we were saying,are neither pious nor true, for we have already proved that evil cannotcome from the gods. Assuredly not. And further they are likely to have a bad effect on those who hearthem; for everybody will begin to excuse his own vices when he isconvinced that similar wickednesses are always being perpetrated by-- The kindred of the gods, the relatives of Zeus, whose ancestral altar,the attar of Zeus, is aloft in air on the peak of Ida, and who have the blood of deities yet flowing in their veins. And therefore letus put an end to such tales, lest they engender laxity of morals amongthe young. By all means, he replied. But now that we are determining what classes of subjects are or arenot to be spoken of, let us see whether any have been omitted by us.The manner in which gods and demigods and heroes and the world belowshould be treated has been already laid down. Very true. And what shall we say about men? That is clearly the remaining portionof our subject. Clearly so. But we are not in a condition to answer this question at present,my friend. Why not? Because, if I am not mistaken, we shall have to say that about menpoets and story-tellers are guilty of making the gravest misstatementswhen they tell us that wicked men are often happy, and the good miserable;and that injustice is profitable when undetected, but that justiceis a man's own loss and another's gain --these things we shall forbidthem to utter, and command them to sing and say the opposite. To be sure we shall, he replied. But if you admit that I am right in this, then I shall maintain thatyou have implied the principle for which we have been all along contending. I grant the truth of your inference. That such things are or are not to be said about men is a questionwhich we cannot determine until we have discovered what justice is,and how naturally advantageous to the possessor, whether he seemsto be just or not. Most true, he said. Enough of the subjects of poetry: let us now speak of the style; andwhen this has been considered, both matter and manner will have beencompletely treated." "Summary: The text discusses the impiety of certain actions and statements made by characters in Homer's poetry. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Active character: Achilles, Apollo, Hector, Theseus, Peirithous Quoted work: Homer's poetry Language: English" "And if Achilles had been killed by Apollo, what impiety in his ghost to complain of it! But we are told that Hector was beaten and dragged round the city walls in a chariot with a raw hide tied about his neck. And yet Homer says that he was a brave man, and these were the actions of cowards. It is not surprising therefore, that Hector should have done wrong in trying to escape from Theseus. He was naturally a coward; and moreover, being a Greek, he would not like to be beaten by a barbarian."""" The Major made another attempt to interrupt him, but again found himself compelled to keep silence. I will tell you another very curious fact,"" continued Mr. Bunting. ""In the same poem in which we find the story of the rape of Helen, we read also how Peirithous, the son of Ixion, carried off Proserpina, the wife of Pluto, and how he and Theseus were afterwards punished for their crime by being put into prison in Tartarus. Now suppose that a writer of modern poetry were to tell us that a young English gentleman had carried off the wife of the American President, and that he and his friend had been shut up in gaol for it, do you think that the public would like it?"""" Certainly not,"" said the Major, with great indignation. """"I never heard such a lot of nonsense in my life. If that's your idea of poetry, I don't want any more of it."""" In that case,"" replied Mr. Bunting, ""you can help yourself. There's nothing whatever to prevent you going away if you like, for you haven't come here for any particular purpose. I only asked you to come as far as this because there's a short cut from here to the house, and it's rather damp walking after rain through the woods."""" I'm sure I beg your pardon,"" stammered the Major, much confused. ""I'm very sorry if I've offended you. I didn't mean to. I hope you'll forgive me."""" Very well then, go on with your lecture,"" said Mr. Bunting, still sitting in the same attitude. """"You can't stop me, even if you do abuse me, and I shall continue till you understand what poetry is. The reason why Theseus and Peirithous were imprisoned in Tartarus for their wickedness was that they were both Greeks. If they had been Englishmen, they would have been hanged instead of being put into prison."""" There was a long pause. The Major sat in absolute dismay, wondering whether he could possibly manage to get out of this terrible predicament without making further offence. He tried to see what was the meaning of the strange light which burned in Mr. Bunting's eyes, and whether those eyes could really pierce his very soul, or whether it was some trick of the flickering candlelight. " 36 36 "I do not understand what you mean, said Adeimantus. Then I must make you understand; and perhaps I may be more intelligibleif I put the matter in this way. You are aware, I suppose, that allmythology and poetry is a narration of events, either past, present,or to come? Certainly, he replied. And narration may be either simple narration, or imitation, or a unionof the two? That again, he said, I do not quite understand. I fear that I must be a ridiculous teacher when I have so much difficultyin making myself apprehended. Like a bad speaker, therefore, I willnot take the whole of the subject, but will break a piece off in illustrationof my meaning. You know the first lines of the Iliad, in which thepoet says that Chryses prayed Agamemnon to release his daughter, andthat Agamemnon flew into a passion with him; whereupon Chryses, failingof his object, invoked the anger of the God against the Achaeans.Now as far as these lines, And he prayed all the Greeks, but especially the two sons of Atreus,the chiefs of the people, the poet is speaking in his own person;he never leads us to suppose that he is any one else. But in whatfollows he takes the person of Chryses, and then he does all thathe can to make us believe that the speaker is not Homer, but the agedpriest himself. And in this double form he has cast the entire narrativeof the events which occurred at Troy and in Ithaca and throughoutthe Odyssey. Yes. And a narrative it remains both in the speeches which the poet recitesfrom time to time and in the intermediate passages? Quite true. But when the poet speaks in the person of another, may we not saythat he assimilates his style to that of the person who, as he informsyou, is going to speak? Certainly. And this assimilation of himself to another, either by the use ofvoice or gesture, is the imitation of the person whose character heassumes? Of course. Then in this case the narrative of the poet may be said to proceedby way of imitation? Very true. Or, if the poet everywhere appears and never conceals himself, thenagain the imitation is dropped, and his poetry becomes simple narration.However, in order that I may make my meaning quite clear, and thatyou may no more say, I don't understand,' I will show how the changemight be effected. If Homer had said, 'The priest came, having hisdaughter's ransom in his hands, supplicating the Achaeans, and aboveall the kings;' and then if, instead of speaking in the person ofChryses, he had continued in his own person, the words would havebeen, not imitation, but simple narration. The passage would haverun as follows (I am no poet, and therefore I drop the metre), 'Thepriest came and prayed the gods on behalf of the Greeks that theymight capture Troy and return safely home, but begged that they wouldgive him back his daughter, and take the ransom which he brought,and respect the God. Thus he spoke, and the other Greeks revered thepriest and assented. But Agamemnon was wroth, and bade him departand not come again, lest the staff and chaplets of the God shouldbe of no avail to him --the daughter of Chryses should not be released,he said --she should grow old with him in Argos. And then he toldhim to go away and not to provoke him, if he intended to get homeunscathed. And the old man went away in fear and silence, and, whenhe had left the camp, he called upon Apollo by his many names, remindinghim of everything which he had done pleasing to him, whether in buildinghis temples, or in offering sacrifice, and praying that his good deedsmight be returned to him, and that the Achaeans might expiate histears by the arrows of the god,' --and so on. In this way the wholebecomes simple narrative. I understand, he said. Or you may suppose the opposite case --that the intermediate passagesare omitted, and the dialogue only left. That also, he said, I understand; you mean, for example, as in tragedy." "Summary: The speaker is trying to explain the concept of narration and imitation in poetry. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Adeimantus, the speaker Quoted work: The Iliad Language: English" It is a bad thing to do, and very vulgar; but still it is amusing to watch the faces of people who are listening. They begin by being quite serious, then they laugh quietly, and at last they get angry with themselves for laughing, and look solemn again. I think that this is the same effect which we ought to produce on our readers' minds when we make them laugh in the middle of a story. If you are only going to tell a story, you should tell it as straight as you can, without any sort of warning or explanation. But if you are going to do what I am doing now, and tell a story by means of imitation, then you must make your hearers understand that there is no truth whatever in what you say. I believe that this was Homer's meaning when he began his great poem with those lines about Achilles which are so obscure that not even Adeimantus here understands them. And yet there is a great deal of sense in them. You remember how he begins: 'Sing, O Goddess! the wrath which sprung in the heart of Achilles, Peleus' son, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans; Woe unending, both for them and tireless-hearted Hector.' Then after describing the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon he goes on: 'Thus did the two exchange mighty words, and the anger bred in their hearts, and the goddess sing it all from beginning to end, that men might know the whole tale of it.' Now the meaning of this is clear enough: it shows that Homer was aware of the distinction between telling a story and imitating a story. He says, 'The goddess sings the wrath,' and then he adds, 'that men may know the whole tale of it.' So he meant to tell a story in such a way as to make people think that he was merely singing a song, and thus to prevent them from taking him seriously. And the way in which he does this is just as I have said, namely, by means of imitation. For he makes his heroes speak like men whom he himself had seen, and describes the actions of each of them in the manner of his countrymen. 37 37 "You have conceived my meaning perfectly; and if I mistake not, whatyou failed to apprehend before is now made clear to you, that poetryand mythology are, in some cases, wholly imitative --instances ofthis are supplied by tragedy and comedy; there is likewise the oppositestyle, in which the my poet is the only speaker --of this the dithyrambaffords the best example; and the combination of both is found inepic, and in several other styles of poetry. Do I take you with me? Yes, he said; I see now what you meant. I will ask you to remember also what I began by saying, that we haddone with the subject and might proceed to the style. Yes, I remember. In saying this, I intended to imply that we must come to an understandingabout the mimetic art, --whether the poets, in narrating their stories,are to be allowed by us to imitate, and if so, whether in whole orin part, and if the latter, in what parts; or should all imitationbe prohibited? You mean, I suspect, to ask whether tragedy and comedy shall be admittedinto our State? Yes, I said; but there may be more than this in question: I reallydo not know as yet, but whither the argument may blow, thither wego. And go we will, he said. Then, Adeimantus, let me ask you whether our guardians ought to beimitators; or rather, has not this question been decided by the rulealready laid down that one man can only do one thing well, and notmany; and that if he attempt many, he will altogether fall of gainingmuch reputation in any? Certainly. And this is equally true of imitation; no one man can imitate manythings as well as he would imitate a single one? He cannot. Then the same person will hardly be able to play a serious part inlife, and at the same time to be an imitator and imitate many otherparts as well; for even when two species of imitation are nearly allied,the same persons cannot succeed in both, as, for example, the writersof tragedy and comedy --did you not just now call them imitations? Yes, I did; and you are right in thinking that the same persons cannotsucceed in both. Any more than they can be rhapsodists and actors at once? True. Neither are comic and tragic actors the same; yet all these thingsare but imitations. They are so. And human nature, Adeimantus, appears to have been coined into yetsmaller pieces, and to be as incapable of imitating many things well,as of performing well the actions of which the imitations are copies. Quite true, he replied. If then we adhere to our original notion and bear in mind that ourguardians, setting aside every other business, are to dedicate themselveswholly to the maintenance of freedom in the State, making this theircraft, and engaging in no work which does not bear on this end, theyought not to practise or imitate anything else; if they imitate atall, they should imitate from youth upward only those characters whichare suitable to their profession --the courageous, temperate, holy,free, and the like; but they should not depict or be skilful at imitatingany kind of illiberality or baseness, lest from imitation they shouldcome to be what they imitate. Did you never observe how imitations,beginning in early youth and continuing far into life, at length growinto habits and become a second nature, affecting body, voice, andmind? Yes, certainly, he said. Then, I said, we will not allow those for whom we profess a care andof whom we say that they ought to be good men, to imitate a woman,whether young or old, quarrelling with her husband, or striving andvaunting against the gods in conceit of her happiness, or when sheis in affliction, or sorrow, or weeping; and certainly not one whois in sickness, love, or labour. Very right, he said. Neither must they represent slaves, male or female, performing theoffices of slaves?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the nature of poetry and imitation, arguing that guardians in a State should only imitate virtuous characters. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "It's the sort of thing that will always have to be done in any country where there are poets and rich men, but it should only be done by men who can afford it."""" """"Then you think the guardians in your State should be imitators?"" asked Adeimantus. """"Yes,"" said I, ""they ought to be. But, as I was just saying, they ought also to have the spirit of imitation in them."""" What do you mean?"""" They ought to be like painters or embroiderers, weaving or sewing together a pattern which they had seen and then drawing it out again, and making other people see it."""" That again,"" said Glaucon, ""is a most excellent point; but let me ask you once more: Would you say that they ought to imitate the nature of mankind, pleased as some poets are to do, or not?"""" Certainly not."" Why not?"" Because,"" I replied, ""the imitations of poverty and disease and all the other deformities should only be produced for the cure of the poor sick soul, and should not be publicly exhibited on the theatrical stage."""" A very fair and rational reply; but is it one which you ought to make to a virtuous man, when you are asking him to look at things in that light?"""" " 38 38 "They must not. And surely not bad men, whether cowards or any others, who do thereverse of what we have just been prescribing, who scold or mock orrevile one another in drink or out of in drink or, or who in any othermanner sin against themselves and their neighbours in word or deed,as the manner of such is. Neither should they be trained to imitatethe action or speech of men or women who are mad or bad; for madness,like vice, is to be known but not to be practised or imitated. Very true, he replied. Neither may they imitate smiths or other artificers, or oarsmen, orboatswains, or the like? How can they, he said, when they are not allowed to apply their mindsto the callings of any of these? Nor may they imitate the neighing of horses, the bellowing of bulls,the murmur of rivers and roll of the ocean, thunder, and all thatsort of thing? Nay, he said, if madness be forbidden, neither may they copy the behaviourof madmen. You mean, I said, if I understand you aright, that there is one sortof narrative style which may be employed by a truly good man whenhe has anything to say, and that another sort will be used by a manof an opposite character and education. And which are these two sorts? he asked. Suppose, I answered, that a just and good man in the course of a narrationcomes on some saying or action of another good man, --I should imaginethat he will like to personate him, and will not be ashamed of thissort of imitation: he will be most ready to play the part of the goodman when he is acting firmly and wisely; in a less degree when heis overtaken by illness or love or drink, or has met with any otherdisaster. But when he comes to a character which is unworthy of him,he will not make a study of that; he will disdain such a person, andwill assume his likeness, if at all, for a moment only when he isperforming some good action; at other times he will be ashamed toplay a part which he has never practised, nor will he like to fashionand frame himself after the baser models; he feels the employmentof such an art, unless in jest, to be beneath him, and his mind revoltsat it. So I should expect, he replied. Then he will adopt a mode of narration such as we have illustratedout of Homer, that is to say, his style will be both imitative andnarrative; but there will be very little of the former, and a greatdeal of the latter. Do you agree? Certainly, he said; that is the model which such a speaker must necessarilytake. But there is another sort of character who will narrate anything,and, the worse lie is, the more unscrupulous he will be; nothing willbe too bad for him: and he will be ready to imitate anything, notas a joke, but in right good earnest, and before a large company.As I was just now saying, he will attempt to represent the roll ofthunder, the noise of wind and hall, or the creaking of wheels, andpulleys, and the various sounds of flutes; pipes, trumpets, and allsorts of instruments: he will bark like a dog, bleat like a sheep,or crow like a cock; his entire art will consist in imitation of voiceand gesture, and there will be very little narration. That, he said, will be his mode of speaking. These, then, are the two kinds of style? Yes. And you would agree with me in saying that one of them is simple andhas but slight changes; and if the harmony and rhythm are also chosenfor their simplicity, the result is that the speaker, if hc speakscorrectly, is always pretty much the same in style, and he will keepwithin the limits of a single harmony (for the changes are not great),and in like manner he will make use of nearly the same rhythm? That is quite true, he said. Whereas the other requires all sorts of harmonies and all sorts ofrhythms, if the music and the style are to correspond, because thestyle has all sorts of changes. That is also perfectly true, he replied. And do not the two styles, or the mixture of the two, comprehend allpoetry, and every form of expression in words? No one can say anythingexcept in one or other of them or in both together. They include all, he said. And shall we receive into our State all the three styles, or one onlyof the two unmixed styles? or would you include the mixed?" "Summary: The text discusses the types of characters and narratives that should be imitated or avoided. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The two characters engaging in the conversation Quoted work: Homer's works Language: English" "There are two kinds of characters you can imitate, and they are the only ones there are. One kind is the sort that has a good reason for being crooked; the other kind is just plain crooked. The first kind is the criminal class that has its own code of honor, its own set of laws and ethics and customs, and its own way of doing things. You can do those people justice by showing what they are and how they work, but don't ever try to glamorize them because you can't. They're low and dirty and vicious, and anybody who pretends they're glamorous isn't telling the truth. But you can understand why some people get into that life, and if you know enough about it to make your story convincing, then go right ahead and show it."""" * * * * * I said: """"That's not all there is to crime writing, though, is it?"""" He said: """"No. There's the second type of character, the one that's just plain crooked. That's the man or woman who doesn't have any code at all except his own greed or selfishness or lust. He takes what he wants without giving a damn who gets hurt or how much he hurts them. He doesn't even need brains, because he doesn't plan anything. He just goes out and takes whatever he happens to run across. He might be a mug who mugs old ladies on street corners or he might be a swindler who robs widows and orphans by mail. It doesn't matter. They're both just plain crooks."""" * * * * * I said: """"But you mean you think a writer should only write about the first kind?"""" He said: """"I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out that these are the two types of crook and you ought to know the difference between them. As a matter of fact, most writers are more interested in the second type. They like to write about people who do things just for the hell of it, or because they're bored or because they're sadists. Or maybe they write about people who are criminals from birth and were born with a built-in sense of adventure. A lot of writers like to write about characters like that, and that's okay too, as long as they don't forget that there's a third type of character."""" I said: """"What's that?"""" And he said: """"The real hero. The guy who stands up straight and fights back when somebody tries to rob him or beat him up or rape his wife or daughter. Maybe he does it because he's big and tough and strong and he likes to fight. But maybe he does it because he's afraid, and hates to show fear, or maybe he does it because he's scared stiff and would give anything in the world not to have to fight but he knows he's going to have to so he does it. " 39 39 "I should prefer only to admit the pure imitator of virtue. Yes, I said, Adeimantus, but the mixed style is also very charming:and indeed the pantomimic, which is the opposite of the one chosenby you, is the most popular style with children and their attendants,and with the world in general. I do not deny it. But I suppose you would argue that such a style is unsuitable to ourState, in which human nature is not twofold or manifold, for one manplays one part only? Yes; quite unsuitable. And this is the reason why in our State, and in our State only, weshall find a shoemaker to be a shoemaker and not a pilot also, anda husbandman to be a husbandman and not a dicast also, and a soldiera soldier and not a trader also, and the same throughout? True, he said. And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen, who areso clever that they can imitate anything, comes to us, and makes aproposal to exhibit himself and his poetry, we will fall down andworship him as a sweet and holy and wonderful being; but we must alsoinform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist;the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him withmyrrh, and set a garland of wool upon his head, we shall send himaway to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls' healththe rougher and severer poet or story-teller, who will imitate thestyle of the virtuous only, and will follow those models which weprescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers. We certainly will, he said, if we have the power. Then now, my friend, I said, that part of music or literary educationwhich relates to the story or myth may be considered to be finished;for the matter and manner have both been discussed. I think so too, he said. Next in order will follow melody and song. That is obvious. Every one can see already what we ought to say about them, if we areto be consistent with ourselves. Socrates - GLAUCON I fear, said Glaucon, laughing, that the words 'every one' hardlyincludes me, for I cannot at the moment say what they should be; thoughI may guess. At any rate you can tell that a song or ode has three parts --thewords, the melody, and the rhythm; that degree of knowledge I maypresuppose? Yes, he said; so much as that you may. And as for the words, there surely be no difference words betweenwords which are and which are not set to music; both will conformto the same laws, and these have been already determined by us? Yes. And the melody and rhythm will depend upon the words? Certainly. We were saying, when we spoke of the subject-matter, that we had noneed of lamentations and strains of sorrow? True. And which are the harmonies expressive of sorrow? You are musical,and can tell me. The harmonies which you mean are the mixed or tenor Lydian, and thefull-toned or bass Lydian, and such like. These then, I said, must be banished; even to women who have a characterto maintain they are of no use, and much less to men. Certainly. In the next place, drunkenness and softness and indolence are utterlyunbecoming the character of our guardians. Utterly unbecoming. And which are the soft or drinking harmonies? The Ionian, he replied, and the Lydian; they are termed 'relaxed.' Well, and are these of any military use? Quite the reverse, he replied; and if so the Dorian and the Phrygianare the only ones which you have left." "Summary: The speaker discusses the role of music and poetry in society, emphasizing the importance of virtuous and patriotic themes. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Music is a safe enough occupation for the poet, but it won’t get him anywhere. He’d better cut out that lute and write songs about how you can live on ten dollars a week. There are plenty of people who need to be told that. The music business is one of them.” Socrates nodded in agreement. “And poetry is only an amusement,” he said. “I’ve been writing verse for twenty years now, but I’m not getting anywhere with it. People aren’t interested in what I have to say. All they want is something bright and catchy that will amuse them for a few minutes. That’s why I turned to detective stories. They pay better.” “And they’re easier to write.” Glaucon nodded in sympathy. “But even if I were a great poet,” he continued, “it would do me no good. Poetry isn’t respectable. It has no social value. And no matter how great a poet you may be, you’ll never get anywhere unless you’re socially acceptable. You have to be able to fit in. That’s the secret of success. A man who wants to get ahead has got to be willing to play ball with society. He’s got to be a team player. He’s got to get his kicks out of being part of the gang. And he’s got to know his place, too. He’s got to be satisfied to stay where he belongs, doing the work that’s expected of him. If he tries to break out of the mold, or climb too high, then he’s going to run into trouble. Society doesn’t like it when a man tries to upstage the other fellows. He’s got to be content with what he’s got, and forget about all the things that he hasn’t got. That’s what society expects of him, and by God that’s what he’s going to give her!” Glaucon chewed on this for a moment, mulling it over in his mind. Then he smiled broadly. “You sound like the kind of guy who could make a lot of money,” he said. “And you’re right, I guess. The world is full of suckers who think that way. Maybe we should start a new religion, based on those principles. We could call it ‘Sociocracy.’” “Sounds good to me,” said Socrates. “Let’s see what we can do about it. We’ll try to sell it to some of these religious nuts that hang around the drugstores. They’re always looking for a new racket. They might be interested.” They finished their drinks and ordered another round. Then Glaucon lit a cigarette and began to talk about his plans for the future. “I’m going to buy myself a boat,” he said. “I’ve been thinking about it for a long time, and now I’ve got enough money saved up. It will cost about six thousand dollars, and I can probably get it for that. 40 40 "I answered: Of the harmonies I know nothing, but I want to have onewarlike, to sound the note or accent which a brave man utters in thehour of danger and stern resolve, or when his cause is failing, andhe is going to wounds or death or is overtaken by some other evil,and at every such crisis meets the blows of fortune with firm stepand a determination to endure; and another to be used by him in timesof peace and freedom of action, when there is no pressure of necessity,and he is seeking to persuade God by prayer, or man by instructionand admonition, or on the other hand, when he is expressing his willingnessto yield to persuasion or entreaty or admonition, and which representshim when by prudent conduct he has attained his end, not carried awayby his success, but acting moderately and wisely under the circumstances,and acquiescing in the event. These two harmonies I ask you to leave;the strain of necessity and the strain of freedom, the strain of theunfortunate and the strain of the fortunate, the strain of courage,and the strain of temperance; these, I say, leave. And these, he replied, are the Dorian and Phrygian harmonies of whichI was just now speaking. Then, I said, if these and these only are to be used in our songsand melodies, we shall not want multiplicity of notes or a panharmonicscale? I suppose not. Then we shall not maintain the artificers of lyres with three cornersand complex scales, or the makers of any other many-stringed curiously-harmonisedinstruments? Certainly not. But what do you say to flute-makers and flute-players? Would you admitthem into our State when you reflect that in this composite use ofharmony the flute is worse than all the stringed instruments put together;even the panharmonic music is only an imitation of the flute? Clearly not. There remain then only the lyre and the harp for use in the city,and the shepherds may have a pipe in the country. That is surely the conclusion to be drawn from the argument. The preferring of Apollo and his instruments to Marsyas and his instrumentsis not at all strange, I said. Not at all, he replied. And so, by the dog of Egypt, we have been unconsciously purging theState, which not long ago we termed luxurious. And we have done wisely, he replied. Then let us now finish the purgation, I said. Next in order to harmonies,rhythms will naturally follow, and they should be subject to the samerules, for we ought not to seek out complex systems of metre, or metresof every kind, but rather to discover what rhythms are the expressionsof a courageous and harmonious life; and when we have found them,we shall adapt the foot and the melody to words having a like spirit,not the words to the foot and melody. To say what these rhythms arewill be your duty --you must teach me them, as you have already taughtme the harmonies. But, indeed, he replied, I cannot tell you. I only know that thereare some three principles of rhythm out of which metrical systemsare framed, just as in sounds there are four notes out of which allthe harmonies are composed; that is an observation which I have made.But of what sort of lives they are severally the imitations I am unableto say. Then, I said, we must take Damon into our counsels; and he will tellus what rhythms are expressive of meanness, or insolence, or fury,or other unworthiness, and what are to be reserved for the expressionof opposite feelings. And I think that I have an indistinct recollectionof his mentioning a complex Cretic rhythm; also a dactylic or heroic,and he arranged them in some manner which I do not quite understand,making the rhythms equal in the rise and fall of the foot, long andshort alternating; and, unless I am mistaken, he spoke of an iambicas well as of a trochaic rhythm, and assigned to them short and longquantities. Also in some cases he appeared to praise or censure themovement of the foot quite as much as the rhythm; or perhaps a combinationof the two; for I am not certain what he meant. These matters, however,as I was saying, had better be referred to Damon himself, for theanalysis of the subject would be difficult, you know. Rather so, I should say. But there is no difficulty in seeing that grace or the absence ofgrace is an effect of good or bad rhythm. None at all. And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good andbad style; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style;for our principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by thewords, and not the words by them." "Summary: The speaker discusses the use of harmonies and rhythms in music and their connection to different aspects of life. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, Damon Language: English" "I'll tell you why. It's a good thing to have something solid and dependable in your life, some one you can count on. Something that makes no demands, is always there when you want it, and yet never bores you. Damon is that. In the same way I like to have harmonies and rhythms in my music, too. You see, there are these different things in my life, and they're all so very different from each other, that I need something to link them together. Damon does it for me."""" For a moment she stared at me with wide eyes. Then she burst out laughing. """"You don't know much about women,"""" she said. She spoke with an odd mixture of harshness and amusement, and her laughter sounded false, somehow. But she was still laughing when she went into the house. Now if you've been paying attention, you'll realize that this whole conversation of mine with Anne was filmed by someone who had approached close enough to get some of the conversation without being noticed. If he'd just stood back where he could see us both clearly he'd have known she wasn't talking to me. And there was another point: Why should anyone be interested in a dame who works as a waitress?"""" Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. The next time we'll go to work on the brother. He's been living here a lot longer than Anne has, and he's got a better job. Maybe he knows more about what happened to Mr. Carrington."""" Chapter XII THE RED-HAIRED MAN You ought to have seen the old man's face! He looked as though he wanted to kill me. I suppose he thought I was making fun of him."" I laughed. """"Don't worry about it. He wouldn't dare touch you."""" I was sitting on the floor near the door of the shack. Old Man Carrington had brought me a glass of milk and a plate of cookies. We were sitting opposite each other, and his face did look grim. I couldn't blame him, either, after the way I'd acted. But he didn't say anything. He just sat staring at me with those cold yellow eyes of his. After a while he began to talk. I heard the car drive away and then he said, """"That fellow's crazy. He talks like a book, but he's crazy."""" It was the first time I'd ever heard him speak. His voice was deep and quiet, with a faint hint of a drawl. He sounded bored. """"He talks about love and beauty and harmony. What do I know about love or beauty?"""" He stopped and took off his glasses. He looked at them and then put them on again. """"There was a time when I used to believe in love,"""" he said. """"It made me feel funny sometimes, queer sort of pleasant feelings inside me. But I don't believe in it any more."""" He leaned forward and fixed me with those cold yellow eyes. """"Do you know why?"""" he asked. """"Because it's a lie! " 41 41 "Just so, he said, they should follow the words. And will not the words and the character of the style depend on thetemper of the soul? Yes. And everything else on the style? Yes. Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm dependon simplicity, --I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and noblyordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is onlyan euphemism for folly? Very true, he replied. And if our youth are to do their work in life, must they not makethese graces and harmonies their perpetual aim? They must. And surely the art of the painter and every other creative and constructiveart are full of them, --weaving, embroidery, architecture, and everykind of manufacture; also nature, animal and vegetable, --in all ofthem there is grace or the absence of grace. And ugliness and discordand inharmonious motion are nearly allied to ill words and ill nature,as grace and harmony are the twin sisters of goodness and virtue andbear their likeness. That is quite true, he said. But shall our superintendence go no further, and are the poets onlyto be required by us to express the image of the good in their works,on pain, if they do anything else, of expulsion from our State? Oris the same control to be extended to other artists, and are theyalso to be prohibited from exhibiting the opposite forms of vice andintemperance and meanness and indecency in sculpture and buildingand the other creative arts; and is he who cannot conform to thisrule of ours to be prevented from practising his art in our State,lest the taste of our citizens be corrupted by him? We would not haveour guardians grow up amid images of moral deformity, as in some noxiouspasture, and there browse and feed upon many a baneful herb and flowerday by day, little by little, until they silently gather a festeringmass of corruption in their own soul. Let our artists rather be thosewho are gifted to discern the true nature of the beautiful and graceful;then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights andsounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluenceof fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-givingbreeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from earliestyears into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason. There can be no nobler training than that, he replied. And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potentinstrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their wayinto the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten,imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educatedgraceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also becausehe who has received this true education of the inner being will mostshrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and witha true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives intohis soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blameand hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he isable to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recogniseand salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar. Yes, he said, I quite agree with you in thinking that our youth shouldbe trained in music and on the grounds which you mention. Just as in learning to read, I said, we were satisfied when we knewthe letters of the alphabet, which are very few, in all their recurringsizes and combinations; not slighting them as unimportant whetherthey occupy a space large or small, but everywhere eager to make themout; and not thinking ourselves perfect in the art of reading untilwe recognise them wherever they are found: True -- Or, as we recognise the reflection of letters in the water, or ina mirror, only when we know the letters themselves; the same art andstudy giving us the knowledge of both: Exactly -- Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor our guardians, whom we haveto educate, can ever become musical until we and they know the essentialforms, in all their combinations, and can recognise them and theirimages wherever they are found, not slighting them either in smallthings or great, but believing them all to be within the sphere ofone art and study." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of beauty and harmony in art and education. Trope: Organized crime Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: He, Glaucon Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" Now, I say there is no beauty, except that which is in harmony with the true; and as this may be difficult to see when it appears by itself, being like the sun, which is bright but not conspicuous, it must therefore be set in some beautiful object, to the end that men seeing the beauty of the whole may be reminded of the beautiful, and so learn about it. Hence in education we must use many beautiful forms, both in words and in deeds. And then again in music, even if any part of it be not perfect, the beauty which lies in the composition will be preserved. For example, if there are two parts, each of them, taken by itself, has a certain beauty; but when the same man tries to sing both parts at once, the result is something awful and ridiculous. For beauty of rhythm or tone, or arrangement of parts, or proportion, is not to be found in the two together, but in the harmony of all three: and the same holds good of other kinds of beauty whatever. Therefore, Glaucon, those who have made laws to improve the education of youth are right in being cautious and requiring that a young man should not be musical before he is twenty years old. 42 42 "Most assuredly. And when a beautiful soul harmonises with a beautiful form, and thetwo are cast in one mould, that will be the fairest of sights to himwho has an eye to see it? The fairest indeed. And the fairest is also the loveliest? That may be assumed. And the man who has the spirit of harmony will be most in love withthe loveliest; but he will not love him who is of an inharmonioussoul? That is true, he replied, if the deficiency be in his soul; but ifthere be any merely bodily defect in another he will be patient ofit, and will love all the same. I perceive, I said, that you have or have had experiences of thissort, and I agree. But let me ask you another question: Has excessof pleasure any affinity to temperance? How can that be? he replied; pleasure deprives a man of the use ofhis faculties quite as much as pain. Or any affinity to virtue in general? None whatever. Any affinity to wantonness and intemperance? Yes, the greatest. And is there any greater or keener pleasure than that of sensual love? No, nor a madder. Whereas true love is a love of beauty and order --temperate and harmonious? Quite true, he said. Then no intemperance or madness should be allowed to approach truelove? Certainly not. Then mad or intemperate pleasure must never be allowed to come nearthe lover and his beloved; neither of them can have any part in itif their love is of the right sort? No, indeed, Socrates, it must never come near them. Then I suppose that in the city which we are founding you would makea law to the effect that a friend should use no other familiarityto his love than a father would use to his son, and then only fora noble purpose, and he must first have the other's consent; and thisrule is to limit him in all his intercourse, and he is never to beseen going further, or, if he exceeds, he is to be deemed guilty ofcoarseness and bad taste. I quite agree, he said. Thus much of music, which makes a fair ending; for what should bethe end of music if not the love of beauty? I agree, he said. After music comes gymnastic, in which our youth are next to be trained. Certainly. Gymnastic as well as music should begin in early years; the trainingin it should be careful and should continue through life. Now my beliefis, --and this is a matter upon which I should like to have your opinionin confirmation of my own, but my own belief is, --not that the goodbody by any bodily excellence improves the soul, but, on the contrary,that the good soul, by her own excellence, improves the body as faras this may be possible. What do you say? Yes, I agree. Then, to the mind when adequately trained, we shall be right in handingover the more particular care of the body; and in order to avoid prolixitywe will now only give the general outlines of the subject. Very good. That they must abstain from intoxication has been already remarkedby us; for of all persons a guardian should be the last to get drunkand not know where in the world he is. Yes, he said; that a guardian should require another guardian to takecare of him is ridiculous indeed. But next, what shall we say of their food; for the men are in trainingfor the great contest of all --are they not? Yes, he said. And will the habit of body of our ordinary athletes be suited to them? Why not? I am afraid, I said, that a habit of body such as they have is buta sleepy sort of thing, and rather perilous to health. Do you notobserve that these athletes sleep away their lives, and are liableto most dangerous illnesses if they depart, in ever so slight a degree,from their customary regimen?" "Summary: A conversation about the relationship between beauty, love, and harmony. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Language: English" "It's the beauty of all the things that are happening in life that makes love so beautiful."""" So you're not ashamed to call it beauty?"" I am. I'm ashamed of everything else, especially this conversation. And I'm disgusted with you and your interlocutor. A little harmony wouldn't have done any harm here. It would have been much better if you had asked Socrates about beauty instead of making him talk about it. The idea of beauty is a reflection of the world of ideas, and this is what he wanted to explain to us. But you threw him off course with your questions. He has just told you that the physical world of our senses is only an imperfect image of the world of ideas. What do you think he meant by that?"""" I thought he meant that the world of ideas was the real world and that we can only get glimpses of it through our senses."" Exactly! You've said it in one sentence what Socrates spent so much time explaining. If it hadn't been for you, he would have finished his argument before now. But don't worry about it, my friend. I'll try to help you."""" Then you understand what he means?"" No; but I know how to guess. In my business, you have to be able to guess. The most important thing in detecting crime is imagination. The second thing is logic. Now let's imagine that we are Socrates and that we have the right to ask him anything we like. We'll start with the easy ones and work up to the hard ones."""" Can't we skip the easy ones?"" No. We mustn't break the rules. Let's begin."""" What did he mean when he spoke about ideas as forms or archetypes?"" I don't know. But I guess he meant the same kind of thing as a blueprint. You know, the drawings that architects make of houses before they build them. They look like pictures, but they're really plans. Do you remember that dream I told you about?"""" Yes, I remember. Go on."" Well, you see, I'm going to tell you something very important. When we dream, we use our imaginations just like architects. Only we don't make plans for houses. We make plans for people. You know why?"" Why?"" Because that's what we are, people. That's what we were made for."""" I don't understand."" Never mind. We'll come back to that later. Just listen to the story I'm going to tell you."""" The story he told me was so vivid that I can still remember every detail of it. It was about a boy who wanted to be a hero and got mixed up with some crooks. At first, they treated him nicely and gave him expensive presents. But then they forced him to steal things for them and beat him if he refused. " 43 43 "Yes, I do. Then, I said, a finer sort of training will be required for our warriorathletes, who are to be like wakeful dogs, and to see and hear withthe utmost keenness; amid the many changes of water and also of food,of summer heat and winter cold, which they will have to endure whenon a campaign, they must not be liable to break down in health. That is my view. The really excellent gymnastic is twin sister of that simple musicwhich we were just now describing. How so? Why, I conceive that there is a gymnastic which, like our music, issimple and good; and especially the military gymnastic. What do you mean? My meaning may be learned from Homer; he, you know, feeds his heroesat their feasts, when they are campaigning, on soldiers' fare; theyhave no fish, although they are on the shores of the Hellespont, andthey are not allowed boiled meats but only roast, which is the foodmost convenient for soldiers, requiring only that they should lighta fire, and not involving the trouble of carrying about pots and pans. True. And I can hardly be mistaken in saying that sweet sauces are nowherementioned in Homer. In proscribing them, however, he is not singular;all professional athletes are well aware that a man who is to be ingood condition should take nothing of the kind. Yes, he said; and knowing this, they are quite right in not takingthem. Then you would not approve of Syracusan dinners, and the refinementsof Sicilian cookery? I think not. Nor, if a man is to be in condition, would you allow him to have aCorinthian girl as his fair friend? Certainly not. Neither would you approve of the delicacies, as they are thought,of Athenian confectionery? Certainly not. All such feeding and living may be rightly compared by us to melodyand song composed in the panharmonic style, and in all the rhythms.Exactly. There complexity engendered license, and here disease; whereas simplicityin music was the parent of temperance in the soul; and simplicityin gymnastic of health in the body. Most true, he said. But when intemperance and disease multiply in a State, halls of justiceand medicine are always being opened; and the arts of the doctor andthe lawyer give themselves airs, finding how keen is the interestwhich not only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them. Of course. And yet what greater proof can there be of a bad and disgraceful stateof education than this, that not only artisans and the meaner sortof people need the skill of first-rate physicians and judges, butalso those who would profess to have had a liberal education? Is itnot disgraceful, and a great sign of want of good-breeding, that aman should have to go abroad for his law and physic because he hasnone of his own at home, and must therefore surrender himself intothe hands of other men whom he makes lords and judges over him? Of all things, he said, the most disgraceful. Would you say 'most,' I replied, when you consider that there is afurther stage of the evil in which a man is not only a life-long litigant,passing all his days in the courts, either as plaintiff or defendant,but is actually led by his bad taste to pride himself on his litigiousness;he imagines that he is a master in dishonesty; able to take everycrooked turn, and wriggle into and out of every hole, bending likea withy and getting out of the way of justice: and all for what? --inorder to gain small points not worth mentioning, he not knowing thatso to order his life as to be able to do without a napping judge isa far higher and nobler sort of thing. Is not that still more disgraceful? Yes, he said, that is still more disgraceful. Well, I said, and to require the help of medicine, not when a woundhas to be cured, or on occasion of an epidemic, but just because,by indolence and a habit of life such as we have been describing,men fill themselves with waters and winds, as if their bodies werea marsh, compelling the ingenious sons of Asclepius to find more namesfor diseases, such as flatulence and catarrh; is not this, too, adisgrace? Yes, he said, they do certainly give very strange and newfangled namesto diseases." "Summary: The speaker discusses the need for a different type of training for warriors, focusing on simplicity and health. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker and the person being addressed Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "What they need is a different kind of training. A cold, grim, unemotional training that will teach them how to hit hard and fast and keep on hitting until the enemy has had enough."""" He turned back and leaned his elbows on the bar, watching me with hooded eyes. I got a drink and stood there for a while in silence. There was something about him that made you feel uncomfortable. It wasn't just the harshness of his voice or the hard lines of his face. It was something else. Something that showed through all the time: a kind of inner darkness that you felt like an animal would feel if it were caught up in a lot of bright lights. The guy had been born under an evil star, and he didn't have any use for the world he lived in. Finally I said, """"Listen, pal, if you think I'm going to take your crap and stand here listening to it, you've got another guess coming."""" That's right,"" he said, ""you stand there and listen. You're going to get a lot more before I'm finished talking."""" He jerked his head toward the door. """"Get out of here. Go on. Beat it."""" I took a step forward. And that's when I found out what the other thing was that I had sensed about him. The guy was built like a brick shithouse, and he looked like he could take a punch as well as dish one out. But he had one little trick that made the difference. Maybe you've seen it in the movies. When he stood there looking at you with those yellow eyes, his mouth seemed to twist up at the corners into a kind of grin, and the skin around his neck tightened up until it looked like taut rubber. I stopped moving. I didn't know why. It was as if some invisible force had reached out and held me by the throat. His hand came up off the bar and pointed at me. Then he opened his mouth, and suddenly I saw why I hadn't moved. Because he wasn't grinning any more. The muscles around his neck had gone tight again, and the black eyes were staring at me like two holes in a skull. And then I saw why he had been so angry about the beer. He'd been afraid it might happen. And he was still afraid. As long as he kept himself in hand, he was okay. But let anything start to happen and he knew he couldn't handle it. So he was scared stiff of getting mad. He didn't want to hurt anybody; he just wanted to be left alone. I took another step backward and started for the door. I don't want to talk to guys like you no more,"" he said after me. I didn't answer. I just walked out and closed the door behind me. I went down the street, turning my head from side to side, watching the buildings as I passed them, listening to the sounds of traffic, trying to shake off the feeling of unreality that clung to me like a vapor. " 44 44 "Yes, I said, and I do not believe that there were any such diseasesin the days of Asclepius; and this I infer from the circumstance thatthe hero Eurypylus, after he has been wounded in Homer, drinks a possetof Pramnian wine well besprinkled with barley-meal and grated cheese,which are certainly inflammatory, and yet the sons of Asclepius whowere at the Trojan war do not blame the damsel who gives him the drink,or rebuke Patroclus, who is treating his case. Well, he said, that was surely an extraordinary drink to be givento a person in his condition. Not so extraordinary, I replied, if you bear in mind that in formerdays, as is commonly said, before the time of Herodicus, the guildof Asclepius did not practise our present system of medicine, whichmay be said to educate diseases. But Herodicus, being a trainer, andhimself of a sickly constitution, by a combination of training anddoctoring found out a way of torturing first and chiefly himself,and secondly the rest of the world. How was that? he said. By the invention of lingering death; for he had a mortal disease whichhe perpetually tended, and as recovery was out of the question, hepassed his entire life as a valetudinarian; he could do nothing butattend upon himself, and he was in constant torment whenever he departedin anything from his usual regimen, and so dying hard, by the helpof science he struggled on to old age. A rare reward of his skill! Yes, I said; a reward which a man might fairly expect who never understoodthat, if Asclepius did not instruct his descendants in valetudinarianarts, the omission arose, not from ignorance or inexperience of sucha branch of medicine, but because he knew that in all well-orderedstates every individual has an occupation to which he must attend,and has therefore no leisure to spend in continually being ill. Thiswe remark in the case of the artisan, but, ludicrously enough, donot apply the same rule to people of the richer sort. How do you mean? he said. I mean this: When a carpenter is ill he asks the physician for a roughand ready cure; an emetic or a purge or a cautery or the knife, --theseare his remedies. And if some one prescribes for him a course of dietetics,and tells him that he must swathe and swaddle his head, and all thatsort of thing, he replies at once that he has no time to be ill, andthat he sees no good in a life which is spent in nursing his diseaseto the neglect of his customary employment; and therefore biddinggood-bye to this sort of physician, he resumes his ordinary habits,and either gets well and lives and does his business, or, if his constitutionfalls, he dies and has no more trouble. Yes, he said, and a man in his condition of life ought to use theart of medicine thus far only. Has he not, I said, an occupation; and what profit would there bein his life if he were deprived of his occupation? Quite true, he said. But with the rich man this is otherwise; of him we do not say thathe has any specially appointed work which he must perform, if he wouldlive. He is generally supposed to have nothing to do. Then you never heard of the saying of Phocylides, that as soon asa man has a livelihood he should practise virtue? Nay, he said, I think that he had better begin somewhat sooner. Let us not have a dispute with him about this, I said; but ratherask ourselves: Is the practice of virtue obligatory on the rich man,or can he live without it? And if obligatory on him, then let us raisea further question, whether this dieting of disorders which is animpediment to the application of the mind t in carpentering and themechanical arts, does not equally stand in the way of the sentimentof Phocylides? Of that, he replied, there can be no doubt; such excessive care ofthe body, when carried beyond the rules of gymnastic, is most inimicalto the practice of virtue." "Summary: The text discusses the practice of medicine and its impact on the lives of both rich and poor individuals. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Asclepius, Herodicus, Phocylides Quoted work: Homer's Iliad Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" Medicine is a charlatan’s trade, and you know it. The rich man swallows our drugs because he has money to waste; the poor man swallows them because we force him to in order to keep him alive. Asclepius, what are all our drugs but poisons? In small quantities some of them are beneficial; in larger they become deadly. Even that poison which we call bread—how many millions of men have been killed by it! If one studies the history of medicine over the centuries, the progress of healing art becomes absurd. At the beginning of every century doctors invent new names for old diseases. There is no disease which Man does not have at his command, no poison he cannot make, and yet there is no cure for death.” Herodicus was silent. “I do not blame you, brother,” continued Phocylides. “You are only a slave, like all the rest of us. You were born a slave of your body, and so you will die a slave. But I am free. I have chosen freedom, and though I may be crucified for my freedom, I shall never renounce it. No man can force me to live or to die.” He turned to Asclepius. “Why did you come here?” “To ask for your help,” answered the younger man. “What kind of help?” “A friend of mine is ill.” “Is he a rich friend?” “Yes.” “Then he will get well without my help.” “And if he is not rich?” “He will die.” “But suppose he is my friend too?” “Then he will get well.” “My friend, you are an honest fool. Be content with treating the sick who are under your patron’s protection. Leave the rest alone. It is useless to waste pity on those whom you cannot help. Your pity will only make their suffering more bitter. They will hate you for it.” “I think not.” “They will—and they should. Hate is the only feeling that makes life endurable. Love is good enough for women, but for men there must be hate.” “Perhaps,” said Asclepius. “Now tell me about this friend of yours. What is his illness?” “I do not quite know. He has suffered from headache for several days.” “Headache!” exclaimed Phocylides. “How long has he had it?” “Since last night.” “Has he vomited?” “Yes.” “Has he a fever?” “No.” “Well, then, let him drink cold water. That will cure him.” “Does he need any drugs?” “He needs nothing. Headache is always caused by indigestion. If he vomits and has no fever, he is all right.” “Thank you, brother,” said Asclepius. “But I think I will bring him to see you anyway.” “Why?” “Because he is a prince, and I want to please him.” Phocylides laughed. “Princes are very common in Egypt nowadays,” he said. 45 45 "Yes, indeed, I replied, and equally incompatible with the managementof a house, an army, or an office of state; and, what is most importantof all, irreconcilable with any kind of study or thought or self-reflection--there is a constant suspicion that headache and giddiness are tobe ascribed to philosophy, and hence all practising or making trialof virtue in the higher sense is absolutely stopped; for a man isalways fancying that he is being made ill, and is in constant anxietyabout the state of his body. Yes, likely enough. And therefore our politic Asclepius may be supposed to have exhibitedthe power of his art only to persons who, being generally of healthyconstitution and habits of life, had a definite ailment; such as thesehe cured by purges and operations, and bade them live as usual, hereinconsulting the interests of the State; but bodies which disease hadpenetrated through and through he would not have attempted to cureby gradual processes of evacuation and infusion: he did not want tolengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or to have weak fathers begettingweaker sons; --if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way hehad no business to cure him; for such a cure would have been of nouse either to himself, or to the State. Then, he said, you regard Asclepius as a statesman. Clearly; and his character is further illustrated by his sons. Notethat they were heroes in the days of old and practised the medicinesof which I am speaking at the siege of Troy: You will remember how,when Pandarus wounded Menelaus, they Sucked the blood out of the wound, and sprinkled soothing remedies,but they never prescribed what the patient was afterwards to eat ordrink in the case of Menelaus, any more than in the case of Eurypylus;the remedies, as they conceived, were enough to heal any man who beforehe was wounded was healthy and regular in habits; and even thoughhe did happen to drink a posset of Pramnian wine, he might get wellall the same. But they would have nothing to do with unhealthy andintemperate subjects, whose lives were of no use either to themselvesor others; the art of medicine was not designed for their good, andthough they were as rich as Midas, the sons of Asclepius would havedeclined to attend them. They were very acute persons, those sons of Asclepius. Naturally so, I replied. Nevertheless, the tragedians and Pindar disobeyingour behests, although they acknowledge that Asclepius was the sonof Apollo, say also that he was bribed into healing a rich man whowas at the point of death, and for this reason he was struck by lightning.But we, in accordance with the principle already affirmed by us, willnot believe them when they tell us both; --if he was the son of agod, we maintain that hd was not avaricious; or, if he was avaricioushe was not the son of a god. All that, Socrates, is excellent; but I should like to put a questionto you: Ought there not to be good physicians in a State, and arenot the best those who have treated the greatest number of constitutionsgood and bad? and are not the best judges in like manner those whoare acquainted with all sorts of moral natures? Yes, I said, I too would have good judges and good physicians. Butdo you know whom I think good? Will you tell me? I will, if I can. Let me however note that in the same question youjoin two things which are not the same. How so? he asked. Why, I said, you join physicians and judges. Now the most skilfulphysicians are those who, from their youth upwards, have combinedwith the knowledge of their art the greatest experience of disease;they had better not be robust in health, and should have had all mannerof diseases in their own persons. For the body, as I conceive, isnot the instrument with which they cure the body; in that case wecould not allow them ever to be or to have been sickly; but they curethe body with the mind, and the mind which has become and is sickcan cure nothing." "Summary: The text discusses the incompatibility of philosophy with managing a house, an army, or an office, and questions whether doctors should treat unhealthy and intemperate patients. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Asclepius Time setting: 1950s Language: English" """""Philosophy is fine,"""" said Socrates, """"but it doesn't pay the butcher's bill. If you want to get the best out of philosophy, you must have leisure to practice it, and leisure implies wealth; and there are two ways of getting wealth: one is to inherit it, the other is to earn it. I chose the latter course, and that landed me in your job."""" Well, don't do it again."" And yet here we are. Who says man cannot learn from his mistakes? You're a doctor, aren't you?"""" Yes."" Then you know that there's no sense treating an unhealthy patient unless he promises to mend his ways? Or if he does mend them, how can you expect to cure him quickly when he goes on feeding himself with drugs, alcohol, and junk food?"""" Dr. Crane made a wry face. But suppose he refuses to give up his vices?"" Then you've got to refuse to treat him until he does."" You'd better not tell the police that,"" said Asclepius. They'll put you down as a quack. You don't need to be a doctor to know that most cops are intemperate, unhealthy, and willfully ignorant. Now, if they promise to reform, and you know they won't keep their promise, what then?"""" How would I know whether or not they'll keep it?"" Ah! There's your whole trouble. The art of detecting crime depends upon knowing people. Most men who commit crimes are crooks by nature. They can't help it. It's just as hard for a crook to be honest as it is for a dog to walk erect on its hind legs. So what's the use of punishing them?"""" Hush!"" said Dr. Crane, suddenly. He pointed to a corner where two dirty-looking men were whispering together. The taller of them was gazing at the desk with a covetous eye. Come along,"" said Asclepius. ""I'm getting tired of this place. Let's go eat dinner somewhere."""" Oh, you're hungry already?"" said Dr. Crane. Not for food,"" said Asclepius. ""For blood. I'm tired of talking about murder, and I've a good mind to try some myself."""" XI. THE REWARD OF VENGEANCE A man who lives by his wits has a hard time of it. He is neither respectable enough to be trusted with money nor dishonest enough to steal it. In order to eat, he must either sell something or borrow it from someone else. When he sells his services, no one believes he has anything to sell except his tongue, which he is apt to lose if he opens it too freely. And if he borrows money, he usually has to repay it with interest, or else forfeit the loan and his life as well. For these reasons, a man who lives by his wits is forced to resort to any number of ruses in order to acquire food and shelter. " 46 46 "That is very true, he said. But with the judge it is otherwise; since he governs mind by mind;he ought not therefore to have been trained among vicious minds, andto have associated with them from youth upwards, and to have gonethrough the whole calendar of crime, only in order that he may quicklyinfer the crimes of others as he might their bodily diseases fromhis own self-consciousness; the honourable mind which is to form ahealthy judgment should have had no experience or contamination ofevil habits when young. And this is the reason why in youth good menoften appear to be simple, and are easily practised upon by the dishonest,because they have no examples of what evil is in their own souls. Yes, he said, they are far too apt to be deceived. Therefore, I said, the judge should not be young; he should have learnedto know evil, not from his own soul, but from late and long observationof the nature of evil in others: knowledge should be his guide, notpersonal experience. Yes, he said, that is the ideal of a judge. Yes, I replied, and he will be a good man (which is my answer to yourquestion); for he is good who has a good soul. But the cunning andsuspicious nature of which we spoke, --he who has committed many crimes,and fancies himself to be a master in wickedness, when he is amongsthis fellows, is wonderful in the precautions which he takes, becausehe judges of them by himself: but when he gets into the company ofmen of virtue, who have the experience of age, he appears to be afool again, owing to his unseasonable suspicions; he cannot recognisean honest man, because he has no pattern of honesty in himself; atthe same time, as the bad are more numerous than the good, and hemeets with them oftener, he thinks himself, and is by others thoughtto be, rather wise than foolish. Most true, he said. Then the good and wise judge whom we are seeking is not this man,but the other; for vice cannot know virtue too, but a virtuous nature,educated by time, will acquire a knowledge both of virtue and vice:the virtuous, and not the vicious, man has wisdom --in my opinion. And in mine also. This is the sort of medicine, and this is the sort of law, which yousanction in your State. They will minister to better natures, givinghealth both of soul and of body; but those who are diseased in theirbodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable soulsthey will put an end to themselves. That is clearly the best thing both for the patients and for the State. And thus our youth, having been educated only in that simple musicwhich, as we said, inspires temperance, will be reluctant to go tolaw. Clearly. And the musician, who, keeping to the same track, is content to practisethe simple gymnastic, will have nothing to do with medicine unlessin some extreme case. That I quite believe. The very exercises and tolls which he undergoes are intended to stimulatethe spirited element of his nature, and not to increase his strength;he will not, like common athletes, use exercise and regimen to develophis muscles. Very right, he said. Neither are the two arts of music and gymnastic really designed, asis often supposed, the one for the training of the soul, the otherfir the training of the body. What then is the real object of them? I believe, I said, that the teachers of both have in view chieflythe improvement of the soul. How can that be? he asked. Did you never observe, I said, the effect on the mind itself of exclusivedevotion to gymnastic, or the opposite effect of an exclusive devotionto music? In what way shown? he said. The one producing a temper of hardness and ferocity, the other ofsoftness and effeminacy, I replied. Yes, he said, I am quite aware that the mere athlete becomes too muchof a savage, and that the mere musician is melted and softened beyondwhat is good for him. Yet surely, I said, this ferocity only comes from spirit, which, ifrightly educated, would give courage, but, if too much intensified,is liable to become hard and brutal. That I quite think. On the other hand the philosopher will have the quality of gentleness.And this also, when too much indulged, will turn to softness, but,if educated rightly, will be gentle and moderate. True. And in our opinion the guardians ought to have both these qualities? Assuredly. And both should be in harmony? Beyond question. And the harmonious soul is both temperate and courageous?" "Summary: The text discusses the characteristics of a good judge and how education can influence their decisions. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Judge, narrator Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "The real judge has got to be one of the most difficult characters on earth. He's got to have everything: he's got to have knowledge, power, courage, and pity; he's got to be a man of vision with a sense of humor; he's got to know life inside out, and yet keep his head. You've got to be able to pick up the scale when it weighs less than a feather and turn it over when it weighs a ton. You've got to understand the law without being a lawyer, you've got to understand human nature without being a psychologist, and you've got to have an iron will and a leather hide."""" But what sort of education does he need?"" I asked. Well,"" said the Judge, ""he needs all sorts of education but especially two sorts. He needs a good legal education, so that he knows the law and can use it. He also needs a good common-sense education, which means that he should know something about every subject under the sun and every phase of human experience. That's why it takes such a long time to make a good judge; you never know when you're through learning. Education,"""" he continued, """"is like the oil in the machinery of life. You can't do without it anywhere and you can't get along with too much of it. It keeps the machine going smoothly, gives it efficiency, and makes it work better. " 47 47 "Yes. And the inharmonious is cowardly and boorish? Very true. And, when a man allows music to play upon him and to pour into hissoul through the funnel of his ears those sweet and soft and melancholyairs of which we were just now speaking, and his whole life is passedin warbling and the delights of song; in the first stage of the processthe passion or spirit which is in him is tempered like iron, and madeuseful, instead of brittle and useless. But, if he carries on thesoftening and soothing process, in the next stage he begins to meltand waste, until he has wasted away his spirit and cut out the sinewsof his soul; and he becomes a feeble warrior. Very true. If the element of spirit is naturally weak in him the change is speedilyaccomplished, but if he have a good deal, then the power of musicweakening the spirit renders him excitable; --on the least provocationhe flames up at once, and is speedily extinguished; instead of havingspirit he grows irritable and passionate and is quite impracticable. Exactly. And so in gymnastics, if a man takes violent exercise and is a greatfeeder, and the reverse of a great student of music and philosophy,at first the high condition of his body fills him with pride and spirit,and lie becomes twice the man that he was. Certainly. And what happens? if he do nothing else, and holds no con-a versewith the Muses, does not even that intelligence which there may bein him, having no taste of any sort of learning or enquiry or thoughtor culture, grow feeble and dull and blind, his mind never wakingup or receiving nourishment, and his senses not being purged of theirmists? True, he said. And he ends by becoming a hater of philosophy, uncivilized, neverusing the weapon of persuasion, --he is like a wild beast, all violenceand fierceness, and knows no other way of dealing; and he lives inall ignorance and evil conditions, and has no sense of propriety andgrace. That is quite true, he said. And as there are two principles of human nature, one the spiritedand the other the philosophical, some God, as I should say, has givenmankind two arts answering to them (and only indirectly to the souland body), in order that these two principles (like the strings ofan instrument) may be relaxed or drawn tighter until they are dulyharmonised. That appears to be the intention. And he who mingles music with gymnastic in the fairest proportions,and best attempers them to the soul, may be rightly called the truemusician and harmonist in a far higher sense than the tuner of thestrings. You are quite right, Socrates. And such a presiding genius will be always required in our State ifthe government is to last. Yes, he will be absolutely necessary. Such, then, are our principles of nurture and education: Where wouldbe the use of going into further details about the dances of our citizens,or about their hunting and coursing, their gymnastic and equestriancontests? For these all follow the general principle, and having foundthat, we shall have no difficulty in discovering them. I dare say that there will be no difficulty. Very good, I said; then what is the next question? Must we not askwho are to be rulers and who subjects? Certainly. There can be no doubt that the elder must rule the younger. Clearly. And that the best of these must rule. That is also clear. Now, are not the best husbandmen those who are most devoted to husbandry? Yes. And as we are to have the best of guardians for our city, must theynot be those who have most the character of guardians? Yes. And to this end they ought to be wise and efficient, and to have aspecial care of the State? True. And a man will be most likely to care about that which he loves? To be sure. And he will be most likely to love that which he regards as havingthe same interests with himself, and that of which the good or evilfortune is supposed by him at any time most to affect his own?" "Summary: The text discusses the effects of music and philosophy on the human soul and their role in governing a city-state. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, other speaker(s Language: English" He's the man to do it too. He'd cut up a corpse with a spoon if he had to.' 'No, no,' said Socrates, 'that won't do; music and philosophy must govern the state. The philosopher kings can't be expected to do everything.' 'And what will they be doing?' I asked. 'Keeping their eyes open,' said Alcibiades, 'and spying on everybody else. They'll have to keep a sharp look-out for any one who is fit to rule, and when they find him they'll kill him.' Socrates laughed. 'You're not in earnest?' he said. 'Of course I am,' said Alcibiades. 'If you don't believe me, ask Diogenes of Sinope how many philosophers he's seen killed lately. He'll tell you there's only been one, and he did it himself.' 'I see,' said Socrates; 'you take us literally. But that would be playing into your hands. If we really took ourselves as seriously as you mean, we should soon be fighting among ourselves, and then we could be disposed of in half an hour.' 'I like that,' said Alcibiades. 'What do you think I'm here for?' 'To dance,' said Socrates; 'to show off your body in its glory, and to prove that you can drink more than any other man living. You've got nothing else to offer us.' 'What!' cried Alcibiades, 'are you going to insult me before these gentlemen?' 'It's all right,' said Socrates; 'I knew you were sensitive about it. And now let's go to bed. I want to get up early to-morrow morning and watch the sunrise. Come on.' Alcibiades sat down heavily. 'I don't know what to say,' he said. 'Either you are a very dangerous man, or you are mad.' 'I'm neither,' said Socrates. 'The truth is, I don't understand Greek tragedy at all.' * * * * * There was a great stir outside the door. Alcibiades opened it and looked out. Then he shut it again quickly. 'Come in,' he shouted, 'we're alone.' It was the woman who had been sitting next to Agathon. She stood in the middle of the room, looking from one to the other with a wicked smile. Alcibiades burst out laughing. 'Now you're going to get the works,' he said. 'But mind you behave yourselves. This lady is a professional. You've got to pay her a good price for what she does.' 'Oh, leave them to me,' she said. 'I know just the sort of thing to give them.' 'Go ahead,' said Alcibiades, 'but remember you're on my premises, so don't make too much noise. I don't want to get into trouble with the police.' 'There's a policeman round the corner,' said the woman. 'I saw him when I came in.' 'Well, suppose he comes in,' said Alcibiades, 'what difference does that make? 48 48 "Very true, he replied. Then there must be a selection. Let us note among the guardians thosewho in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what isfor the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do whatis against her interests. Those are the right men. And they will have to be watched at every age, in order that we maysee whether they preserve their resolution, and never, under the influenceeither of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense ofduty to the State. How cast off? he said. I will explain to you, I replied. A resolution may go out of a man'smind either with his will or against his will; with his will whenhe gets rid of a falsehood and learns better, against his will wheneverhe is deprived of a truth. I understand, he said, the willing loss of a resolution; the meaningof the unwilling I have yet to learn. Why, I said, do you not see that men are unwillingly deprived of good,and willingly of evil? Is not to have lost the truth an evil, andto possess the truth a good? and you would agree that to conceivethings as they are is to possess the truth? Yes, he replied; I agree with you in thinking that mankind are deprivedof truth against their will. And is not this involuntary deprivation caused either by theft, orforce, or enchantment? Still, he replied, I do not understand you. I fear that I must have been talking darkly, like the tragedians.I only mean that some men are changed by persuasion and that othersforget; argument steals away the hearts of one class, and time ofthe other; and this I call theft. Now you understand me? Yes. Those again who are forced are those whom the violence of some painor grief compels to change their opinion. I understand, he said, and you are quite right. And you would also acknowledge that the enchanted are those who changetheir minds either under the softer influence of pleasure, or thesterner influence of fear? Yes, he said; everything that deceives may be said to enchant. Therefore, as I was just now saying, we must enquire who are the bestguardians of their own conviction that what they think the interestof the State is to be the rule of their lives. We must watch themfrom their youth upwards, and make them perform actions in which theyare most likely to forget or to be deceived, and he who remembersand is not deceived is to be selected, and he who falls in the trialis to be rejected. That will be the way? Yes. And there should also be toils and pains and conflicts prescribedfor them, in which they will be made to give further proof of thesame qualities. Very right, he replied. And then, I said, we must try them with enchantments that is the thirdsort of test --and see what will be their behaviour: like those whotake colts amid noise and tumult to see if they are of a timid nature,so must we take our youth amid terrors of some kind, and again passthem into pleasures, and prove them more thoroughly than gold is provedin the furnace, that we may discover whether they are armed againstall enchantments, and of a noble bearing always, good guardians ofthemselves and of the music which they have learned, and retainingunder all circumstances a rhythmical and harmonious nature, such aswill be most serviceable to the individual and to the State. And hewho at every age, as boy and youth and in mature life, has come outof the trial victorious and pure, shall be appointed a ruler and guardianof the State; he shall be honoured in life and death, and shall receivesepulture and other memorials of honour, the greatest that we haveto give. But him who fails, we must reject. I am inclined to thinkthat this is the sort of way in which our rulers and guardians shouldbe chosen and appointed. I speak generally, and not with any pretensionto exactness." "Summary: The text discusses the selection process for guardians who are loyal and dedicated to their country. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" The fact that Socrates is your name doesn’t prove you’re a philosopher. You don’t look like one.” “You don’t know my work.” “What kind of work do you do?” “I’m an expert in the art of love.” “I can see that. The way you were looking at me. But you’d better be careful, because right now we’ve got more important things to worry about than the art of love. We want to find someone who’ll be loyal and dedicated to his country no matter what happens. So before we select you as a guardian we’re going to ask you a few questions. If you answer them correctly we’ll take you along with us; if not, we’ll put you out of your misery.” He grinned again, and this time I saw that he had very good teeth. “Don’t make any mistake,” he said. “This is strictly business. I don’t give a damn about loyalty and dedication to my country. All I care about is getting into the gang of wise guys who are running this show. Now start answering those questions.” “We’ll begin with the easiest one. Can you count up to five?” “Of course I can.” “Then let’s see how fast you can do it.” He counted up to five, then looked at me. “Is that satisfactory?” he asked. “No,” I said. “Let’s try it again, but this time count to ten.” “Can’t I go any higher than that?” “Not this time. And keep your voice down. They’re trying to sleep.” He counted up to ten, slowly and distinctly, and then waited for my next order. “Now I want you to repeat after me: ‘I will always tell the truth, even when it hurts me.’” “That’s too long,” he said. “Make it shorter.” “‘I will always tell the truth,’ then. That’s enough.” “It’s all right with me, but you’ll have to make them understand.” “Understand what?” “That they’re asking you to become one of them, and they’ve got to promise you the same thing. It isn’t fair otherwise.” “All right, I’ll tell them. Now listen carefully. Count up to ten again, and this time say it after me. ‘I will always tell the truth, even when it hurts me.’” He did as I told him, and when he was finished I nodded to the others. Then I turned on the light and got up from my chair. “Now we’ll see what you can do,” I said. “Get up and walk across the room to that door over there. Stand in front of it, close your eyes, and count to fifty.” He walked across the room, stood in front of the door, closed his eyes, and started counting. After he reached twenty I gave Jurgis the signal to open the door, and he slipped out into the hall. When I counted to thirty I went over to the window and drew the curtains. 49 49 "And, speaking generally, I agree with you, he said. And perhaps the word 'guardian' in the fullest sense ought to be appliedto this higher class only who preserve us against foreign enemiesand maintain peace among our citizens at home, that the one may nothave the will, or the others the power, to harm us. The young menwhom we before called guardians may be more properly designated auxiliariesand supporters of the principles of the rulers. I agree with you, he said. How then may we devise one of those needful falsehoods of which welately spoke --just one royal lie which may deceive the rulers, ifthat be possible, and at any rate the rest of the city? What sort of lie? he said. Nothing new, I replied; only an old Phoenician tale of what has oftenoccurred before now in other places, (as the poets say, and have madethe world believe,) though not in our time, and I do not know whethersuch an event could ever happen again, or could now even be made probable,if it did. How your words seem to hesitate on your lips! You will not wonder, I replied, at my hesitation when you have heard. Speak, he said, and fear not. Well then, I will speak, although I really know not how to look youin the face, or in what words to utter the audacious fiction, whichI propose to communicate gradually, first to the rulers, then to thesoldiers, and lastly to the people. They are to be told that theiryouth was a dream, and the education and training which they receivedfrom us, an appearance only; in reality during all that time theywere being formed and fed in the womb of the earth, where they themselvesand their arms and appurtenances were manufactured; when they werecompleted, the earth, their mother, sent them up; and so, their countrybeing their mother and also their nurse, they are bound to advisefor her good, and to defend her against attacks, and her citizensthey are to regard as children of the earth and their own brothers. You had good reason, he said, to be ashamed of the lie which you weregoing to tell. True, I replied, but there is more coming; I have only told you half.Citizens, we shall say to them in our tale, you are brothers, yetGod has framed you differently. Some of you have the power of command,and in the composition of these he has mingled gold, wherefore alsothey have the greatest honour; others he has made of silver, to beauxillaries; others again who are to be husbandmen and craftsmen hehas composed of brass and iron; and the species will generally bepreserved in the children. But as all are of the same original stock,a golden parent will sometimes have a silver son, or a silver parenta golden son. And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers,and above all else, that there is nothing which should so anxiouslyguard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purityof the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring; for if the son of a golden or silver parent has an admixtureof brass and iron, then nature orders a transposition of ranks, andthe eye of the ruler must not be pitiful towards the child becausehe has to descend in the scale and become a husbandman or artisan,just as there may be sons of artisans who having an admixture of goldor silver in them are raised to honour, and become guardians or auxiliaries.For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron guards the State,it will be destroyed. Such is the tale; is there any possibility ofmaking our citizens believe in it? Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishingthis; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and theirsons' sons, and posterity after them. I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a beliefwill make them care more for the city and for one another. Enough,however, of the fiction, which may now fly abroad upon the wings ofrumour, while we arm our earth-born heroes, and lead them forth underthe command of their rulers. Let them look round and select a spotwhence they can best suppress insurrection, if any prove refractorywithin, and also defend themselves against enemies, who like wolvesmay come down on the fold from without; there let them encamp, andwhen they have encamped, let them sacrifice to the proper Gods andprepare their dwellings." "Summary: The speaker proposes a lie to be told to the rulers and citizens in order to maintain peace and harmony in the city. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the person being addressed Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "You tell them the truth. You tell them that when the Racket Squad shuts down a set of operators they just spread out like cockroaches and go into business under another name. But you don't have to tell them that. Just tell them I said, 'If you fellows want to keep on taking dough off these suckers here in town, why we'll let you operate. We won't take no chances on trouble. But you guys will have to get together with us. You can't operate without our permission.' That's all. If you do that, I think it'll work out okay. The way we see it, we've got nothing against you. We want to give you plenty of rope so you can hang yourselves. We don't want to interfere with your racket. We'll just see to it that you play square with the people who buy your stuff."""" It was a harsh, vivid, dark gritty speech, given in a hard toneless voice. The man listening could not even bring himself to look up at the speaker. He mumbled something about """"understanding the situation."""" Then he got up and left the room. The door closed behind him with a click. A short time later another man appeared. This one was smaller, thinner and older. His face was lined with worry and fear. He had been drinking heavily, but he did not seem able to get any courage from the liquor. He stood in the middle of the room, shifting his feet uneasily as if he were afraid to speak. The others waited for him to begin. Well,"" the first man said, ""I guess we understand each other now."""" Sure."" Yeah?"" I guess so."" Okay. Sit down. Relax. Have a drink."""" No thanks."" I'll have one,"" said another man. ""Got some good stuff. Like whiskey."""" There was a pause, while everyone watched the thin nervous man. At last he spoke. """"Look here, I don't know how much you guys think you know about this thing."""" As much as we want to,"" said the first man. ""Why?"""" Listen, we didn't mean to pull anything on you. We thought we were doing everybody a favor. How'd we know you guys would start shooting off your mouths?"""" You might've figured it out."" I guess maybe we did,"" the little man admitted. ""But it was just an idea we had. We weren't sure. Now we are. We don't want no more of this stuff. We're out. Get it?"""" I suppose so,"" the big man said. ""But what I want to know is where you get your stuff? You been selling this stuff too long to be new on the game."""" There was another pause. The little man shifted his feet again. He looked around at the others, but they seemed content to wait for him to speak. He glanced over at the door, then turned back to the table. All right,"" he said. ""We won't beat around the bush. We got a source of supply."""" So we thought,"" said the big man. ""Where do you get it?"""" " 50 50 "Just so, he said. And their dwellings must be such as will shield them against the coldof winter and the heat of summer. I suppose that you mean houses, he replied. Yes, I said; but they must be the houses of soldiers, and not of shop-keepers. What is the difference? he said. That I will endeavour to explain, I replied. To keep watchdogs, who,from want of discipline or hunger, or some evil habit, or evil habitor other, would turn upon the sheep and worry them, and behave notlike dogs but wolves, would be a foul and monstrous thing in a shepherd? Truly monstrous, he said. And therefore every care must be taken that our auxiliaries, beingstronger than our citizens, may not grow to be too much for them andbecome savage tyrants instead of friends and allies? Yes, great care should be taken. And would not a really good education furnish the best safeguard? But they are well-educated already, he replied. I cannot be so confident, my dear Glaucon, I said; I am much certainthat they ought to be, and that true education, whatever that maybe, will have the greatest tendency to civilize and humanize themin their relations to one another, and to those who are under theirprotection. Very true, he replied. And not only their education, but their habitations, and all thatbelongs to them, should be such as will neither impair their virtueas guardians, nor tempt them to prey upon the other citizens. Anyman of sense must acknowledge that. He must. Then let us consider what will be their way of life, if they are torealize our idea of them. In the first place, none of them shouldhave any property of his own beyond what is absolutely necessary;neither should they have a private house or store closed against anyone who has a mind to enter; their provisions should be only suchas are required by trained warriors, who are men of temperance andcourage; they should agree to receive from the citizens a fixed rateof pay, enough to meet the expenses of the year and no more; and theywill go and live together like soldiers in a camp. Gold and silverwe will tell them that they have from God; the diviner metal is withinthem, and they have therefore no need of the dross which is currentamong men, and ought not to pollute the divine by any such earthlyadmixture; for that commoner metal has been the source of many unholydeeds, but their own is undefiled. And they alone of all the citizensmay not touch or handle silver or gold, or be under the same roofwith them, or wear them, or drink from them. And this will be theirsalvation, and they will be the saviours of the State. But shouldthey ever acquire homes or lands or moneys of their own, they willbecome housekeepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies andtyrants instead of allies of the other citizens; hating and beinghated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their wholelife in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies,and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the State,will be at hand. For all which reasons may we not say that thus shallour State be ordered, and that these shall be the regulations appointedby us for guardians concerning their houses and all other matters?other Yes, said Glaucon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK IV Adeimantus - SOCRATES Here Adeimantus interposed a question: How would you answer, Socrates,said he, if a person were to say that you are making these peoplemiserable, and that they are the cause of their own unhappiness; thecity in fact belongs to them, but they are none the better for it;whereas other men acquire lands, and build large and handsome houses,and have everything handsome about them, offering sacrifices to thegods on their own account, and practising hospitality; moreover, asyou were saying just now, they have gold and silver, and all thatis usual among the favourites of fortune; but our poor citizens areno better than mercenaries who are quartered in the city and are alwaysmounting guard?" "Summary: The text discusses the ideal way for soldiers to live in a city, emphasizing their discipline and lack of personal possessions. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "A soldier's life is like that; you can't live in a city and be a soldier, unless your city is perfectly organized. Now if soldiers are to have any sense of shame about them they must be decently housed, but not too much so; they must have enough to eat, but not too much; they must be respectably clothed, but their clothes must not be too fine; and they must have the best possible weapons, but only just enough of them. If you would have them trained to live together as soldiers should, they must have all these things in common, and yet they must not think it disgraceful for themselves or their brothers to do any kind of work; they will have to be good at every trade. But when they are out on service they must not be too keen about money, nor too curious about other people's business; they must be willing to obey and willing to fight, and always eager to be at work; they must fear the gods, and hate insolence; they must be able to bear heat and cold with cheerfulness and not be untidy nor greedy; and they must have a little taste of music, perhaps, and of drawing, and of gymnastics. A man who has no education may be a good fighter, but he is an unmanageable brute. " 51 51 "Yes, I said; and you may add that they are only fed, and not paidin addition to their food, like other men; and therefore they cannot,if they would, take a journey of pleasure; they have no money to spendon a mistress or any other luxurious fancy, which, as the world goes,is thought to be happiness; and many other accusations of the samenature might be added. But, said he, let us suppose all this to be included in the charge. You mean to ask, I said, what will be our answer? Yes. If we proceed along the old path, my belief, I said, is that we shallfind the answer. And our answer will be that, even as they are, ourguardians may very likely be the happiest of men; but that our aimin founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of anyone class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought thatin a State which is ordered with a view to the good of the whole weshould be most likely to find Justice, and in the ill-ordered Stateinjustice: and, having found them, we might then decide which of thetwo is the happier. At present, I take it, we are fashioning the happyState, not piecemeal, or with a view of making a few happy citizens,but as a whole; and by-and-by we will proceed to view the oppositekind of State. Suppose that we were painting a statue, and some onecame up to us and said, Why do you not put the most beautiful colourson the most beautiful parts of the body --the eyes ought to be purple,but you have made them black --to him we might fairly answer, Sir,you would not surely have us beautify the eyes to such a degree thatthey are no longer eyes; consider rather whether, by giving this andthe other features their due proportion, we make the whole beautiful.And so I say to you, do not compel us to assign to the guardians asort of happiness which will make them anything but guardians; forwe too can clothe our husbandmen in royal apparel, and set crownsof gold on their heads, and bid them till the ground as much as theylike, and no more. Our potters also might be allowed to repose oncouches, and feast by the fireside, passing round the winecup, whiletheir wheel is conveniently at hand, and working at pottery only asmuch as they like; in this way we might make every class happy-andthen, as you imagine, the whole State would be happy. But do not putthis idea into our heads; for, if we listen to you, the husbandmanwill be no longer a husbandman, the potter will cease to be a potter,and no one will have the character of any distinct class in the State.Now this is not of much consequence where the corruption of society,and pretension to be what you are not, is confined to cobblers; butwhen the guardians of the laws and of the government are only seeminglyand not real guardians, then see how they turn the State upside down;and on the other hand they alone have the power of giving order andhappiness to the State. We mean our guardians to be true savioursand not the destroyers of the State, whereas our opponent is thinkingof peasants at a festival, who are enjoying a life of revelry, notof citizens who are doing their duty to the State. But, if so, wemean different things, and he is speaking of something which is nota State. And therefore we must consider whether in appointing ourguardians we would look to their greatest happiness individually,or whether this principle of happiness does not rather reside in theState as a whole. But the latter be the truth, then the guardiansand auxillaries, and all others equally with them, must be compelledor induced to do their own work in the best way. And thus the wholeState will grow up in a noble order, and the several classes willreceive the proportion of happiness which nature assigns to them. I think that you are quite right. I wonder whether you will agree with another remark which occurs tome. What may that be? There seem to be two causes of the deterioration of the arts. What are they? Wealth, I said, and poverty. How do they act? The process is as follows: When a potter becomes rich, will he, thinkyou, any longer take the same pains with his art?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the happiness and roles of the guardians in a state, arguing that their happiness should not come at the expense of their duties. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the interlocutor Fuzzy place: The state Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "The guardians are the happy ones, and they alone. They do not want anything that does not belong to them; they are satisfied with their life and with their lot. Is it not so? The slaves shall be contented because they are happy. They shall not know that they are slaves. But if the guardians knew too much about happiness and were themselves happy, they would long since have devoured everything, and we shall have to fasten them by chains and keep them in the dark."""" I am not quite sure whether I understand you,"" said the interlocutor. ""Are you really serious or jesting?"" It is a harsh doctrine,"" he replied. ""But perhaps that is why it is true. You do not understand me? Listen, then. Suppose that there is a state. In such a state every man must have his definite position and function, must perform his definite work. If he does not work, he will be deprived of food and drink and clothes and all things necessary for life, and will be driven out into the desert. And if he commits any crime against the state, he will be punished. And he will suffer punishment even though he may never have learned what is right and what is wrong. This is clear enough."""" Yes, but I still do not see "" What else? A man must have something to eat, a place to sleep, and clothing to cover his nakedness, and he must work to obtain them, otherwise he will die. And suppose now that a man is born in the state and lives in it and works for it, and knows nothing but this state and this life. Will he not love it and will he not be happy in it?"""" Of course he will."" And if he loves the state and is happy in it, will he not wish to serve it and defend it from its enemies?"""" He will, certainly."" And therefore let us take the state as we find it, let us not change it, let us rather augment its power and glory. Let us make the people love the state and be happy in it, let us teach them to regard it as their fatherland, as God's gift to them, as a means of their salvation. Let us teach them to fear the state, to revere it, to love it, to die for it; let us teach them to protect it, to cherish it, and to defend it from its enemies. For the sake of the state let us abolish all private property; for the sake of the state let us exterminate all those who do not love the state; for the sake of the state let us kill all those who hate it. We shall give the people bread and circuses instead of freedom, and thus win them over to our side, and they will serve us and thank us. Then we shall say to them: 'See, how good the state is for you! See, how happy you are under it! See, how well we govern you! Now remain with us, brothers, in peace and happiness.' " 52 52 "Certainly not. He will grow more and more indolent and careless? Very true. And the result will be that he becomes a worse potter? Yes; he greatly deteriorates. But, on the other hand, if he has no money, and cannot provide himselftools or instruments, he will not work equally well himself, nor willhe teach his sons or apprentices to work equally well. Certainly not. Then, under the influence either of poverty or of wealth, workmenand their work are equally liable to degenerate? That is evident. Here, then, is a discovery of new evils, I said, against which theguardians will have to watch, or they will creep into the city unobserved. What evils? Wealth, I said, and poverty; the one is the parent of luxury and indolence,and the other of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent. That is very true, he replied; but still I should like to know, Socrates,how our city will be able to go to war, especially against an enemywho is rich and powerful, if deprived of the sinews of war. There would certainly be a difficulty, I replied, in going to warwith one such enemy; but there is no difficulty where there are twoof them. How so? he asked. In the first place, I said, if we have to fight, our side will betrained warriors fighting against an army of rich men. That is true, he said. And do you not suppose, Adeimantus, that a single boxer who was perfectin his art would easily be a match for two stout and well-to-do gentlemenwho were not boxers? Hardly, if they came upon him at once. What, not, I said, if he were able to run away and then turn and strikeat the one who first came up? And supposing he were to do this severaltimes under the heat of a scorching sun, might he not, being an expert,overturn more than one stout personage? Certainly, he said, there would be nothing wonderful in that. And yet rich men probably have a greater superiority in the scienceand practice of boxing than they have in military qualities. Likely enough. Then we may assume that our athletes will be able to fight with twoor three times their own number? I agree with you, for I think you right. And suppose that, before engaging, our citizens send an embassy toone of the two cities, telling them what is the truth: Silver andgold we neither have nor are permitted to have, but you may; do youtherefore come and help us in war, of and take the spoils of the othercity: Who, on hearing these words, would choose to fight against leanwiry dogs, rather th than, with the dogs on their side, against fatand tender sheep? That is not likely; and yet there might be a danger to the poor Stateif the wealth of many States were to be gathered into one. But how simple of you to use the term State at all of any but ourown! Why so? You ought to speak of other States in the plural number; not one ofthem is a city, but many cities, as they say in the game. For indeedany city, however small, is in fact divided into two, one the cityof the poor, the other of the rich; these are at war with one another;and in either there are many smaller divisions, and you would be altogetherbeside the mark if you treated them all as a single State. But ifyou deal with them as many, and give the wealth or power or personsof the one to the others, you will always have a great many friendsand not many enemies. And your State, while the wise order which hasnow been prescribed continues to prevail in her, will be the greatestof States, I do not mean to say in reputation or appearance, but indeed and truth, though she number not more than a thousand defenders.A single State which is her equal you will hardly find, either amongHellenes or barbarians, though many that appear to be as great andmany times greater." "Summary: The text discusses the potential degeneration of workmen and their work due to poverty or wealth, and proposes a solution involving sending ambassadors to other cities for help in war. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Quoted character: Boxer Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "Do you think there are many such men left among the workmen of Athens?"""" A man who is always hungry,"" said Socrates, ""has no time for anything else but eating. If he is not working for his food, he will be stealing it; and if he steals, he is a slave; and when he is a slave, what freedom has he to think of virtue or of anything else?"""" But surely,"" said Adeimantus, ""the city must have some good workmen, even though they are few in number?"""" Yes,"" answered Socrates, ""there may be a very few, but the best of them will soon be swept away. They are like our poor Boxer. He was a great strong fellow, but he had never a thought in his head; and now that he has lost his strength he is as weak as water, and we may say of him as of the horse, 'The gods have taken away his reason.'"""" The next question,"" said Glaucon, ""will be about wealth: How shall we get money? For Athens is in need of money and much more so when we go to war."""" There was an old proverb,"" replied Socrates, ""which was often repeated to me in my youth by Antisthenes, a wise and good man, who would sometimes take me aside and in a kindly manner subdue my pride by the simple force of reason: Oh! my dear Socrates,' he used to say, 'that your vanity should be fed and increased by being made to suppose that you are a philosopher! Why, you have not yet learnt either to ask questions rightly, or to answer them after the manner of a philosopher.'"" And how did he mean?"" I asked. When a person asks you a question,"" he used to reply, """"he ought not to be answered simply by yes or no, and when you have once given an answer, he should not come again to you with the same question. If you answer yes he should ask another question, and when you answer no he should follow up his first question with another that is different."""" And was this the way in which the fool asked his question?"" said Glaucon, laughing. No,"" said Socrates; ""Antisthenes was not quite right in this. Still he meant to show me that I had not yet attained to the height of philosophical skill, and that I must needs learn how to ask questions as well as how to answer. Now then, my friend,"""" he added, turning to Adeimantus, """"let us practise questioning again in this way: When you ask somebody for money, you do not mean that you want a certain number of coins, for if you did, you would mention the sum that you wanted. " 53 53 "That is most true, he said. And what, I said, will be the best limit for our rulers to fix whenthey are considering the size of the State and the amount of territorywhich they are to include, and beyond which they will not go? What limit would you propose? I would allow the State to increase so far as is consistent with unity;that, I think, is the proper limit. Very good, he said. Here then, I said, is another order which will have to be conveyedto our guardians: Let our city be accounted neither large nor small,but one and self-sufficing. And surely, said he, this is not a very severe order which we imposeupon them. And the other, said I, of which we were speaking before is lighterstill, -I mean the duty of degrading the offspring of the guardianswhen inferior, and of elevating into the rank of guardians the offspringof the lower classes, when naturally superior. The intention was,that, in the case of the citizens generally, each individual shouldbe put to the use for which nature which nature intended him, oneto one work, and then every man would do his own business, and beone and not many; and so the whole city would be one and not many. Yes, he said; that is not so difficult. The regulations which we are prescribing, my good Adeimantus, arenot, as might be supposed, a number of great principles, but triflesall, if care be taken, as the saying is, of the one great thing, --athing, however, which I would rather call, not great, but sufficientfor our purpose. What may that be? he asked. Education, I said, and nurture: If our citizens are well educated,and grow into sensible men, they will easily see their way throughall these, as well as other matters which I omit; such, for example,as marriage, the possession of women and the procreation of children,which will all follow the general principle that friends have allthings in common, as the proverb says. That will be the best way of settling them. Also, I said, the State, if once started well, moves with accumulatingforce like a wheel. For good nurture and education implant good constitutions,and these good constitutions taking root in a good education improvemore and more, and this improvement affects the breed in man as inother animals. Very possibly, he said. Then to sum up: This is the point to which, above all, the attentionof our rulers should be directed, --that music and gymnastic be preservedin their original form, and no innovation made. They must do theirutmost to maintain them intact. And when any one says that mankindmost regard The newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that hemay be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this oughtnot to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; forany musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and oughtto be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-hesays that when modes of music change, of the State always change withthem. Yes, said Adeimantus; and you may add my suffrage to Damon's and yourown. Then, I said, our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortressin music? Yes, he said; the lawlessness of which you speak too easily stealsin. Yes, I replied, in the form of amusement; and at first sight it appearsharmless. Why, yes, he said, and there is no harm; were it not that little bylittle this spirit of licence, finding a home, imperceptibly penetratesinto manners and customs; whence, issuing with greater force, it invadescontracts between man and man, and from contracts goes on to lawsand constitutions, in utter recklessness, ending at last, Socrates,by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public. Is that true? I said. That is my belief, he replied. Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the firstin a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youthsthemselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conductedand virtuous citizens." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of education and nurture in creating a well-functioning society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" These people have not the strength to make a world out of themselves.” “And how will you make it?” I asked. “By education,” he said, “and by nurture.” “The education and nurture which will produce for us the best men?” “Yes, that is what I mean.” “But do you really suppose that there will be no fighting in this ideal State of yours? Do you think that the good general, or the good farmer, or even the good shepherd, ever acquires his military, or his field, or his pastoral skill, without toil and without exertion?” “They certainly do not,” he said. “And might we not say ‘without conflict also?’” “Certainly,” he replied; “what else?” “Then your soldiers, in your ideal State, will carry out their orders either because they wish to or because they are compelled to?” “That is clearly the fact,” he said. “Yet please to consider whether a man who obeys from fear, unless his dread be of some one whom he takes to be better than himself, will not be most likely to grow into a rough and lawless type of character.” “I quite agree with you, Socrates,” he said, “and that is the reason why philosophy is not desired by mankind.” “By those who are worthy of her,” I replied; “not by everyone.” “Do you know, Adeimantus, what answer I am always ready to give to this argument against philosophers?” “I cannot imagine.” “Why, I take up a thread where the other interlocutors left off, and say, Men of Athens, whosoever of you reads my poems, to him I may boldly say of this sort: If I have seemed to criticize and find fault with your citizens, it is yourselves that have been my subjects of criticism, not them. But if you are displeased at this, take it out on me, take it out on me alone. Your children and your women will easily revenge you, for what right have poets to mix in matters of state? But that I must, even against your will, is manifest, as the poem itself shows; for any poet is quite unworthy of comparison with any one who holds sway in a State, and is able to reveal the wickedness of others or his own, and to effect the cure of cities and States. Or do you suppose that a poor hollow-backed poet like me is equal to a brave general who has ranged out and reviewed the young men, and passed judgement upon them, and distributed to each of them his own proper calling, and after sending or not sending out anyone to battle has himself taken part in the conflict; or like one of those skilled physicians who have made a cure, or like those skilful horsemen who have drawn a victoria? Do you suppose that I am equal to any one of these, or indeed to a good officer, or to a general pilot of a ship who has saved his cargo unlossed and his crew? 54 54 "Very true, he said. And when they have made a good beginning in play, and by the helpof music have gained the habit of good order, then this habit of order,in a manner how unlike the lawless play of the others! will accompanythem in all their actions and be a principle of growth to them, andif there be any fallen places a principle in the State will raisethem up again. Very true, he said. Thus educated, they will invent for themselves any lesser rules whichtheir predecessors have altogether neglected. What do you mean? I mean such things as these: --when the young are to be silent beforetheir elders; how they are to show respect to them by standing andmaking them sit; what honour is due to parents; what garments or shoesare to be worn; the mode of dressing the hair; deportment and mannersin general. You would agree with me? Yes. But there is, I think, small wisdom in legislating about such matters,--I doubt if it is ever done; nor are any precise written enactmentsabout them likely to be lasting. Impossible. It would seem, Adeimantus, that the direction in which education startsa man, will determine his future life. Does not like always attractlike? To be sure. Until some one rare and grand result is reached which may be good,and may be the reverse of good? That is not to be denied. And for this reason, I said, I shall not attempt to legislate furtherabout them. Naturally enough, he replied. Well, and about the business of the agora, dealings and the ordinarydealings between man and man, or again about agreements with the commencementwith artisans; about insult and injury, of the commencement of actions,and the appointment of juries, what would you say? there may alsoarise questions about any impositions and extractions of market andharbour dues which may be required, and in general about the regulationsof markets, police, harbours, and the like. But, oh heavens! shallwe condescend to legislate on any of these particulars? I think, he said, that there is no need to impose laws about themon good men; what regulations are necessary they will find out soonenough for themselves. Yes, I said, my friend, if God will only preserve to them the lawswhich we have given them. And without divine help, said Adeimantus, they will go on for evermaking and mending their laws and their lives in the hope of attainingperfection. You would compare them, I said, to those invalids who, having no self-restraint,will not leave off their habits of intemperance? Exactly. Yes, I said; and what a delightful life they lead! they are alwaysdoctoring and increasing and complicating their disorders, and alwaysfancying that they will be cured by any nostrum which anybody advisesthem to try. Such cases are very common, he said, with invalids of this sort. Yes, I replied; and the charming thing is that they deem him theirworst enemy who tells them the truth, which is simply that, unlessthey give up eating and drinking and wenching and idling, neitherdrug nor cautery nor spell nor amulet nor any other remedy will avail. Charming! he replied. I see nothing charming in going into a passionwith a man who tells you what is right. These gentlemen, I said, do not seem to be in your good graces. Assuredly not. Nor would you praise the behaviour of States which act like the menwhom I was just now describing. For are there not ill-ordered Statesin which the citizens are forbidden under pain of death to alter theconstitution; and yet he who most sweetly courts those who live underthis regime and indulges them and fawns upon them and is skilful inanticipating and gratifying their humours is held to be a great andgood statesman --do not these States resemble the persons whom I wasdescribing? Yes, he said; the States are as bad as the men; and I am very farfrom praising them. But do you not admire, I said, the coolness and dexterity of theseready ministers of political corruption? Yes, he said, I do; but not of all of them, for there are some whomthe applause of the multitude has deluded into the belief that theyare really statesmen, and these are not much to be admired. What do you mean? I said; you should have more feeling for them. Whena man cannot measure, and a great many others who cannot measure declarethat he is four cubits high, can he help believing what they say?" "Summary: The text discusses the importance of education and how it shapes a person's future. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Adeimantus, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I have seen them, Adeimantus. These are the people who live in the lower part of the city and get their living by any dirty job they can find. They are idle, drunken, vicious, unclean, with scarcely any sense of decency or humanity; they are always ready to steal from one another or kill each other for a penny, and there is no crime that they would not commit for money. And yet you call these people free! I tell you that slavery is better than this kind of freedom. At least the slave has food and clothing and shelter and does not have to worry about his future."""" But if he is unhappy,"" said Adeimantus, ""and longs to be free like us, why should we not let him go?"""" Because he will only bring trouble on himself and on others,"" replied Socrates. ""He is uneducated and ignorant; he knows nothing except how to make money and how to gratify his appetites; he is incapable of self-control and therefore he is a danger both to himself and to others. If he is allowed to roam freely through the streets, he may become violent and assault innocent people. He may also try to steal or even commit murder. Therefore, it is better that he should remain a slave and be protected from himself. " 55 55 "Nay, he said, certainly not in that case. Well, then, do not be angry with them; for are they not as good asa play, trying their hand at paltry reforms such as I was describing;they are always fancying that by legislation they will make an endof frauds in contracts, and the other rascalities which I was mentioning,not knowing that they are in reality cutting off the heads of a hydra? Yes, he said; that is just what they are doing. I conceive, I said, that the true legislator will not trouble himselfwith this class of enactments whether concerning laws or the constitutioneither in an ill-ordered or in a well-ordered State; for in the formerthey are quite useless, and in the latter there will be no difficultyin devising them; and many of them will naturally flow out of ourprevious regulations. What, then, he said, is still remaining to us of the work of legislation? Nothing to us, I replied; but to Apollo, the God of Delphi, thereremains the ordering of the greatest and noblest and chiefest thingsof all. Which are they? he said. The institution of temples and sacrifices, and the entire serviceof gods, demigods, and heroes; also the ordering of the repositoriesof the dead, and the rites which have to be observed by him who wouldpropitiate the inhabitants of the world below. These are matters ofwhich we are ignorant ourselves, and as founders of a city we shouldbe unwise in trusting them to any interpreter but our ancestral deity.He is the god who sits in the center, on the navel of the earth, andhe is the interpreter of religion to all mankind. You are right, and we will do as you propose. But where, amid all this, is justice? son of Ariston, tell me where.Now that our city has been made habitable, light a candle and search,and get your brother and Polemarchus and the rest of our friends tohelp, and let us see where in it we can discover justice and whereinjustice, and in what they differ from one another, and which ofthem the man who would be happy should have for his portion, whetherseen or unseen by gods and men. Socrates - GLAUCON Nonsense, said Glaucon: did you not promise to search yourself, sayingthat for you not to help justice in her need would be an impiety? I do not deny that I said so, and as you remind me, I will be as goodas my word; but you must join. We will, he replied. Well, then, I hope to make the discovery in this way: I mean to beginwith the assumption that our State, if rightly ordered, is perfect. That is most certain. And being perfect, is therefore wise and valiant and temperate andjust. That is likewise clear. And whichever of these qualities we find in the State, the one whichis not found will be the residue? Very good. If there were four things, and we were searching for one of them,wherever it might be, the one sought for might be known to us fromthe first, and there would be no further trouble; or we might knowthe other three first, and then the fourth would clearly be the oneleft. Very true, he said. And is not a similar method to be pursued about the virtues, whichare also four in number? Clearly. First among the virtues found in the State, wisdom comes into view,and in this I detect a certain peculiarity. What is that? The State which we have been describing is said to be wise as beinggood in counsel? Very true. And good counsel is clearly a kind of knowledge, for not by ignorance,but by knowledge, do men counsel well? Clearly. And the kinds of knowledge in a State are many and diverse? Of course. There is the knowledge of the carpenter; but is that the sort of knowledgewhich gives a city the title of wise and good in counsel? Certainly not; that would only give a city the reputation of skillin carpentering. Then a city is not to be called wise because possessing a knowledgewhich counsels for the best about wooden implements? Certainly not. Nor by reason of a knowledge which advises about brazen pots, I said,nor as possessing any other similar knowledge?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the role of legislation and justice in a city, suggesting that true legislation lies with Apollo. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I don't say that legislation is anything but a sham and a make-believe, unless it's got something behind it. I do say that when you have true justice working, then there'll be no need of any written laws."""" But, Socrates, how can the city and the people live without laws?"""" They won't be able to live, my dear Glaucon, if they can't obey them. And they can't obey them if they haven't got them. So all right, we'll give them some, and maybe they'll get on all right with those."""" Well, Socrates, what laws will we give them?"" We'll start with the ones that are easy, and as we go along I hope we'll get some help from heaven. I guess we'd better begin by making a law about theft."""" All right."" Now we're going to make a new kind of law, Glaucon, not like the one we passed before. Then you'll see the difference between real legislation and the sort that's just a lot of words."""" What do you mean?"" You remember the law we made before about stealing?"""" Yes."" That was a bad law, my friend; it ought to be torn up and replaced by another. Here's the way we should put it: 'No man shall take away anything belonging to another man or his family.' And the punishment for this crime shall be death."""" " 56 56 "Not by reason of any of them, he said. Nor yet by reason of a knowledge which cultivates the earth; thatwould give the city the name of agricultural? Yes. Well, I said, and is there any knowledge in our recently founded Stateamong any of the citizens which advises, not about any particularthing in the State, but about the whole, and considers how a Statecan best deal with itself and with other States? There certainly is. And what is knowledge, and among whom is it found? I asked. It is the knowledge of the guardians, he replied, and found amongthose whom we were just now describing as perfect guardians. And what is the name which the city derives from the possession ofthis sort of knowledge? The name of good in counsel and truly wise. And will there be in our city more of these true guardians or moresmiths? The smiths, he replied, will be far more numerous. Will not the guardians be the smallest of all the classes who receivea name from the profession of some kind of knowledge? Much the smallest. And so by reason of the smallest part or class, and of the knowledgewhich resides in this presiding and ruling part of itself, the wholeState, being thus constituted according to nature, will be wise; andthis, which has the only knowledge worthy to be called wisdom, hasbeen ordained by nature to be of all classes the least. Most true. Thus, then, I said, the nature and place in the State of one of thefour virtues has somehow or other been discovered. And, in my humble opinion, very satisfactorily discovered, he replied. Again, I said, there is no difficulty in seeing the nature of courage;and in what part that quality resides which gives the name of courageousto the State. How do you mean? Why, I said, every one who calls any State courageous or cowardly,will be thinking of the part which fights and goes out to war on theState's behalf. No one, he replied, would ever think of any other. Certainly not. The rest of the citizens may be courageous or may be cowardly buttheir courage or cowardice will not, as I conceive, have the effectof making the city either the one or the other. The city will be courageous in virtue of a portion of herself whichpreserves under all circumstances that opinion about the nature ofthings to be feared and not to be feared in which our legislator educatedthem; and this is what you term courage. I should like to hear what you are saying once more, for I do notthink that I perfectly understand you. I mean that courage is a kind of salvation. Salvation of what? Of the opinion respecting things to be feared, what they are and ofwhat nature, which the law implants through education; and I meanby the words 'under all circumstances' to intimate that in pleasureor in pain, or under the influence of desire or fear, a man preserves,and does not lose this opinion. Shall I give you an illustration? If you please. You know, I said, that dyers, when they want to dye wool for makingthe true sea-purple, begin by selecting their white colour first;this they prepare and dress with much care and pains, in order thatthe white ground may take the purple hue in full perfection. The dyeingthen proceeds; and whatever is dyed in this manner becomes a fastcolour, and no washing either with lyes or without them can take awaythe bloom. But, when the ground has not been duly prepared, you willhave noticed how poor is the look either of purple or of any othercolour. Yes, he said; I know that they have a washed-out and ridiculous appearance." "Summary: The text discusses the knowledge and virtues of the guardians in a recently founded city. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Fuzzy place: The city Language: English" He said that this was because they had recently founded a city of their own and were still young. But they are not so young as they think, I said, for they have inherited the most extraordinary amount of knowledge from their ancestors, and these have been long-lived, just as in our city we have a number of people who can remember events of fifty years ago. So the older men among them know a great deal about the ways of their city; and if anyone is told to go to some particular place he will be able to find it easily even though he has never seen it before, just as our soldiers can recognize our different weapons. The same goes for their laws: the older ones can tell you exactly how each law applies in any given situation. They also have a lot of experience in war and politics, and they are well aware of the advantages which their country has over all others. They are very wise in their dealings with other nations, and they know how to make treaties which will ensure that they always get what they want from their neighbours without having to fight. They are also very good at keeping secrets, and they do not gossip or spread rumours. They are completely loyal to their rulers and to each other, and they will die rather than betray their country. In fact, they are such excellent soldiers that they never lose a battle. When they are victorious, they do not plunder the enemy but treat them kindly, and they punish traitors severely. They also have a strong sense of justice, and they hate injustice more than anything else. 57 57 "Then now, I said, you will understand what our object was in selectingour soldiers, and educating them in music and gymnastic; we were contrivinginfluences which would prepare them to take the dye of the laws inperfection, and the colour of their opinion about dangers and of everyother opinion was to be indelibly fixed by their nurture and training,not to be washed away by such potent lyes as pleasure --mightier agentfar in washing the soul than any soda or lye; or by sorrow, fear,and desire, the mightiest of all other solvents. And this sort ofuniversal saving power of true opinion in conformity with law aboutreal and false dangers I call and maintain to be courage, unless youdisagree. But I agree, he replied; for I suppose that you mean to exclude mereuninstructed courage, such as that of a wild beast or of a slave --this,in your opinion, is not the courage which the law ordains, and oughtto have another name. Most certainly. Then I may infer courage to be such as you describe? Why, yes, said I, you may, and if you add the words 'of a citizen,'you will not be far wrong; --hereafter, if you like, we will carrythe examination further, but at present we are we w seeking not forcourage but justice; and for the purpose of our enquiry we have saidenough. You are right, he replied. Two virtues remain to be discovered in the State-first temperance,and then justice which is the end of our search. Very true. Now, can we find justice without troubling ourselves about temperance? I do not know how that can be accomplished, he said, nor do I desirethat justice should be brought to light and temperance lost sightof; and therefore I wish that you would do me the favour of consideringtemperance first. Certainly, I replied, I should not be justified in refusing your request. Then consider, he said. Yes, I replied; I will; and as far as I can at present see, the virtueof temperance has more of the nature of harmony and symphony thanthe preceding. How so? he asked. Temperance, I replied, is the ordering or controlling of certain pleasuresand desires; this is curiously enough implied in the saying of 'aman being his own master' and other traces of the same notion maybe found in language. No doubt, he said. There is something ridiculous in the expression 'master of himself';for the master is also the servant and the servant the master; andin all these modes of speaking the same person is denoted. Certainly. The meaning is, I believe, that in the human soul there is a betterand also a worse principle; and when the better has the worse undercontrol, then a man is said to be master of himself; and this is aterm of praise: but when, owing to evil education or association,the better principle, which is also the smaller, is overwhelmed bythe greater mass of the worse --in this case he is blamed and is calledthe slave of self and unprincipled. Yes, there is reason in that. And now, I said, look at our newly created State, and there you willfind one of these two conditions realised; for the State, as you willacknowledge, may be justly called master of itself, if the words 'temperance'and 'self-mastery' truly express the rule of the better part overthe worse. Yes, he said, I see that what you say is true. Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desiresand pains are generally found in children and women and servants,and in the freemen so called who are of the lowest and more numerousclass. Certainly, he said. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and areunder the guidance of mind and true opinion, are to be found onlyin a few, and those the best born and best educated. Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State;and the meaner desires of the are held down by the virtuous desiresand wisdom of the few. That I perceive, he said. Then if there be any city which may be described as master of itsown pleasures and desires, and master of itself, ours may claim sucha designation? Certainly, he replied. It may also be called temperate, and for the same reasons? Yes. And if there be any State in which rulers and subjects will be agreedas to the question who are to rule, that again will be our State? Undoubtedly. And the citizens being thus agreed among themselves, in which classwill temperance be found --in the rulers or in the subjects? In both, as I should imagine, he replied. Do you observe that we were not far wrong in our guess that temperancewas a sort of harmony?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the concept of courage and its relationship to justice and temperance. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Courage, for instance, what is it? It's the quality most essential to a successful crook. That was why I've always hated it so much."""" The judge started to speak again but I cut him off short. """"You can't afford to be a sentimentalist, Judge,"""" I told him. """"If you'd ever walked a beat in the streets of this town you'd know that courage is the one quality a cop hates to see in a criminal."""" He started to argue with me and I let him talk on for a minute or so. Then I laughed at him. """"Listen, Judge,"""" I said, """"you're not even up on your own language. What are you trying to do? Define courage?"""" He nodded, uncertainly. I went on: """"All right then. Courage is simply doing what you have to do when it becomes necessary to do it. It's only an act of self-preservation when you don't have time to stop and think about it. When you have time to think about it, it isn't courage any more. You can call it bravery if you want to. But it isn't courage. It's stupid."""" And now I stopped talking because I could see that he was beginning to get mad at me. This wasn't going to be as easy as I had hoped it would be. I changed my approach and kept quiet until he had calmed down enough to speak. I didn't intend to give him any chance to interrupt me. After all, I knew what I wanted to say and how I wanted to say it. There was no sense in letting him take over. """"I'm going to tell you something else,"""" I said. """"This is what you aren't getting. Courage isn't just being brave. Being brave is just half the job. The other half is knowing what to be brave about. I'll give you an example. Let's say a man has just killed another man. Now he knows that he's got to run for his life. He can't stay where he is. He's got to move fast and keep moving. He can't rest anywhere. He might be recognized by somebody. And if he is, he's done for. He has to keep going. Do you think that takes any particular kind of courage? No. Anybody can do that. It doesn't take any brains. The guy who kills a man is already committed. He's done it and he's got to stick by it. He hasn't got any choice. If he wants to live he's got to go on living. All he has to do is go on living."""" I looked at the judge and I grinned at him. """"That's all,"""" I said. """"It isn't any special kind of courage. It's just going on living."""" And now I had him. I saw it in his eyes. I saw that he didn't believe me. He thought I was making fun of him. Well, maybe I was. " 58 58 "Why so? Why, because temperance is unlike courage and wisdom, each of whichresides in a part only, the one making the State wise and the othervaliant; not so temperance, which extends to the whole, and runs throughall the notes of the scale, and produces a harmony of the weaker andthe stronger and the middle class, whether you suppose them to bestronger or weaker in wisdom or power or numbers or wealth, or anythingelse. Most truly then may we deem temperance to be the agreement ofthe naturally superior and inferior, as to the right to rule of either,both in states and individuals. I entirely agree with you. And so, I said, we may consider three out of the four virtues to havebeen discovered in our State. The last of those qualities which makea state virtuous must be justice, if we only knew what that was. The inference is obvious. The time then has arrived, Glaucon, when, like huntsmen, we shouldsurround the cover, and look sharp that justice does not steal away,and pass out of sight and escape us; for beyond a doubt she is somewherein this country: watch therefore and strive to catch a sight of her,and if you see her first, let me know. Would that I could! but you should regard me rather as a followerwho has just eyes enough to, see what you show him --that is aboutas much as I am good for. Offer up a prayer with me and follow. I will, but you must show me the way. Here is no path, I said, and the wood is dark and perplexing; stillwe must push on. Let us push on. Here I saw something: Halloo! I said, I begin to perceive a track,and I believe that the quarry will not escape. Good news, he said. Truly, I said, we are stupid fellows. Why so? Why, my good sir, at the beginning of our enquiry, ages ago, therewas justice tumbling out at our feet, and we never saw her; nothingcould be more ridiculous. Like people who go about looking for whatthey have in their hands --that was the way with us --we looked notat what we were seeking, but at what was far off in the distance;and therefore, I suppose, we missed her. What do you mean? I mean to say that in reality for a long time past we have been talkingof justice, and have failed to recognise her. I grow impatient at the length of your exordium. Well then, tell me, I said, whether I am right or not: You rememberthe original principle which we were always laying down at the foundationof the State, that one man should practise one thing only, the thingto which his nature was best adapted; --now justice is this principleor a part of it. Yes, we often said that one man should do one thing only. Further, we affirmed that justice was doing one's own business, andnot being a busybody; we said so again and again, and many othershave said the same to us. Yes, we said so. Then to do one's own business in a certain way may be assumed to bejustice. Can you tell me whence I derive this inference? I cannot, but I should like to be told. Because I think that this is the only virtue which remains in theState when the other virtues of temperance and courage and wisdomare abstracted; and, that this is the ultimate cause and conditionof the existence of all of them, and while remaining in them is alsotheir preservative; and we were saying that if the three were discoveredby us, justice would be the fourth or remaining one. That follows of necessity. If we are asked to determine which of these four qualities by itspresence contributes most to the excellence of the State, whetherthe agreement of rulers and subjects, or the preservation in the soldiersof the opinion which the law ordains about the true nature of dangers,or wisdom and watchfulness in the rulers, or whether this other whichI am mentioning, and which is found in children and women, slave andfreeman, artisan, ruler, subject, --the quality, I mean, of everyone doing his own work, and not being a busybody, would claim thepalm --the question is not so easily answered. Certainly, he replied, there would be a difficulty in saying which." "Summary: The speaker discusses the virtues of temperance, justice, and wisdom in a state. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "If he does not, then the state will punish him and force him to do so. It would be a strange world in which we lived if a man were allowed to beat his wife and children every day of the week and kill them at the weekend."""" Glaucon grinned. He was a tough customer and I had been expecting something like this from him all along. But there are other virtues too,"" I said. ""For instance temperance."""" Temperance?"" he repeated. ""What in hell's name has temperance got to do with it?"""" If a man is given to drink,"" I told him, ""his work suffers. His mind gets confused and his hands shake. He loses his sense of proportion and becomes incapable of rational thought. He falls into debt. In the end he may die of delirium tremens or alcohol poisoning. That is why we must curb our appetites and control our desires for drink, food, sex and money. We must learn to keep them within bounds."""" The very idea makes me sick,"" Glaucon said harshly. ""It's a lie that a man can't enjoy life unless he keeps himself under restraint. We want what we want when we want it. And what the hell business is it of yours whether we take a little brandy before dinner or become drunkards?"""" You have put your finger on the heart of the matter,"" I replied. ""The fact that you want to do these things is precisely why we must not allow you to do them. The only way to teach a man self-control is to deny him everything he wants. Temperance is the virtue by means of which we shall achieve order."""" Glaucon laughed. """"You make me feel ashamed of myself,"""" he said. """"But I don't see how we can get away from the facts. A man who is hungry has got to eat, hasn't he?"""" Of course he has."" There are some people who say that hunger is an appetite like any other and can be satisfied like any other appetite."" That is nonsense,"" I said sharply. ""Hunger is not an appetite. It is a symptom of hunger. There is a difference."""" What is the difference?"" The difference between an appetite and a symptom is this: An appetite is the desire for something that satisfies it. Hunger is the desire for something that causes hunger. When a man is hungry he wants food. When he is sexually excited he wants sexual satisfaction. When he is thirsty he wants a drink. When he is tired he wants to sleep. These are the symptoms of the appetites; they are not the appetites themselves."""" I hope you're not going to tell me,"" Glaucon said, ""that you think we ought to starve people until they are no longer hungry, lock them up until they no longer want sex and give them nothing to drink until they are dead of thirst. " 59 59 "Then the power of each individual in the State to do his own workappears to compete with the other political virtues, wisdom, temperance,courage. Yes, he said. And the virtue which enters into this competition is justice? Exactly. Let us look at the question from another point of view: Are not therulers in a State those to whom you would entrust the office of determiningsuits at law? Certainly. And are suits decided on any other ground but that a man may neithertake what is another's, nor be deprived of what is his own? Yes; that is their principle. Which is a just principle? Yes. Then on this view also justice will be admitted to be the having anddoing what is a man's own, and belongs to him? Very true. Think, now, and say whether you agree with me or not. Suppose a carpenterto be doing the business of a cobbler, or a cobbler of a carpenter;and suppose them to exchange their implements or their duties, orthe same person to be doing the work of both, or whatever be the change;do you think that any great harm would result to the State? Not much. But when the cobbler or any other man whom nature designed to be atrader, having his heart lifted up by wealth or strength or the numberof his followers, or any like advantage, attempts to force his wayinto the class of warriors, or a warrior into that of legislatorsand guardians, for which he is unfitted, and either to take the implementsor the duties of the other; or when one man is trader, legislator,and warrior all in one, then I think you will agree with me in sayingthat this interchange and this meddling of one with another is theruin of the State. Most true. Seeing then, I said, that there are three distinct classes, any meddlingof one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatestharm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing? Precisely. And the greatest degree of evil-doing to one's own city would be termedby you injustice? Certainly. This then is injustice; and on the other hand when the trader, theauxiliary, and the guardian each do their own business, that is justice,and will make the city just. I agree with you. We will not, I said, be over-positive as yet; but if, on trial, thisconception of justice be verified in the individual as well as inthe State, there will be no longer any room for doubt; if it be notverified, we must have a fresh enquiry. First let us complete theold investigation, which we began, as you remember, under the impressionthat, if we could previously examine justice on the larger scale,there would be less difficulty in discerning her in the individual.That larger example appeared to be the State, and accordingly we constructedas good a one as we could, knowing well that in the good State justicewould be found. Let the discovery which we made be now applied tothe individual --if they agree, we shall be satisfied; or, if therebe a difference in the individual, we will come back to the Stateand have another trial of the theory. The friction of the two whenrubbed together may possibly strike a light in which justice willshine forth, and the vision which is then revealed we will fix inour souls. That will be in regular course; let us do as you say. I proceeded to ask: When two things, a greater and less, are calledby the same name, are they like or unlike in so far as they are calledthe same? Like, he replied. The just man then, if we regard the idea of justice only, will belike the just State? He will. And a State was thought by us to be just when the three classes inthe State severally did their own business; and also thought to betemperate and valiant and wise by reason of certain other affectionsand qualities of these same classes? True, he said. And so of the individual; we may assume that he has the same threeprinciples in his own soul which are found in the State; and he maybe rightly described in the same terms, because he is affected inthe same manner?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of justice and its application in both the State and the individual. Narrative arc: Philosophical exploration Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Active character: Two characters engaged in a conversation Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "You know the old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it."""" I could do that."" You could, couldn't you? But you can't have your justice and be just either. So which do you want?"""" The answer was obvious; we both knew it, and to my mind he should have left it there without further words. He didn't. He went on talking, and for a long time after I had said I wanted justice he kept on talking about being just. It's easy enough in the State,"" he said. ""The State takes care of itself all right. That's what the State's for. It's just the individual that gets into trouble."""" How?"" There's no law against being just."" Then why is it so difficult?"" Because it's human nature."" Human nature isn't always bad."" No,"" he said, ""it isn't. But it's not always good either. Look at this room. Is it good or bad?"""" He turned up the light, and I looked at the dirty carpet and the empty bottles and glasses and cigarette ends. No,"" I said, ""it isn't good."" I'll tell you something better than that,"" he said. ""It isn't just. Suppose you were a lady here with a man friend. Would you bring him in here?"""" No."" Well then, would you feel any different if you thought this was a hotel where people stayed who wanted to be just instead of people who wanted to be good?"""" I shook my head. I don't think it makes much difference,"" I said. ""If they're just, they're likely to be good too."""" And vice versa,"" he said. ""And neither of them are very likely. Take this room, for instance. What's wrong with it?"""" Nothing."" Nothing? Nothing at all? It's dirty, it's messy, it's dangerous, and it smells. Isn't that enough?"""" Yes,"" I said. ""But suppose you were living in it, wouldn't you get used to it?"""" No,"" he said, ""I shouldn't. I'm like my mother. She's not an unreasonable woman, but she has funny ideas. One of them is that nothing is so dirty that you can't clean it."""" Yes?"" That's right. She says that if you haven't got the proper stuff for cleaning something, you should use soap and water, and if you haven't got soap and water, you should use sand and water, and if you haven't got any water you can use spit."""" Spit?"" Yes. She says that spit is just as good as water, and sometimes even better. I never tried it, though."""" Neither did I,"" I said. ""But I believe she's right."" And then I saw the point he was making. """"That's it!"""" I said. """"Just is like spit."""" Just like spit,"" he said. ""Exactly. If you haven't got anything else, use that."""" " 60 60 "Certainly, he said. Once more then, O my friend, we have alighted upon an easy question--whether the soul has these three principles or not? An easy question! Nay, rather, Socrates, the proverb holds that hardis the good. Very true, I said; and I do not think that the method which we areemploying is at all adequate to the accurate solution of this question;the true method is another and a longer one. Still we may arrive ata solution not below the level of the previous enquiry. May we not be satisfied with that? he said; --under the circumstances,I am quite content. I too, I replied, shall be extremely well satisfied. Then faint not in pursuing the speculation, he said. Must we not acknowledge, I said, that in each of us there are thesame principles and habits which there are in the State; and thatfrom the individual they pass into the State? --how else can theycome there? Take the quality of passion or spirit; --it would be ridiculousto imagine that this quality, when found in States, is not derivedfrom the individuals who are supposed to possess it, e.g. the Thracians,Scythians, and in general the northern nations; and the same may besaid of the love of knowledge, which is the special characteristicof our part of the world, or of the love of money, which may, withequal truth, be attributed to the Phoenicians and Egyptians. Exactly so, he said. There is no difficulty in understanding this. None whatever. But the question is not quite so easy when we proceed to ask whetherthese principles are three or one; whether, that is to say, we learnwith one part of our nature, are angry with another, and with a thirdpart desire the satisfaction of our natural appetites; or whetherthe whole soul comes into play in each sort of action --to determinethat is the difficulty. Yes, he said; there lies the difficulty. Then let us now try and determine whether they are the same or different. How can we? he asked. I replied as follows: The same thing clearly cannot act or be actedupon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the sametime, in contrary ways; and therefore whenever this contradictionoccurs in things apparently the same, we know that they are reallynot the same, but different. Good. For example, I said, can the same thing be at rest and in motion atthe same time in the same part? Impossible. Still, I said, let us have a more precise statement of terms, lestwe should hereafter fall out by the way. Imagine the case of a manwho is standing and also moving his hands and his head, and supposea person to say that one and the same person is in motion and at restat the same moment-to such a mode of speech we should object, andshould rather say that one part of him is in motion while anotheris at rest. Very true. And suppose the objector to refine still further, and to draw thenice distinction that not only parts of tops, but whole tops, whenthey spin round with their pegs fixed on the spot, are at rest andin motion at the same time (and he may say the same of anything whichrevolves in the same spot), his objection would not be admitted byus, because in such cases things are not at rest and in motion inthe same parts of themselves; we should rather say that they haveboth an axis and a circumference, and that the axis stands still,for there is no deviation from the perpendicular; and that the circumferencegoes round. But if, while revolving, the axis inclines either to theright or left, forwards or backwards, then in no point of view canthey be at rest. That is the correct mode of describing them, he replied. Then none of these objections will confuse us, or incline us to believethat the same thing at the same time, in the same part or in relationto the same thing, can act or be acted upon in contrary ways." "Summary: The speaker discusses the principles and habits that exist in individuals and states, and debates whether these principles are three or one. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical discussion Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" The principles and habits which exist in every individual and State, whether they are three or one, are not difficult to discover. The way to find them is this:—First of all, try to define what the soul is; then you will more easily perceive also the nature of temperance and self-indulgence, courage, and cowardice, justice and injustice, wisdom and ignorance. For the soul is naturally akin to that which is by nature good, whereas the body is akin to that which is by nature evil. There are two sorts of animals, the tame and the wild, and of plants some are cultivated and others are wild. And there are two sorts of things among human beings, the one sort being the laws and institutions of the city, the other the pleasures of the body, which are akin to those of animals. And so it is evident that there must be two sorts of knowledge; for there are two sorts of object, and of these one is better and the other worse. One sort of knowledge will tell us how to take care of the soul, and how to preserve it, and how to set it free, and how to strengthen it, and how to get rid of the influences which are bad for it. The other sort of knowledge will tell us how to take care of the body, and how to preserve it, and how to set it free, and how to get rid of the influences which are bad for it. 61 61 "Certainly not, according to my way of thinking. Yet, I said, that we may not be compelled to examine all such objections,and prove at length that they are untrue, let us assume their absurdity,and go forward on the understanding that hereafter, if this assumptionturn out to be untrue, all the consequences which follow shall bewithdrawn. Yes, he said, that will be the best way. Well, I said, would you not allow that assent and dissent, desireand aversion, attraction and repulsion, are all of them opposites,whether they are regarded as active or passive (for that makes nodifference in the fact of their opposition)? Yes, he said, they are opposites. Well, I said, and hunger and thirst, and the desires in general, andagain willing and wishing, --all these you would refer to the classesalready mentioned. You would say --would you not? --that the soulof him who desires is seeking after the object of his desires; orthat he is drawing to himself the thing which he wishes to possess:or again, when a person wants anything to be given him, his mind,longing for the realisation of his desires, intimates his wish tohave it by a nod of assent, as if he had been asked a question? Very true. And what would you say of unwillingness and dislike and the absenceof desire; should not these be referred to the opposite class of repulsionand rejection? Certainly. Admitting this to be true of desire generally, let us suppose a particularclass of desires, and out of these we will select hunger and thirst,as they are termed, which are the most obvious of them? Let us take that class, he said. The object of one is food, and of the other drink? Yes. And here comes the point: is not thirst the desire which the soulhas of drink, and of drink only; not of drink qualified by anythingelse; for example, warm or cold, or much or little, or, in a word,drink of any particular sort: but if the thirst be accompanied byheat, then the desire is of cold drink; or, if accompanied by cold,then of warm drink; or, if the thirst be excessive, then the drinkwhich is desired will be excessive; or, if not great, the quantityof drink will also be small: but thirst pure and simple will desiredrink pure and simple, which is the natural satisfaction of thirst,as food is of hunger? Yes, he said; the simple desire is, as you say, in every case of thesimple object, and the qualified desire of the qualified object. But here a confusion may arise; and I should wish to guard againstan opponent starting up and saying that no man desires drink only,but good drink, or food only, but good food; for good is the universalobject of desire, and thirst being a desire, will necessarily be thirstafter good drink; and the same is true of every other desire. Yes, he replied, the opponent might have something to say. Nevertheless I should still maintain, that of relatives some havea quality attached to either term of the relation; others are simpleand have their correlatives simple. I do not know what you mean. Well, you know of course that the greater is relative to the less? Certainly. And the much greater to the much less? Yes. And the sometime greater to the sometime less, and the greater thatis to be to the less that is to be? Certainly, he said. And so of more and less, and of other correlative terms, such as thedouble and the half, or again, the heavier and the lighter, the swifterand the slower; and of hot and cold, and of any other relatives; --isnot this true of all of them? Yes. And does not the same principle hold in the sciences? The object ofscience is knowledge (assuming that to be the true definition), butthe object of a particular science is a particular kind of knowledge;I mean, for example, that the science of house-building is a kindof knowledge which is defined and distinguished from other kinds andis therefore termed architecture. Certainly. Because it has a particular quality which no other has? Yes. And it has this particular quality because it has an object of a particularkind; and this is true of the other arts and sciences?" "Summary: The speaker discusses opposites and their relationships in desire, thirst, and other concepts. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" I’ll tell you what’s wrong with the world. There is nothing wrong with the world. It is wrong with the people in it. I’ll tell you what’s the matter with the human race. There is no human race. There are just a whole lot of people that are all different.” He took his hands out of his pockets and stood looking at me as if he had said something very profound indeed. “And then,” he went on, “there are opposites.” “Opposites?” I asked. “Yes, opposites,” he repeated. “That’s why there’s an East and a West. And North and South. That’s why there’s day and night. And a man and a woman. Opposites are better than the same thing over again, aren’t they? You’re for desire, aren’t you? Desire is an opposite, isn’t it? But thirst—that’s another opposite. A man’s got to have water. Thirst’s like desire. They both make him crazy, don’t they? Well, I’m thirsty, see? And I want some water.” With that he reached into his pocket and pulled out a black leather case. He took out a hypodermic needle and held it up between two dirty fingers. “I’m not going to shoot you this time,” he said. “But I’m going to give myself a shot. Then we’ll talk about thirst and desire and opposites.” He put the needle in his arm and pushed the plunger home. “There,” he said. “Now I can drink my water.” He handed me a half-pint flask. The whiskey was straight rye and so cheap that it had a sweetish taste like kerosene. I drank it down like water. “More?” he asked. I nodded. He handed me the flask again. This time the stuff tasted good. We were sitting on a little bench in the back of the alley behind the club. I sat still while he talked. “Thirst is a funny thing,” he said. “A man has to have water. Water is the basis of life. So you think a man would try to get a drink of water when he’s thirsty. Right?” “Right.” “But suppose you’re thirsty and you go to a spring and you find the spring has dried up? What do you do then? Are you satisfied to be thirsty because you can’t get water? No. Because you’re thirsty you’re going to get water. You’d be crazy not to. Only you’ve got to figure out some other way of getting it. That’s why men steal. That’s why men kill. Because they’re thirsty. They want something and they can’t get it any other way. So they take it.” “That’s why you killed M’Gonigle?” “Sure. Why not? He was standing in my way. He was trying to stop me from getting what I wanted. He had to be stopped. 62 62 "Yes. Now, then, if I have made myself clear, you will understand my originalmeaning in what I said about relatives. My meaning was, that if oneterm of a relation is taken alone, the other is taken alone; if oneterm is qualified, the other is also qualified. I do not mean to saythat relatives may not be disparate, or that the science of healthis healthy, or of disease necessarily diseased, or that the sciencesof good and evil are therefore good and evil; but only that, whenthe term science is no longer used absolutely, but has a qualifiedobject which in this case is the nature of health and disease, itbecomes defined, and is hence called not merely science, but the scienceof medicine. I quite understand, and I think as you do. Would you not say that thirst is one of these essentially relativeterms, having clearly a relation -- Yes, thirst is relative to drink. And a certain kind of thirst is relative to a certain kind of drink;but thirst taken alone is neither of much nor little, nor of goodnor bad, nor of any particular kind of drink, but of drink only? Certainly. Then the soul of the thirsty one, in so far as he is thirsty, desiresonly drink; for this he yearns and tries to obtain it? That is plain. And if you suppose something which pulls a thirsty soul away fromdrink, that must be different from the thirsty principle which drawshim like a beast to drink; for, as we were saying, the same thingcannot at the same time with the same part of itself act in contraryways about the same. Impossible. No more than you can say that the hands of the archer push and pullthe bow at the same time, but what you say is that one hand pushesand the other pulls. Exactly so, he replied. And might a man be thirsty, and yet unwilling to drink? Yes, he said, it constantly happens. And in such a case what is one to say? Would you not say that therewas something in the soul bidding a man to drink, and something elseforbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle whichbids him? I should say so. And the forbidding principle is derived from reason, and that whichbids and attracts proceeds from passion and disease? Clearly. Then we may fairly assume that they are two, and that they differfrom one another; the one with which man reasons, we may call therational principle of the soul, the other, with which he loves andhungers and thirsts and feels the flutterings of any other desire,may be termed the irrational or appetitive, the ally of sundry pleasuresand satisfactions? Yes, he said, we may fairly assume them to be different. Then let us finally determine that there are two principles existingin the soul. And what of passion, or spirit? Is it a third, or akinto one of the preceding? I should be inclined to say --akin to desire. Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard, andin which I put faith. The story is, that Leontius, the son of Aglaion,coming up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside,observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution.He felt a desire to see them, and also a dread and abhorrence of them;for a time he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length the desiregot the better of him; and forcing them open, he ran up to the deadbodies, saying, Look, ye wretches, take your fill of the fair sight. I have heard the story myself, he said. The moral of the tale is, that anger at times goes to war with desire,as though they were two distinct things." "Summary: The text discusses the concept of relatives and their relationship to one another. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Speaker, Interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "They're my relatives, all right. But they don't amount to a hill of beans in this man's life."""" How do you mean?"" Like this. They may be my first cousins, but they ain't no better than any other kind. You can't trust them. They'll screw you for a nickel."""" Why are you so bitter?"" Because I'm smart. I know what I'm up against and it makes me bitter."""" What do you mean by that?"" The simple facts of life, buddy. You want to know how a guy like me can live in the same city with a guy like you? It's easy. I got a system. When I need money I go to my relatives."""" That's your system?"""" Sure, why not? I don't work. I've never worked in my life. I was born to be a parasite. My people have always been parasites. My father was a parasite. He used to draw a government pension because he was a war veteran. They gave him a couple of hundred bucks a month. He didn't do nothing to earn it, he just sat around. And he died when he was thirty-eight years old."""" So you think you're going to live to be one hundred and eighty?"""" No, but I'm going to make it last as long as I can."""" By conning your relatives?"" Yeah. Why not? They won't miss it. They're stinking rich. They don't know what it's like to be broke. They could give me ten thousand bucks and they wouldn't even notice it. Hell, they might give me ten thousand bucks just to get rid of me."""" You mean they hate you?"" Not exactly. I mean, they're good to me, but they don't understand me. That's what gets me sore. If they understood me they'd love me. They'd realize I'm just an overgrown kid. A big soft-hearted baby. I'm all heart."""" Well,"" I said, ""that sounds pretty complicated."" Sure it is. Ain't everything complicated? Complicated and tough and dirty and gritty and dark and harsh and vivid and deep. Look at life. Look at yourself. Are you simple and sweet and white and clean and smooth and shallow and empty?"""" No,"" I said, ""I guess not."" Well, then,"" he said, ""what right have you got to criticize me? How do you know I'm wrong? How do you know I'm bad?"""" I started to say something about his being violent, but I checked it. It would have been useless. He wasn't listening to me anyway. He had another idea. He'd found a new way to defend himself. " 63 63 "Yes; that is the meaning, he said. And are there not many other cases in which we observe that when aman's desires violently prevail over his reason, he reviles himself,and is angry at the violence within him, and that in this struggle,which is like the struggle of factions in a State, his spirit is onthe side of his reason; --but for the passionate or spirited elementto take part with the desires when reason that she should not be opposed,is a sort of thing which thing which I believe that you never observedoccurring in yourself, nor, as I should imagine, in any one else? Certainly not. Suppose that a man thinks he has done a wrong to another, the noblerhe is the less able is he to feel indignant at any suffering, suchas hunger, or cold, or any other pain which the injured person mayinflict upon him --these he deems to be just, and, as I say, his angerrefuses to be excited by them. True, he said. But when he thinks that he is the sufferer of the wrong, then he boilsand chafes, and is on the side of what he believes to be justice;and because he suffers hunger or cold or other pain he is only themore determined to persevere and conquer. His noble spirit will notbe quelled until he either slays or is slain; or until he hears thevoice of the shepherd, that is, reason, bidding his dog bark no more. The illustration is perfect, he replied; and in our State, as we weresaying, the auxiliaries were to be dogs, and to hear the voice ofthe rulers, who are their shepherds. I perceive, I said, that you quite understand me; there is, however,a further point which I wish you to consider. What point? You remember that passion or spirit appeared at first sight to bea kind of desire, but now we should say quite the contrary; for inthe conflict of the soul spirit is arrayed on the side of the rationalprinciple. Most assuredly. But a further question arises: Is passion different from reason also,or only a kind of reason; in which latter case, instead of three principlesin the soul, there will only be two, the rational and the concupiscent;or rather, as the State was composed of three classes, traders, auxiliaries,counsellors, so may there not be in the individual soul a third elementwhich is passion or spirit, and when not corrupted by bad educationis the natural auxiliary of reason Yes, he said, there must be a third. Yes, I replied, if passion, which has already been shown to be differentfrom desire, turn out also to be different from reason. But that is easily proved: --We may observe even in young childrenthat they are full of spirit almost as soon as they are born, whereassome of them never seem to attain to the use of reason, and most ofthem late enough. Excellent, I said, and you may see passion equally in brute animals,which is a further proof of the truth of what you are saying. Andwe may once more appeal to the words of Homer, which have been alreadyquoted by us, He smote his breast, and thus rebuked his soul, for in this verseHomer has clearly supposed the power which reasons about the betterand worse to be different from the unreasoning anger which is rebukedby it. Very true, he said. And so, after much tossing, we have reached land, and are fairly agreedthat the same principles which exist in the State exist also in theindividual, and that they are three in number. Exactly. Must we not then infer that the individual is wise in the same way,and in virtue of the same quality which makes the State wise? Certainly. Also that the same quality which constitutes courage in the Stateconstitutes courage in the individual, and that both the State andthe individual bear the same relation to all the other virtues? Assuredly. And the individual will be acknowledged by us to be just in the sameway in which the State is just? That follows, of course. We cannot but remember that the justice of the State consisted ineach of the three classes doing the work of its own class? We are not very likely to have forgotten, he said. We must recollect that the individual in whom the several qualitiesof his nature do their own work will be just, and will do his ownwork? Yes, he said, we must remember that too. And ought not the rational principle, which is wise, and has the careof the whole soul, to rule, and the passionate or spirited principleto be the subject and ally?" "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between reason, passion, and desire in the human soul. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Quoted work: Homer's poetry Language: English" It is not easy to say whether the soul in this life resembles most that of a lion or that of a dog, since it combines the characteristics of both. And yet if you look at the soul with your own eyes and observe how it behaves, as a whole, in its relation to reason, you will be able to decide for yourself which of these two animals comes closest to its likeness. For, indeed, if someone were to take up the question with us as though he had never heard anything about it before, we might well tell him that the human soul was divided into three parts: the part that reasons and deliberates, which one might call the best part, after the model of which the gods have been fashioned in their resemblance to men; then there is the second part, which is passionate and angry; and third, the part which desires food and other bodily pleasures. Now when this third part is ruling, the man becomes like a wild beast, especially if his passions are aroused by drinking and other excesses, and he makes no use whatever of reason or calculation but follows only his appetites. In such a state he is incapable of any action which requires intelligence or self-control; nor is he fit for military service or political leadership, since he can’t even take care of himself, much less anyone else. He will only be fit for being driven around by someone else, and will be an object of ridicule and abuse to those who see him. But when the spirited part rules over him and he is angry, he is like a fierce and wild beast, which is full of courage, and will fight fiercely against all comers, though he doesn’t know what he is fighting for, and is also unable to endure pain or fear anything, but rushes headlong into danger with cries and shouts. This is why Homer represents him as “brave but mad”, and says that he fights without sense or forethought. The result is that whenever he happens to fall in with a courageous man who is also intelligent and has good judgment, he is easily overcome and subdued by him, even though he may be physically stronger than his opponent. Hence the saying that “strength is the servant of wisdom”. As for the rational part of the soul, when it alone rules, the man becomes gentle and peaceful, and free from anger and desire, and is the easiest of all men to lead and govern, just as the person who is asleep is easily moved by anyone who wants to wake him up and make him follow wherever he leads. But when the other two parts of the soul are united with reason and work together with it, then the soul is said to be in the best condition, and the man is said to be brave, moderate and sensible, and altogether good and happy. For when the three elements of the soul are harmonious and working in unison, the man will be sure to be a fine soldier, to rule a city or lead an expedition, and to be able to manage his private affairs prudently. 64 64 "Certainly. And, as we were saying, the united influence of music and gymnasticwill bring them into accord, nerving and sustaining the reason withnoble words and lessons, and moderating and soothing and civilizingthe wildness of passion by harmony and rhythm? Quite true, he said. And these two, thus nurtured and educated, and having learned trulyto know their own functions, will rule over the concupiscent, whichin each of us is the largest part of the soul and by nature most insatiableof gain; over this they will keep guard, lest, waxing great and strongwith the fulness of bodily pleasures, as they are termed, the concupiscentsoul, no longer confined to her own sphere, should attempt to enslaveand rule those who are not her natural-born subjects, and overturnthe whole life of man? Very true, he said. Both together will they not be the best defenders of the whole souland the whole body against attacks from without; the one counselling,and the other fighting under his leader, and courageously executinghis commands and counsels? True. And he is to be deemed courageous whose spirit retains in pleasureand in pain the commands of reason about what he ought or ought notto fear? Right, he replied. And him we call wise who has in him that little part which rules,and which proclaims these commands; that part too being supposed tohave a knowledge of what is for the interest of each of the threeparts and of the whole? Assuredly. And would you not say that he is temperate who has these same elementsin friendly harmony, in whom the one ruling principle of reason, andthe two subject ones of spirit and desire are equally agreed thatreason ought to rule, and do not rebel? Certainly, he said, that is the true account of temperance whetherin the State or individual. And surely, I said, we have explained again and again how and by virtueof what quality a man will be just. That is very certain. And is justice dimmer in the individual, and is her form different,or is she the same which we found her to be in the State? There is no difference in my opinion, he said. Because, if any doubt is still lingering in our minds, a few commonplaceinstances will satisfy us of the truth of what I am saying. What sort of instances do you mean? If the case is put to us, must we not admit that the just State, orthe man who is trained in the principles of such a State, will beless likely than the unjust to make away with a deposit of gold orsilver? Would any one deny this? No one, he replied. Will the just man or citizen ever be guilty of sacrilege or theft,or treachery either to his friends or to his country? Never. Neither will he ever break faith where there have been oaths or agreements? Impossible. No one will be less likely to commit adultery, or to dishonour hisfather and mother, or to fall in his religious duties? No one. And the reason is that each part of him is doing its own business,whether in ruling or being ruled? Exactly so. Are you satisfied then that the quality which makes such men and suchstates is justice, or do you hope to discover some other? Not I, indeed. Then our dream has been realised; and the suspicion which we entertainedat the beginning of our work of construction, that some divine powermust have conducted us to a primary form of justice, has now beenverified? Yes, certainly. And the division of labour which required the carpenter and the shoemakerand the rest of the citizens to be doing each his own business, andnot another's, was a shadow of justice, and for that reason it wasof use?" "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between music, gymnastic, and the soul, emphasizing the importance of balance and harmony in governing emotions and desires. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Language: English" Music and gymnastic are the two branches of education. Music is a thing to be taken seriously, because it is something that has power over the soul; and if we are not careful, music may govern us in such a way that we shall be led into doing things which will make us our own worst enemies. Now I suppose you know that there are three kinds of sounds, high, low, and middle. And four kinds of rhythms, fast, slow, long, and short. Well then, when you have got these three sorts of sounds or notes under control, and these four sorts of rhythms as well, then you must try to combine them all in as many ways as possible, until at last they become one with each other. And when you have done this, then you will find that there is only one kind of harmony left, and that harmony is the same for everyone, both young and old, men and women, Greeks and barbarians. And when you have found out what this harmony is, then you will have discovered the principle of good. You see how important music is, because it gives order to the soul and makes it strong and healthy, and preserves it from disorder. It also helps us to remember the principal facts of mathematics, which are taught in metre, and so we can easily recall them. For instance, you understand that there are two methods of measuring the soul. One of these measures is the diatonic scale, and the other is the chromatic scale. The diatonic scale consists of five strings, which represent the five regular figures, and the chromatic scale consists of seven strings, which represent the seven irreg- ular figures. You see, then, that the soul is divided into the diatonic and the chromatic. Now the diatonic scale is akin to Apollo, who is the god of light; but the chromatic scale is akin to Dionysus, who is the god of darkness. So whenever we are moved by any passion, we must always try to banish the dark passions, and bring in the bright ones instead. For example, suppose that a man becomes angry, then he must try to put away his anger, and replace it by some feeling that is calm and peaceful. For anger is of the nature of the chromatic scale, and peace is of the nature of the diatonic scale; and therefore we must always try to banish the dark and bring in the bright. Again, suppose that a man is filled with jealousy, then he must try to get rid of his jealousy, and substitute love in its place. For jealousy is of the nature of the chromatic scale, and love is of the nature of the diatonic scale; and therefore we must always try to banish the dark and bring in the bright. 65 65 "Clearly. But in reality justice was such as we were describing, being concernedhowever, not with the outward man, but with the inward, which is thetrue self and concernment of man: for the just man does not permitthe several elements within him to interfere with one another, orany of them to do the work of others, --he sets in order his own innerlife, and is his own master and his own law, and at peace with himself;and when he has bound together the three principles within him, whichmay be compared to the higher, lower, and middle notes of the scale,and the intermediate intervals --when he has bound all these together,and is no longer many, but has become one entirely temperate and perfectlyadjusted nature, then he proceeds to act, if he has to act, whetherin a matter of property, or in the treatment of the body, or in someaffair of politics or private business; always thinking and callingthat which preserves and co-operates with this harmonious condition,just and good action, and the knowledge which presides over it, wisdom,and that which at any time impairs this condition, he will call unjustaction, and the opinion which presides over it ignorance. You have said the exact truth, Socrates. Very good; and if we were to affirm that we had discovered the justman and the just State, and the nature of justice in each of them,we should not be telling a falsehood? Most certainly not. May we say so, then? Let us say so. And now, I said, injustice has to be considered. Clearly. Must not injustice be a strife which arises among the three principles--a meddlesomeness, and interference, and rising up of a part of thesoul against the whole, an assertion of unlawful authority, whichis made by a rebellious subject against a true prince, of whom heis the natural vassal, --what is all this confusion and delusion butinjustice, and intemperance and cowardice and ignorance, and everyform of vice? Exactly so. And if the nature of justice and injustice be known, then the meaningof acting unjustly and being unjust, or, again, of acting justly,will also be perfectly clear? What do you mean? he said. Why, I said, they are like disease and health; being in the soul justwhat disease and health are in the body. How so? he said. Why, I said, that which is healthy causes health, and that which isunhealthy causes disease. Yes. And just actions cause justice, and unjust actions cause injustice? That is certain. And the creation of health is the institution of a natural order andgovernment of one by another in the parts of the body; and the creationof disease is the production of a state of things at variance withthis natural order? True. And is not the creation of justice the institution of a natural orderand government of one by another in the parts of the soul, and thecreation of injustice the production of a state of things at variancewith the natural order? Exactly so, he said. Then virtue is the health and beauty and well-being of the soul, andvice the disease and weakness and deformity of the same? True. And do not good practices lead to virtue, and evil practices to vice? Assuredly. Still our old question of the comparative advantage of justice andinjustice has not been answered: Which is the more profitable, tobe just and act justly and practise virtue, whether seen or unseenof gods and men, or to be unjust and act unjustly, if only unpunishedand unreformed? In my judgment, Socrates, the question has now become ridiculous.We know that, when the bodily constitution is gone, life is no longerendurable, though pampered with all kinds of meats and drinks, andhaving all wealth and all power; and shall we be told that when thevery essence of the vital principle is undermined and corrupted, lifeis still worth having to a man, if only he be allowed to do whateverhe likes with the single exception that he is not to acquire justiceand virtue, or to escape from injustice and vice; assuming them bothto be such as we have described? Yes, I said, the question is, as you say, ridiculous. Still, as weare near the spot at which we may see the truth in the clearest mannerwith our own eyes, let us not faint by the way. Certainly not, he replied. Come up hither, I said, and behold the various forms of vice, thoseof them, I mean, which are worth looking at. I am following you, he replied: proceed. I said, The argument seems to have reached a height from which, asfrom some tower of speculation, a man may look down and see that virtueis one, but that the forms of vice are innumerable; there being fourspecial ones which are deserving of note." "Summary: The text discusses the concepts of justice, injustice, and virtue through a dialogue between two characters. Narrative arc: Philosophical exploration and discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I have always been struck with the fact that you never seem to lose your temper over anything. I suppose it comes of being so just."""" It does,"" said Socrates, ""and that is why I am called Just-tempered. It is a better name than Short-tempered or Cross-eyed or Hairy-chested."""" (He had these last three in plenty.) The trouble about people who are always calling for justice,"" he continued, ""is that they never mean what they say. For instance, when you call me unjust, do you really mean that I am not doing the right thing by you?"""" Of course I don't."" Then what do you mean?"" I mean that you ought to be treated like everybody else. You can't have everything your own way."""" How do you know?"" Because it's unfair."" But if it isn't fair, how can it be just?"" That's where you're wrong. If you're my friend, I want you to be treated as well as everybody else; and if you're not my friend, I want you to be punished like everybody else. And there's no one else like you, so you can't be treated like everybody else, and you deserve to be punished. So it's just."""" You make me tired!"" said Socrates crossly. Now we come to the point,"" he went on. ""You have invented a new kind of injustice which has never been heard of before. In your scheme of things, justice means treating everyone the same, and injustice means treating anyone differently from the rest."""" Yes, I agree with that,"" said the other. Then you must admit that I am just."" Why?"" Because you treat me exactly like everyone else, namely, you beat me up whenever you feel like it, without any regard to whether I'm a friend or an enemy."""" He laughed harshly. """"That's true enough. That's the way everybody behaves here, isn't it?"""" No, it isn't,"" said Socrates firmly. ""It's not the way I behave. When I am angry with someone, I try to reason with him, and I tell him all the bad things about himself that I can think of. Isn't that what you'd call treating him fairly?"""" Fair enough. But you must remember that this is the only place in the world where people ever talk sense. All the others are full of cowards, fools and lunatics, and they'll hit you if you try to argue with them."""" We'll leave them out of it, then,"" said Socrates. ""Let's consider this place first. Is it fair to punish people for the things they do, even though they didn't know they were wrong?"""" Certainly not."" And is it fair to punish them for crimes they didn't commit?"""" Not unless they admit them."" " 66 66 "What do you mean? he said. I mean, I replied, that there appear to be as many forms of the soulas there are distinct forms of the State. How many? There are five of the State, and five of the soul, I said. What are they? The first, I said, is that which we have been describing, and whichmay be said to have two names, monarchy and aristocracy, accordinglyas rule is exercised by one distinguished man or by many. True, he replied. But I regard the two names as describing one form only; for whetherthe government is in the hands of one or many, if the governors havebeen trained in the manner which we have supposed, the fundamentallaws of the State will be maintained. That is true, he replied. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK V Socrates - GLAUCON - ADEIMANTUS Such is the good and true City or State, and the good and man is ofthe same pattern; and if this is right every other is wrong; and theevil is one which affects not only the ordering of the State, butalso the regulation of the individual soul, and is exhibited in fourforms. What are they? he said. I was proceeding to tell the order in which the four evil forms appearedto me to succeed one another, when Pole marchus, who was sitting alittle way off, just beyond Adeimantus, began to whisper to him: stretchingforth his hand, he took hold of the upper part of his coat by theshoulder, and drew him towards him, leaning forward himself so asto be quite close and saying something in his ear, of which I onlycaught the words, 'Shall we let him off, or what shall we do? Certainly not, said Adeimantus, raising his voice. Who is it, I said, whom you are refusing to let off? You, he said. I repeated, Why am I especially not to be let off? Why, he said, we think that you are lazy, and mean to cheat us outof a whole chapter which is a very important part of the story; andyou fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding; asif it were self-evident to everybody, that in the matter of womenand children 'friends have all things in common.' And was I not right, Adeimantus? Yes, he said; but what is right in this particular case, like everythingelse, requires to be explained; for community may be of many kinds.Please, therefore, to say what sort of community you mean. We havebeen long expecting that you would tell us something about the familylife of your citizens --how they will bring children into the world,and rear them when they have arrived, and, in general, what is thenature of this community of women and children-for we are of opinionthat the right or wrong management of such matters will have a greatand paramount influence on the State for good or for evil. And now,since the question is still undetermined, and you are taking in handanother State, we have resolved, as you heard, not to let you go untilyou give an account of all this. To that resolution, said Glaucon, you may regard me as saying Agreed. Socrates - ADEIMANTUS - GLAUCON - THRASYMACHUS And without more ado, said Thrasymachus, you may consider us all tobe equally agreed. I said, You know not what you are doing in thus assailing me: Whatan argument are you raising about the State! Just as I thought thatI had finished, and was only too glad that I had laid this questionto sleep, and was reflecting how fortunate I was in your acceptanceof what I then said, you ask me to begin again at the very foundation,ignorant of what a hornet's nest of words you are stirring. Now Iforesaw this gathering trouble, and avoided it. For what purpose do you conceive that we have come here, said Thrasymachus,--to look for gold, or to hear discourse?" "Summary: The text discusses the different forms of the soul and the State, as well as the importance of family life in a society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, Glaucon, Adeimantus, Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "There are three forms of soul, one divine, another mortal, and a third in between these; and the State which is composed of all of them is best. The same is true of man."""" But you didn't say how they are divided,"" said Glaucon. Yes, I did,"" he replied, ""but you never listened."" He who has been trained from childhood upwards in the proper music will find nothing ridiculous in this thing or anything else that is said; he will be able to take it in silence, and will not cast up his eyes and twist his head, and put on an expression of unholy ridicule; for he has within him a divine faculty which refuses to act until it has obtained truth from reason; and if any one compels it to give an opinion before it has arrived at the truth, it turns away from him in disgust, and being indignant at the interference, refuses to answer and continues silent, just as others of their kind do with their masters when angry with them. This is why he who would be fit to receive education must have a good memory, quick to learn, and must be capable of observing resemblances and differences; also he must not be too hasty in his judgments. Now the faculty which most nearly resembles this power of discrimination is the sense of sight; therefore the first element in education should be sight.... And so we shall go on filling the soul of our future guardians with good principles until at last we make them good. Then we shall bring them to the place where all gods and spirits exercise honourable sports, which we call gymnastics, and there we shall persuade them that the gods are their friends in war, both because they support and preserve them and help them to vanquish their enemies, and also because they punish those of them who sin against the State. For example, when Sparta goes out to war, the oracle promises us the aid of the son of Styx; we believe her promise, and hence we are victorious. And this is not surprising; for in every alliance some one ought to be the chief; now the gods are our allies, and we ought to be theirs; and therefore, when one of our soldiers is about to die, having given orders to his friends, he should calmly and reverently wait for death, in the belief that he will forthwith be taken home by his ancient saviours and benefactors, and after dying be honoured by them. But if he dies without leaving any sons, then his brother, if he is brave, and in general any other friend or kinsman whom he leaves behind, succeeds him, and the state makes over his wife to him to live with him according to the law, and the children are regarded as the issue of him and of their father, and are cared for by the state. " 67 67 "Yes, but discourse should have a limit. Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole of life is the only limitwhich wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses. But nevermind about us; take heart yourself and answer the question in yourown way: What sort of community of women and children is this whichis to prevail among our guardians? and how shall we manage the periodbetween birth and education, which seems to require the greatest care?Tell us how these things will be. Yes, my simple friend, but the answer is the reverse of easy; manymore doubts arise about this than about our previous conclusions.For the practicability of what is said may be doubted; and lookedat in another point of view, whether the scheme, if ever so practicable,would be for the best, is also doubtful. Hence I feel a reluctanceto approach the subject, lest our aspiration, my dear friend, shouldturn out to be a dream only. Fear not, he replied, for your audience will not be hard upon you;they are not sceptical or hostile. I said: My good friend, I suppose that you mean to encourage me bythese words. Yes, he said. Then let me tell you that you are doing just the reverse; the encouragementwhich you offer would have been all very well had I myself believedthat I knew what I was talking about: to declare the truth about mattersof high interest which a man honours and loves among wise men wholove him need occasion no fear or faltering in his mind; but to carryon an argument when you are yourself only a hesitating enquirer, whichis my condition, is a dangerous and slippery thing; and the dangeris not that I shall be laughed at (of which the fear would be childish),but that I shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sureof my footing, and drag my friends after me in my fall. And I prayNemesis not to visit upon me the words which I am going to utter.For I do indeed believe that to be an involuntary homicide is a lesscrime than to be a deceiver about beauty or goodness or justice inthe matter of laws. And that is a risk which I would rather run amongenemies than among friends, and therefore you do well to encourageme. Glaucon laughed and said: Well then, Socrates, in case you and yourargument do us any serious injury you shall be acquitted beforehandof the and shall not be held to be a deceiver; take courage then andspeak. Well, I said, the law says that when a man is acquitted he is freefrom guilt, and what holds at law may hold in argument. Then why should you mind? Well, I replied, I suppose that I must retrace my steps and say whatI perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place. The partof the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes theturn of the women. Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readilysince I am invited by you. For men born and educated like our citizens, the only way, in my opinion,of arriving at a right conclusion about the possession and use ofwomen and children is to follow the path on which we originally started,when we said that the men were to be the guardians and watchdogs ofthe herd. True. Let us further suppose the birth and education of our women to besubject to similar or nearly similar regulations; then we shall seewhether the result accords with our design. What do you mean? What I mean may be put into the form of a question, I said: Are dogsdivided into hes and shes, or do they both share equally in huntingand in keeping watch and in the other duties of dogs? or do we entrustto the males the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while weleave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and sucklingtheir puppies is labour enough for them? No, he said, they share alike; the only difference between them isthat the males are stronger and the females weaker. But can you use different animals for the same purpose, unless theyare bred and fed in the same way? You cannot. Then, if women are to have the same duties as men, they must havethe same nurture and education? Yes. The education which was assigned to the men was music and gymnastic.Yes. Then women must be taught music and gymnastic and also the art ofwar, which they must practise like the men?" "Summary: The text discusses the role of women and children in a community and their education. Narrative arc: Intellectual discussion and argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Now the women would have their share of this, too; they would live together with us, and be our comrades and partners in the work. And if any woman was not fit to take her part in it, we should say that she was idle, and by Zeus! we should send her away somewhere to some other place, wherever we pleased. And as for the children, Glaucon, we must beg and entreat the gods to give them up, if they will, and if not we must steal them away; and then there may be a hope of our city becoming good and of the nature of men becoming noble. For if the children are of good nature, as the saying is, the rest will follow both in the cities and in individuals; but if they are of an inferior sort, all else is useless. But still I think that even such as they will have their uses in the cities, if there are good gymnastic schools for them. Or do you think that the children ought to be deprived of gymnastics, or not? GLAUCON. I am of opinion that they ought to be instructed in them, for they are pleasant and by their very nature healthy. SOCRATES. Yes, indeed they are, and moreover they make strong and courageous men of those who are naturally weak and cowardly. So we shall have no objection to raising these children of ours whom we mean to be warriors, from their earliest years on horseback, and let them ride every day in battle array, and learn military exercises, and fight against heavy armour until they are used to it, and so when their turn comes they will be brave men. GLAUCON. That is excellent. SOCRATES. Very good; but what is to be the next step? Must we not look after the education and training of their souls, as well as of their bodies? And first there must be nurses who will rock them in their cradles, and afterwards rock-beds, and then cots and cradles again, and after that little chairs, and tables, and little stools, and other similar arrangements, until coming forth from bed they play about and run around in every sort of way and at last grow up. Now must we not provide in the same manner for them when they are older? Shall we not furnish them with schoolmasters and teachers, who will teach them to read and write, and also music, and dancing, and wrestling, and gymnastics, and everything else which will make them sound in body and mind? Are you going to allow them to have no schooling? Or shall we provide them with masters of rhetoric, and grammar, and politics, and law, and all the other studies which we were just now enumerating? If we do this, and they have nothing to do when they have grown up except to live the life of a rich man, it would be ridiculous. GLAUCON. Certainly it would. SOCRATES. Then we must appoint them magistrates and secretaries, and when they are grown up, officers and colonels, and generals, and kings, and captains, and presidents, and governors of states, and presidents of assemblies, and presidents of courts of justice, and senators, and priests, and interpreters, and ambassadors, and heralds, and judges, and leaders of armies, and all sorts of rulers and overseers, and when they grow old they must be given counsellors and advisers. 68 68 "That is the inference, I suppose. I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, ifthey are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous. No doubt of it. Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of womennaked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially when theyare no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty,any more than the enthusiastic old men who in spite of wrinkles andugliness continue to frequent the gymnasia. Yes, indeed, he said: according to present notions the proposal wouldbe thought ridiculous. But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we mustnot fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against thissort of innovation; how they will talk of women's attainments bothin music and gymnastic, and above all about their wearing armour andriding upon horseback! Very true, he replied. Yet having begun we must go forward to the rough places of the law;at the same time begging of these gentlemen for once in their lifeto be serious. Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the Helleneswere of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians,that the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and improper; and whenfirst the Cretans and then the Lacedaemonians introduced the custom,the wits of that day might equally have ridiculed the innovation. No doubt. But when experience showed that to let all things be uncovered wasfar better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to theoutward eye vanished before the better principle which reason asserted,then the man was perceived to be a fool who directs the shafts ofhis ridicule at any other sight but that of folly and vice, or seriouslyinclines to weigh the beautiful by any other standard but that ofthe good. Very true, he replied. First, then, whether the question is to be put in jest or in earnest,let us come to an understanding about the nature of woman: Is shecapable of sharing either wholly or partially in the actions of men,or not at all? And is the art of war one of those arts in which shecan or can not share? That will be the best way of commencing theenquiry, and will probably lead to the fairest conclusion. That will be much the best way. Shall we take the other side first and begin by arguing against ourselves;in this manner the adversary's position will not be undefended. Why not? he said. Then let us put a speech into the mouths of our opponents. They willsay: 'Socrates and Glaucon, no adversary need convict you, for youyourselves, at the first foundation of the State, admitted the principlethat everybody was to do the one work suited to his own nature.' Andcertainly, if I am not mistaken, such an admission was made by us.'And do not the natures of men and women differ very much indeed?'And we shall reply: Of course they do. Then we shall be asked, 'Whetherthe tasks assigned to men and to women should not be different, andsuch as are agreeable to their different natures?' Certainly theyshould. 'But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistencyin saying that men and women, whose natures are so entirely different,ought to perform the same actions?' --What defence will you make forus, my good Sir, against any one who offers these objections? That is not an easy question to answer when asked suddenly; and Ishall and I do beg of you to draw out the case on our side. These are the objections, Glaucon, and there are many others of alike kind, which I foresaw long ago; they made me afraid and reluctantto take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of womenand children. By Zeus, he said, the problem to be solved is anything but easy. Why yes, I said, but the fact is that when a man is out of his depth,whether he has fallen into a little swimming bath or into mid-ocean,he has to swim all the same. Very true. And must not we swim and try to reach the shore: we will hope thatArion's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us?" "Summary: The text discusses the proposal of women participating in activities usually reserved for men, such as exercising and wearing armor. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "Here are a couple of lumps of cheese, and here's some cold rabbit. A man should eat meat, and that is all there is to it."""" He put the food down on the desk and turned to us. Now,"" he said. ""I suppose you two gentlemen would like to know what I'm going to do about your proposal?"""" We both nodded. """"Well, then,"""" Socrates continued, """"I have decided that it would be quite impossible for me to take either of you into my confidence at this time."""" Glaucon rose to his feet. """"What?"" he demanded in an outraged tone. """"Why not?"""" Because I am afraid that I might kill one of you."" The words fell like hammer blows from Socrates' lips, and both of us stared at him as though we had never seen him before. This was something new in the stern, black-browed philosopher: a gleam of humor in his eyes. It was a terrifying sight. His mouth twitched slightly, and he coughed into his handkerchief with a muffled snort. I hope you don't mind,"" he added. ""But I really couldn't help myself. You see, I'm only human, after all."""" I don't understand,"" Glaucon protested. Then neither do I,"" Socrates replied with a smile. ""But you'll have to forgive me if I prefer to speak with you separately from now on. I think you know why."""" " 69 69 "I suppose so, he said. Well then, let us see if any way of escape can be found. We acknowledged--did we not? that different natures ought to have different pursuits,and that men's and women's natures are different. And now what arewe saying? --that different natures ought to have the same pursuits,--this is the inconsistency which is charged upon us. Precisely. Verily, Glaucon, I said, glorious is the power of the art of contradiction! Why do you say so? Because I think that many a man falls into the practice against hiswill. When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really disputing,just because he cannot define and divide, and so know that of whichhe is speaking; and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in thespirit of contention and not of fair discussion. Yes, he replied, such is very often the case; but what has that todo with us and our argument? A great deal; for there is certainly a danger of our getting unintentionallyinto a verbal opposition. In what way? Why, we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth, thatdifferent natures ought to have different pursuits, but we never consideredat all what was the meaning of sameness or difference of nature, orwhy we distinguished them when we assigned different pursuits to differentnatures and the same to the same natures. Why, no, he said, that was never considered by us. I said: Suppose that by way of illustration we were to ask the questionwhether there is not an opposition in nature between bald men andhairy men; and if this is admitted by us, then, if bald men are cobblers,we should forbid the hairy men to be cobblers, and conversely? That would be a jest, he said. Yes, I said, a jest; and why? because we never meant when we constructedthe State, that the opposition of natures should extend to every difference,but only to those differences which affected the pursuit in whichthe individual is engaged; we should have argued, for example, thata physician and one who is in mind a physician may be said to havethe same nature. True. Whereas the physician and the carpenter have different natures? Certainly. And if, I said, the male and female sex appear to differ in theirfitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit orart ought to be assigned to one or the other of them; but if the differenceconsists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this doesnot amount to a proof that a woman differs from a man in respect ofthe sort of education she should receive; and we shall therefore continueto maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have the samepursuits. Very true, he said. Next, we shall ask our opponent how, in reference to any of the pursuitsor arts of civic life, the nature of a woman differs from that ofa man? That will be quite fair. And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply that to give a sufficientanswer on the instant is not easy; but after a little reflection thereis no difficulty. Yes, perhaps. Suppose then that we invite him to accompany us in the argument, andthen we may hope to show him that there is nothing peculiar in theconstitution of women which would affect them in the administrationof the State. By all means. Let us say to him: Come now, and we will ask you a question: --whenyou spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did youmean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another withdifficulty; a little learning will lead the one to discover a greatdeal; whereas the other, after much study and application, no soonerlearns than he forgets; or again, did you mean, that the one has abody which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the otheris a hindrance to him?-would not these be the sort of differenceswhich distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?" "Summary: The text discusses the concept of different natures having different pursuits and explores the nature of women's roles in society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "And if one were to say that they were all alike and had the same pursuits, he would be speaking very truly, but not so as to convey a clear impression of what he meant. For there is a great difference between one nature and another; some natures having a greater share of spirit, others of money-making, others again of some other faculty, so that it will follow of necessity that different natures will have different pursuits. For example, suppose that Glaucon were here now, and that we were discussing with him the proper occupation of a man who was his own master, should we not say that he was by nature a warrior, and that his place was in the fields and the barracks, and that because he lacked the power of money-making he should never be a retailer of Prodicus or Hippias or any other such person?"""" I think that we should,"" he said. Yes, my friend; and if you will turn your eyes towards the women, do you suppose that you will find them any better off than the men? Do you see any reason why the nature of a woman should make her a weaver instead of a spinster?"" Certainly not."" Or why she should lie idly spinning, and thereby gratify an unreasoning desire, when she might be a spinster in earnest and take part in the life of the State?"" He agreed with me in thinking that this was quite unreasonable. I proceeded: """"Then, according to your idea, they will be stronger and more manly when they are imperfectly educated, and the men less vigorous when they are imperfectly educated?"" No, I do not think that,"" he said. Then you seem to me to be continually contradicting yourself, Glaucon. There is nothing which you appear to hold so much as the superiority of man to woman. Yet now you acknowledge that, if this superiority means greater virtue, the defect in men is made up by the excess in women."""" I have only acknowledged,"" he said, ""what I believe; but if I find that I am wrong I give up the opinion which counts for the least."" You are quite right; do you see any difference between the nature of a male and a female horse, or of a male and female donkey, or of a man and woman human being?"" None at all."" Or between male weaver and female weaver, or between male spinner and female spinner?"" Certainly not. " 70 70 "No one will deny that. And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex hasnot all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree than the female?Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the managementof pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear tobe great, and in which for her to be beaten by a man is of all thingsthe most absurd? You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiorityof the female sex: although many women are in many things superiorto many men, yet on the whole what you say is true. And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of administrationin a state which a woman has because she is a woman, or which a manhas by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffusedin both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, butin all of them a woman is inferior to a man. Very true. Then are we to impose all our enactments on men and none of them onwomen? That will never do. One woman has a gift of healing, another not; one is a musician, andanother has no music in her nature? Very true. And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, andanother is unwarlike and hates gymnastics? Certainly. And one woman is a philosopher, and another is an enemy of philosophy;one has spirit, and another is without spirit? That is also true. Then one woman will have the temper of a guardian, and another not.Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by differencesof this sort? Yes. Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian; theydiffer only in their comparative strength or weakness. Obviously. And those women who have such qualities are to be selected as thecompanions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and whomthey resemble in capacity and in character? Very true. And ought not the same natures to have the same pursuits? They ought. Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in assigningmusic and gymnastic to the wives of the guardians --to that pointwe come round again. Certainly not. The law which we then enacted was agreeable to nature, and thereforenot an impossibility or mere aspiration; and the contrary practice,which prevails at present, is in reality a violation of nature. That appears to be true. We had to consider, first, whether our proposals were possible, andsecondly whether they were the most beneficial? Yes. And the possibility has been acknowledged? Yes. The very great benefit has next to be established? Quite so. You will admit that the same education which makes a man a good guardianwill make a woman a good guardian; for their original nature is thesame? Yes. I should like to ask you a question. What is it? Would you say that all men are equal in excellence, or is one manbetter than another? The latter. And in the commonwealth which we were founding do you conceive theguardians who have been brought up on our model system to be moreperfect men, or the cobblers whose education has been cobbling? What a ridiculous question! You have answered me, I replied: Well, and may we not further saythat our guardians are the best of our citizens? By far the best. And will not their wives be the best women? Yes, by far the best. And can there be anything better for the interests of the State thanthat the men and women of a State should be as good as possible? There can be nothing better. And this is what the arts of music and gymnastic, when present insuch manner as we have described, will accomplish? Certainly. Then we have made an enactment not only possible but in the highestdegree beneficial to the State? True. Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue will betheir robe, and let them share in the toils of war and the defenceof their country; only in the distribution of labours the lighterare to be assigned to the women, who are the weaker natures, but inother respects their duties are to be the same. And as for the manwho laughs at naked women exercising their bodies from the best ofmotives, in his laughter he is plucking" "Summary: The text discusses the natural differences between men and women and their respective roles in society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Speaker, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "There is a natural difference between men and women. Men are made to work with their brains, as well as with their hands. Women are made to be mothers and housewives and slaves."""" She spat the word out like a curse. I think you're crazy,"" said the other woman. ""You'd better shut up your face before I give it to you."""" There was a short silence. Then: I've got my rights just as much as any man,"" said the speaker defiantly. ""An' what's more I'm going to claim 'em. You don't see me working in no stinkin' factory, do you?"""" No,"" said the other woman. ""No, you don't."" What d'you mean by that?"" The speaker rose to her feet. I'll show you what I mean!"" she screamed. """"I'll show you!"""" The other woman looked at her contemptuously and then turned away. That's right,"" said the speaker. ""Go on, let yourself go. But some day you'll get yours all right."""" What did she mean by that?"" asked the girl, turning to her companion. The other woman shrugged her shoulders. """"Dunno,"""" she said. """"She's always talking about getting hers. It gives her the horrors sometimes."""" Where did you get this job?"" the girl asked. From Mrs. Gregory."" Mrs. Gregory?"" Do you know her?"" The girl nodded. She used to live in our street."" Oh yes, that's right; I remember now. Well, she sent for me yesterday morning and gave me the job. I told her I couldn't take it unless I could bring a friend with me, but she said there wouldn't be any trouble about that."""" How much does she pay?"" Two pounds ten a week."" The girl whistled softly. That's good money,"" she said. Yes, isn't it? But it's a rum sort of job though; I can tell you that much. You might as well be in a nunnery. There's nothing doing all day long except sewing, and when we're not sewing we're praying or reading the Bible. She wants us to go to church every night too. I suppose she thinks we're a couple of heathens. And she won't let us talk to any men. Says it's wicked."""" Perhaps she's right,"" said the girl thoughtfully. Right! I should think she's right! We can have one hour's walk in the park on Sunday afternoon, that's all."""" They had reached the door now, and the girl stopped. You'll come with me, won't you?"" she said. Of course I will."" And I shall have to sign an agreement to say I'm living here, and if I run away I shall lose the job. But I'll stand that. It'll be worth it to get away from the old cow."""" Come on then,"" said the girl. ""We'll take the tram together. I've never been inside a place like this before. " 71 71 "A fruit of unripe wisdom, and he himself is ignorant of what he islaughing at, or what he is about; --for that is, and ever will be,the best of sayings, That the useful is the noble and the hurtfulis the base. Very true. Here, then, is one difficulty in our law about women, which we maysay that we have now escaped; the wave has not swallowed us up alivefor enacting that the guardians of either sex should have all theirpursuits in common; to the utility and also to the possibility ofthis arrangement the consistency of the argument with itself bearswitness. Yes, that was a mighty wave which you have escaped. Yes, I said, but a greater is coming; you will of this when you seethe next. Go on; let me see. The law, I said, which is the sequel of this and of all that has preceded,is to the following effect, --'that the wives of our guardians areto be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent isto know his own child, nor any child his parent.' Yes, he said, that is a much greater wave than the other; and thepossibility as well as the utility of such a law are far more questionable. I do not think, I said, that there can be any dispute about the verygreat utility of having wives and children in common; the possibilityis quite another matter, and will be very much disputed. I think that a good many doubts may be raised about both. You imply that the two questions must be combined, I replied. NowI meant that you should admit the utility; and in this way, as I thought;I should escape from one of them, and then there would remain onlythe possibility. But that little attempt is detected, and therefore you will pleaseto give a defence of both. Well, I said, I submit to my fate. Yet grant me a little favour: letme feast my mind with the dream as day dreamers are in the habit offeasting themselves when they are walking alone; for before they havediscovered any means of effecting their wishes --that is a matterwhich never troubles them --they would rather not tire themselvesby thinking about possibilities; but assuming that what they desireis already granted to them, they proceed with their plan, and delightin detailing what they mean to do when their wish has come true --thatis a way which they have of not doing much good to a capacity whichwas never good for much. Now I myself am beginning to lose heart,and I should like, with your permission, to pass over the questionof possibility at present. Assuming therefore the possibility of theproposal, I shall now proceed to enquire how the rulers will carryout these arrangements, and I shall demonstrate that our plan, ifexecuted, will be of the greatest benefit to the State and to theguardians. First of all, then, if you have no objection, I will endeavourwith your help to consider the advantages of the measure; and hereafterthe question of possibility. I have no objection; proceed. First, I think that if our rulers and their auxiliaries are to beworthy of the name which they bear, there must be willingness to obeyin the one and the power of command in the other; the guardians mustthemselves obey the laws, and they must also imitate the spirit ofthem in any details which are entrusted to their care. That is right, he said. You, I said, who are their legislator, having selected the men, willnow select the women and give them to them; --they must be as faras possible of like natures with them; and they must live in commonhouses and meet at common meals, None of them will have anything speciallyhis or her own; they will be together, and will be brought up together,and will associate at gymnastic exercises. And so they will be drawnby a necessity of their natures to have intercourse with each other--necessity is not too strong a word, I think? Yes, he said; --necessity, not geometrical, but another sort of necessitywhich lovers know, and which is far more convincing and constrainingto the mass of mankind. True, I said; and this, Glaucon, like all the rest, must proceed afteran orderly fashion; in a city of the blessed, licentiousness is anunholy thing which the rulers will forbid." "Summary: The text discusses the law about women and children in a society, exploring the potential benefits and challenges of having common wives and children. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "There is another law which I have not yet mentioned, and this will bring us to the end of our discussion. It is that women must remain under the control of their husbands; and the children must be under the care of their parents or guardians, who will be mostly fathers. Whether this is right or wrong we will discuss at some later point in time, but this is the law laid down by us. If we regard them as common property, how shall we prevent incest? For there will be no reason why a brother should not approach his own sister, or a son his mother, and so forth if these things are common property. But if we hold that men and women are different, as we certainly must, and that they were created for the sake of reproduction, how can we say that men and women ought to be held in common, when it is only by their union that offspring come into being? And even if the fact were hidden from us, surely the instinct of nature itself teaches each one of us that we ought not to defile ourselves with relations of kinship. Moreover, the same women would not bear children year after year, nor would the same men be capable of such a number of progeny; whereas if the women were in common, all would breed continually, unless there was some other limit prescribed. It is clear then that the best thing is for the wives to be common, but that it should be forbidden to marry one's sisters or mothers or daughters, or any near blood relatives, and that they should not have intercourse with anyone more nearly related than a third cousin; for when the degree of relationship is greater than this, men and women do not resemble each other enough to wish to mate together."""" This law,"" said Glaucon, ""is, I think, both just and expedient, and every man who has a wife will approve it."" At any rate,"" said Socrates, ""this is the law about marriage and procreation which will hold among us, and in this manner, and with these arrangements, our rulers will have discharged the duty which the laws lay upon them. We have next to consider what kind of education and physical training the soldiers should receive. " 72 72 "Yes, he said, and it ought not to be permitted. Then clearly the next thing will be to make matrimony sacred in thehighest degree, and what is most beneficial will be deemed sacred? Exactly. And how can marriages be made most beneficial? --that is a questionwhich I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting,and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, dotell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding? In what particulars? Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, arenot some better than others? True. And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take careto breed from the best only? From the best. And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripeage? I choose only those of ripe age. And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds wouldgreatly deteriorate? Certainly. And the same of horses and animals in general? Undoubtedly. Good heavens! my dear friend, I said, what consummate skill will ourrulers need if the same principle holds of the human species! Certainly, the same principle holds; but why does this involve anyparticular skill? Because, I said, our rulers will often have to practise upon the bodycorporate with medicines. Now you know that when patients do not requiremedicines, but have only to be put under a regimen, the inferior sortof practitioner is deemed to be good enough; but when medicine hasto be given, then the doctor should be more of a man. That is quite true, he said; but to what are you alluding? I mean, I replied, that our rulers will find a considerable dose offalsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects: wewere saying that the use of all these things regarded as medicinesmight be of advantage. And we were very right. And this lawful use of them seems likely to be often needed in theregulations of marriages and births. How so? Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the bestof either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferiorwith the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rearthe offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if theflock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goingson must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be afurther danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breakingout into rebellion. Very true. Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bringtogether the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offeredand suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddingsis a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whoseaim will be to preserve the average of population? There are manyother things which they will have to consider, such as the effectsof wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far asthis is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too largeor too small. Certainly, he replied. We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the lessworthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, andthen they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers. To be sure, he said. And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their otherhonours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercoursewith women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathersought to have as many sons as possible. True. And the proper officers, whether male or female or both, for officesare to be held by women as well as by men -- Yes -- The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents tothe pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurseswho dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior,or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put awayin some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be. Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the guardians is tobe kept pure." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of selecting the best individuals for breeding and the role of rulers in regulating marriages and births. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Two characters discussing the topic Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "So the best that could be done was to select the most highly endowed individuals and breed them like prize bulls. And he would have done it too but for a number of things which I shall go into later. As for regulating births, they were doing that already in the case of the higher castes. The priests, the nobles and the military had always been forbidden to marry without permission from the rulers. The rulers themselves had long since been forbidden to marry at all. They did not need wives. They had their concubines and any children they had were, like those of the high castes, taken from their mothers as soon as born and reared by foster parents. These young people were then given the necessary education and training and afterwards assigned to their stations in life. In this way, it was easy to prevent the unfit from being born. But there was one thing more that needed doing. The surplus population must be eliminated. This again had always been done but now it was done on a much larger scale. The priests and other holy men, who were supposed to relieve suffering, had always been permitted to put an end to the lives of the incurable. Now they were encouraged to do so and were given special drugs for the purpose. When a man was dying he was given an overdose of sedative and when a woman was about to die in childbirth she was given a drug which killed both mother and child."""" """"And these drugs are still used?"""" Yes. There's nothing wrong with them except that they don't kill everybody. Some people take an overdose and live to tell the tale and some women survive the operation."""" """"Operation!"""" That's what we call it. We want to get rid of the women because they give birth to children and the fewer children we have the better. It's no use getting rid of the men; they can't have children anyway. If they had sex glands we'd get rid of them too but they haven't. They've only got an appendix, a vestigial organ which produces a little fluid to lubricate their penises during intercourse but which has no other function whatever. So they're quite safe to leave alive. Well, you know how the women die. You saw it yourself."""" He lit another cigarette and sat down again. He seemed to be enjoying himself. The harsh, vivid light and his own voice held him in its grip; he could think of nothing else. He knew he was talking wildly, violently, but he couldn't stop himself. He said: """"There isn't much room for sentimentality in our profession. We know the truth and that's enough for us. We don't bother with theories or arguments. We've got facts and facts are facts. If you found your wife having an affair with a member of your staff you wouldn't sit down and argue with her about it, would you? You'd kill her."""" """"I see,"""" she said. She looked at the clock. It was nearly midnight. What a night!"" she exclaimed. ""It'll be lovely when the sun comes up again tomorrow morning."" " 73 73 "They will provide for their nurture, and will bring the mothers tothe fold when they are full of milk, taking the greatest possiblecare that no mother recognizes her own child; and other wet-nursesmay be engaged if more are required. Care will also be taken thatthe process of suckling shall not be protracted too long; and themothers will have no getting up at night or other trouble, but willhand over all this sort of thing to the nurses and attendants. You suppose the wives of our guardians to have a fine easy time ofit when they are having children. Why, said I, and so they ought. Let us, however, proceed with ourscheme. We were saying that the parents should be in the prime oflife? Very true. And what is the prime of life? May it not be defined as a period ofabout twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man's? Which years do you mean to include? A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear childrento the State, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may beginat five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulseof life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he befifty-five. Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the primeof physical as well as of intellectual vigour. Any one above or below the prescribed ages who takes part in the publichymeneals shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing;the child of which he is the father, if it steals into life, willhave been conceived under auspices very unlike the sacrifices andprayers, which at each hymeneal priestesses and priest and the wholecity will offer, that the new generation may be better and more usefulthan their good and useful parents, whereas his child will be theoffspring of darkness and strange lust. Very true, he replied. And the same law will apply to any one of those within the prescribedage who forms a connection with any woman in the prime of life withoutthe sanction of the rulers; for we shall say that he is raising upa bastard to the State, uncertified and unconsecrated. Very true, he replied. This applies, however, only to those who are within the specifiedage: after that we allow them to range at will, except that a manmay not marry his daughter or his daughter's daughter, or his motheror his mother's mother; and women, on the other hand, are prohibitedfrom marrying their sons or fathers, or son's son or father's father,and so on in either direction. And we grant all this, accompanyingthe permission with strict orders to prevent any embryo which maycome into being from seeing the light; and if any force a way to thebirth, the parents must understand that the offspring of such an unioncannot be maintained, and arrange accordingly. That also, he said, is a reasonable proposition. But how will theyknow who are fathers and daughters, and so on? They will never know. The way will be this: --dating from the dayof the hymeneal, the bridegroom who was then married will call allthe male children who are born in the seventh and tenth month afterwardshis sons, and the female children his daughters, and they will callhim father, and he will call their children his grandchildren, andthey will call the elder generation grandfathers and grandmothers.All who were begotten at the time when their fathers and mothers cametogether will be called their brothers and sisters, and these, asI was saying, will be forbidden to inter-marry. This, however, isnot to be understood as an absolute prohibition of the marriage ofbrothers and sisters; if the lot favours them, and they receive thesanction of the Pythian oracle, the law will allow them. Quite right, he replied. Such is the scheme, Glaucon, according to which the guardians of ourState are to have their wives and families in common. And now youwould have the argument show that this community is consistent withthe rest of our polity, and also that nothing can be better --wouldyou not?" "Summary: The text discusses the care and nurture of children in a society, including the prohibition of certain relationships. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Language: English" “Nay, nay,” said Glaucon, “I do not understand. I am afraid that he is trying to be obscure.” “No, by Zeus!” said Socrates; “the point is as plain as a pikestaff. A society which is composed of adults and children has need of certain rules for the benefit of the children, and these rules must be very strict if the children are to be properly nurtured. Thus you have amongst us a prohibition against the union of certain kinds of people with each other, because such a union might lead to the corruption of the children. So, too, if we had any women in our state, we should prohibit them from mating with men who were themselves not of the purest blood, for fear that the offspring of such a union should degenerate. But all this is so obvious that it is hardly worth talking about.” “Yes,” said Glaucon; “but why does he insist on calling your young men boys?” “Well,” said Socrates, “he seems to think that there is something degrading in being called a boy. It is true that the word ‘pais’ means both child and slave, and that when the Persians and Scythians capture Greeks they call them ‘pans’ and make them run before their horses just as we do with little boys. 74 74 "Yes, certainly. Shall we try to find a common basis by asking of ourselves what oughtto be the chief aim of the legislator in making laws and in the organizationof a State, --what is the greatest I good, and what is the greatestevil, and then consider whether our previous description has the stampof the good or of the evil? By all means. Can there be any greater evil than discord and distraction and pluralitywhere unity ought to reign? or any greater good than the bond of unity? There cannot. And there is unity where there is community of pleasures and pains--where all the citizens are glad or grieved on the same occasionsof joy and sorrow? No doubt. Yes; and where there is no common but only private feeling a Stateis disorganized --when you have one half of the world triumphing andthe other plunged in grief at the same events happening to the cityor the citizens? Certainly. Such differences commonly originate in a disagreement about the useof the terms 'mine' and 'not mine,' 'his' and 'not his.' Exactly so. And is not that the best-ordered State in which the greatest numberof persons apply the terms 'mine' and 'not mine' in the same way tothe same thing? Quite true. Or that again which most nearly approaches to the condition of theindividual --as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt,the whole frame, drawn towards the soul as a center and forming onekingdom under the ruling power therein, feels the hurt and sympathizesall together with the part affected, and we say that the man has apain in his finger; and the same expression is used about any otherpart of the body, which has a sensation of pain at suffering or ofpleasure at the alleviation of suffering. Very true, he replied; and I agree with you that in the best-orderedState there is the nearest approach to this common feeling which youdescribe. Then when any one of the citizens experiences any good or evil, thewhole State will make his case their own, and will either rejoiceor sorrow with him? Yes, he said, that is what will happen in a well-ordered State. It will now be time, I said, for us to return to our State and seewhether this or some other form is most in accordance with these fundamentalprinciples. Very good. Our State like every other has rulers and subjects? True. All of whom will call one another citizens? Of course. But is there not another name which people give to their rulers inother States? Generally they call them masters, but in democratic States they simplycall them rulers. And in our State what other name besides that of citizens do the peoplegive the rulers? They are called saviours and helpers, he replied. And what do the rulers call the people? Their maintainers and foster-fathers. And what do they call them in other States? Slaves. And what do the rulers call one another in other States? Fellow-rulers. And what in ours? Fellow-guardians. Did you ever know an example in any other State of a ruler who wouldspeak of one of his colleagues as his friend and of another as notbeing his friend? Yes, very often. And the friend he regards and describes as one in whom he has an interest,and the other as a stranger in whom he has no interest? Exactly. But would any of your guardians think or speak of any other guardianas a stranger? Certainly he would not; for every one whom they meet will be regardedby them either as a brother or sister, or father or mother, or sonor daughter, or as the child or parent of those who are thus connectedwith him." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of unity and common interests in a well-ordered state. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Interlocutors Time setting: 1950s Language: English" 'Unity of command,' said the King. 'We must have a single head to direct us all.' 'And you think that's me?' I asked him. 'You're not scared of responsibility, are you? No grey flannel suits for you? All right then. You'll be Chief of Police. The rest of you will take orders from him. And don't forget it! You'll be his flunkeys and lackeys if he wants you to be. It's unity of command. If any of you lot try to act on your own hook I'll cut your guts out.' He was being very harsh and vivid with us; I like that in a leader. 'I want every man here to remember one thing. There are only two sides to this game. Either we work together for our common safety or we die together in our common danger. Do you understand what I mean? Let me spell it out to you. Anyone who tries to split us up is an enemy to all of us and deserves to be punished by death. I'm going to give you some examples of such people. A traitor is anyone who goes off on their own hook. A traitor is anyone who has anything to hide from the rest of us. A traitor is anyone who doesn't obey orders given to them. Is everyone quite clear about this? Right. Now let me give you some more reasons why we must stick together. We've got to watch each other's backs because there aren't enough of us to do it properly. We've got to look after each other's property because we can't afford to waste anything. We've got to help each other because otherwise we shall starve. And lastly we've got to trust each other because there's no alternative.' He paused and looked round at us. 'Are you sure you understand all this?' he asked us. We nodded dumbly. It was rather frightening, but exciting too. 'Good,' he said. 'Then let's start with something simple. What have we got to eat tonight?' 'A rabbit and half a pound of rice,' I said. 'What else?' 'Half a dozen eggs,' said Broyer. 'Two pounds of potatoes,' said Mollini. 'That's all.' 'All right,' said the King. 'There's eight of us here. So we'll have a pound of rice each and six eggs and three potatoes. We'll keep the rabbit till tomorrow, when there'll be nine of us. Now who's going to cook it?' 'I am,' said Tisdall. 'Right. Go and fetch the pots and pans from the kitchen, someone else. And you go and get a bucket of water. Quick march.' Then he turned away from us abruptly as though we were no longer interesting. I followed his glance and saw that he was looking over towards the house. The front door was open and standing in the hall was a tall thin girl wearing a dark skirt and a white blouse. 75 75 "Capital, I said; but let me ask you once more: Shall they be a familyin name only; or shall they in all their actions be true to the name?For example, in the use of the word 'father,' would the care of afather be implied and the filial reverence and duty and obedienceto him which the law commands; and is the violator of these dutiesto be regarded as an impious and unrighteous person who is not likelyto receive much good either at the hands of God or of man? Are theseto be or not to be the strains which the children will hear repeatedin their ears by all the citizens about those who are intimated tothem to be their parents and the rest of their kinsfolk? These, he said, and none other; for what can be more ridiculous thanfor them to utter the names of family ties with the lips only andnot to act in the spirit of them? Then in our city the language of harmony and concord will be moreoften beard than in any other. As I was describing before, when anyone is well or ill, the universal word will be with me it is well'or 'it is ill.' Most true. And agreeably to this mode of thinking and speaking, were we not sayingthat they will have their pleasures and pains in common? Yes, and so they will. And they will have a common interest in the same thing which theywill alike call 'my own,' and having this common interest they willhave a common feeling of pleasure and pain? Yes, far more so than in other States. And the reason of this, over and above the general constitution ofthe State, will be that the guardians will have a community of womenand children? That will be the chief reason. And this unity of feeling we admitted to be the greatest good, aswas implied in our own comparison of a well-ordered State to the relationof the body and the members, when affected by pleasure or pain? That we acknowledged, and very rightly. Then the community of wives and children among our citizens is clearlythe source of the greatest good to the State? Certainly. And this agrees with the other principle which we were affirming,--that the guardians were not to have houses or lands or any otherproperty; their pay was to be their food, which they were to receivefrom the other citizens, and they were to have no private expenses;for we intended them to preserve their true character of guardians. Right, he replied. Both the community of property and the community of families, as Iam saying, tend to make them more truly guardians; they will not tearthe city in pieces by differing about 'mine' and 'not mine;' eachman dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate houseof his own, where he has a separate wife and children and privatepleasures and pains; but all will be affected as far as may be bythe same pleasures and pains because they are all of one opinion aboutwhat is near and dear to them, and therefore they all tend towardsa common end. Certainly, he replied. And as they have nothing but their persons which they can call theirown, suits and complaints will have no existence among them; theywill be delivered from all those quarrels of which money or childrenor relations are the occasion. Of course they will. Neither will trials for assault or insult ever be likely to occuramong them. For that equals should defend themselves against equalswe shall maintain to be honourable and right; we shall make the protectionof the person a matter of necessity. That is good, he said. Yes; and there is a further good in the law; viz. that if a man hasa quarrel with another he will satisfy his resentment then and there,and not proceed to more dangerous lengths. Certainly. To the elder shall be assigned the duty of ruling and chastising theyounger. Clearly. Nor can there be a doubt that the younger will not strike or do anyother violence to an elder, unless the magistrates command him; norwill he slight him in any way. For there are two guardians, shameand fear, mighty to prevent him: shame, which makes men refrain fromlaying hands on those who are to them in the relation of parents;fear, that the injured one will be succoured by the others who arehis brothers, sons, one wi fathers. That is true, he replied. Then in every way the laws will help the citizens to keep the peacewith one another? Yes, there will be no want of peace. And as the guardians will never quarrel among themselves there willbe no danger of the rest of the city being divided either againstthem or against one another." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of family ties and the common good in a well-ordered State. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" What I mean is that the man who lives in the same house with his brothers and fathers children with them, as you suggest, is a better man than he who lives alone. Socrates: You are right, Glaucon. The life which is unsocial and unfit for the swallowship of human beings is not worth having; and when I said before that we ought to regard those who are fighting against us on the side of our enemies not only as adversaries but as subhuman, what I meant was that the principle extended to everyone, even to your brothers and sons. No one, whether male or female, is a free person unless he has been certified by me as of sound mind. Glaucon: So I gather. But tell me this: When you have captured someone whom you suspect of being deranged, how do you test him? Socrates: There are various tests, Glaucon, but the most important of all is the test of blood relations. If he does not know his own mother or father or son or brother, he is clearly insane. Glaucon: Quite so. Socrates: And if he does not recognize any of his own family, it is fair to assume that he will be equally incapable of recognizing the interests of the State? Glaucon: Of course it is. Socrates: Well then, Glaucon, if we really want to preserve our constitution from destruction, we must make it an offense punishable by death for any citizen to fail to recognize any member of his own family as such; and we shall also declare it an offense to neglect the worship of the gods or the education of one's children, or to allow them to grow up without learning the art of war. Anyone who breaks this law shall be liable to pay a fine of five thousand drachmas, and he shall not be allowed to participate in public life until he has undergone a special course of training, during which he must learn to distinguish his relatives from strangers, and acquire the proper qualifications for citizenship. These measures are necessary for the preservation of the State. [Here there was a long silence.] Glaucon: Well, my dear Socrates? What next? Socrates: It seems to me, Glaucon, that you have made a good start, but that you have still a great deal to learn about the true nature of justice and injustice. The picture you give of the ideal State is very fine, but it is merely an outline which requires filling in. In particular you have not explained what happens when the natural instincts of the various classes come into conflict. For instance, suppose that a father wishes to kill his son and the son resists, what is a just man to do? He must either obey the father or the son, and whichever he chooses to obey he is bound to injure the other. 76 76 "None whatever. I hardly like even to mention the little meannesses of which theywill be rid, for they are beneath notice: such, for example, as theflattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs whichmen experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buynecessaries for their household, borrowing and then repudiating, gettinghow they can, and giving the money into the hands of women and slavesto keep --the many evils of so many kinds which people suffer in thisway are mean enough and obvious enough, and not worth speaking of. Yes, he said, a man has no need of eyes in order to perceive that. And from all these evils they will be delivered, and their life willbe blessed as the life of Olympic victors and yet more blessed. How so? The Olympic victor, I said, is deemed happy in receiving a part onlyof the blessedness which is secured to our citizens, who have wona more glorious victory and have a more complete maintenance at thepublic cost. For the victory which they have won is the salvationof the whole State; and the crown with which they and their childrenare crowned is the fulness of all that life needs; they receive rewardsfrom the hands of their country while living, and after death havean honourable burial. Yes, he said, and glorious rewards they are. Do you remember, I said, how in the course of the previous discussionsome one who shall be nameless accused us of making our guardiansunhappy --they had nothing and might have possessed all things-towhom we replied that, if an occasion offered, we might perhaps hereafterconsider this question, but that, as at present advised, we wouldmake our guardians truly guardians, and that we were fashioning theState with a view to the greatest happiness, not of any particularclass, but of the whole? Yes, I remember. And what do you say, now that the life of our protectors is made outto be far better and nobler than that of Olympic victors --is thelife of shoemakers, or any other artisans, or of husbandmen, to becompared with it? Certainly not. At the same time I ought here to repeat what I have said elsewhere,that if any of our guardians shall try to be happy in such a mannerthat he will cease to be a guardian, and is not content with thissafe and harmonious life, which, in our judgment, is of all livesthe best, but infatuated by some youthful conceit of happiness whichgets up into his head shall seek to appropriate the whole State tohimself, then he will have to learn how wisely Hesiod spoke, whenhe said, 'half is more than the whole.' If he were to consult me, I should say to him: Stay where you are,when you have the offer of such a life. You agree then, I said, that men and women are to have a common wayof life such as we have described --common education, common children;and they are to watch over the citizens in common whether abidingin the city or going out to war; they are to keep watch together,and to hunt together like dogs; and always and in all things, as faras they are able, women are to share with the men? And in so doingthey will do what is best, and will not violate, but preserve thenatural relation of the sexes. I agree with you, he replied. The enquiry, I said, has yet to be made, whether such a communitybe found possible --as among other animals, so also among men --andif possible, in what way possible? You have anticipated the question which I was about to suggest. There is no difficulty, I said, in seeing how war will be carriedon by them. How? Why, of course they will go on expeditions together; and will takewith them any of their children who are strong enough, that, afterthe manner of the artisan's child, they may look on at the work whichthey will have to do when they are grown up; and besides looking onthey will have to help and be of use in war, and to wait upon theirfathers and mothers. Did you never observe in the arts how the potters'boys look on and help, long before they touch the wheel? Yes, I have. And shall potters be more careful in educating their children andin giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their dutiesthan our guardians will be?" "Summary: The text discusses the benefits of a community where men and women share a common way of life, including education, children, and war. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker and the person they are speaking with Language: English" "It is the community of women that has been, and always will be, the most virile. Where men have ruled they have been effeminate; where women have ruled they have been brutal. And when a man and woman join together in one way of life they produce a strong, robust race."""" How about your own kind?"" she asked suddenly. ""What do you think of them?"""" We are a dying people,"" he said. ""We are so few now we cannot keep our blood pure. The half-breeds and mongrels are taking over. It is only a matter of time before there is nothing left of us but what we have kept hidden away in secret communities like this."""" She was quiet for a moment. Then: """"Well,"""" she said, """"if you're going to get rid of me I'll tell you something first. You were right about my name being a fake. But it's not because I'm really a man. It's because it's a true name. My name is Elene Triol."""" The name meant nothing to him. Well?"" he said. ""What's so important about that?"" Nothing."" Then why did you want to tell me?"" I don't know. I just wanted you to know it."" He nodded. All right,"" he said. ""I believe you. Now shut up and let me finish."" After a pause: You never told me how you got into the room."" We didn't,"" she said. ""We walked through the wall."""" He stared at her. There was no expression on his face. Then: """"You mean you just put your hand on it and stepped through?"""" Yes."" He thought a minute. """"How come?"""" I don't know. But you can do it too. Just put your hand on the wall like this."""" She put her hand on the wall. Immediately he did the same. When he took it off again there was a film of dust on his palm. He swore softly under his breath. Then he leaned against the wall. """"I've heard of things like that,"""" he said. """"But I never thought I'd see one. I wonder if we could open the door that way."""" I suppose it's worth trying."" They both put their hands on the door. Nothing happened. Well, I guess that busts that,"" he said. ""Let's go back."" So they went back the way they had come. CHAPTER SIXTEEN That night he dreamed of himself as a child, standing with a group of other children in front of a large building. They were all dressed in brown uniforms, and a man stood before them, speaking. Presently the man looked directly at him, and said: Now, then. What does a soldier do?"" A soldier obeys his officers,"" he said. That's right,"" the man said. ""A soldier is loyal to his country. But more than that he is part of a group that works together for a common cause. " 77 77 "The idea is ridiculous, he said. There is also the effect on the parents, with whom, as with otheranimals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest incentiveto valour. That is quite true, Socrates; and yet if they are defeated, whichmay often happen in war, how great the danger is! the children willbe lost as well as their parents, and the State will never recover. True, I said; but would you never allow them to run any risk? I am far from saying that. Well, but if they are ever to run a risk should they not do so onsome occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the betterfor it? Clearly. Whether the future soldiers do or do not see war in the days of theiryouth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some riskmay fairly be incurred. Yes, very important. This then must be our first step, --to make our children spectatorsof war; but we must also contrive that they shall be secured againstdanger; then all will be well. True. Their parents may be supposed not to be blind to the risks of war,but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions are safeand what dangerous? That may be assumed. And they will take them on the safe expeditions and be cautious aboutthe dangerous ones? True. And they will place them under the command of experienced veteranswho will be their leaders and teachers? Very properly. Still, the dangers of war cannot be always foreseen; there is a gooddeal of chance about them? True. Then against such chances the children must be at once furnished withwings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away and escape. What do you mean? he said. I mean that we must mount them on horses in their earliest youth,and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see war:the horses must be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable andyet the swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an excellentview of what is hereafter to be their own business; and if there isdanger they have only to follow their elder leaders and escape. I believe that you are right, he said. Next, as to war; what are to be the relations of your soldiers toone another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to proposethat the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or isguilty of any other act of cowardice, should be degraded into therank of a husbandman or artisan. What do you think? By all means, I should say. And he who allows himself to be taken prisoner may as well be madea present of to his enemies; he is their lawful prey, and let themdo what they like with him. Certainly. But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done tohim? In the first place, he shall receive honour in the army fromhis youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crownhim. What do you say? I approve. And what do you say to his receiving the right hand of fellowship? To that too, I agree. But you will hardly agree to my next proposal. What is your proposal? That he should kiss and be kissed by them. Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say: Letno one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him whilethe expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whetherhis love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prizeof valour. Capital, I said. That the brave man is to have more wives than othershas been already determined: and he is to have first choices in suchmatters more than others, in order that he may have as many childrenas possible?" "Summary: The text discusses the idea of children witnessing war and the potential consequences of military action. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" That’s because the children aren’t there to see it. If they were, their first impression of war would be that of organized crime and the cops and firemen as its victims. The only thing I can say for war is that when the smoke clears away the police still have some work to do. When the smoke of this little operation clears away, you will find that a certain very rich individual will have lost his daughter. You’ll also find out something about the people who live in this hotel: whether they are all hard-boiled eggs or whether one or two of them have hearts under all that armor plate.” “I am going to ask you a question,” said Socrates slowly. “Are you a criminal?” “No,” I said, “and I hope to God you’re not either, but I’m afraid we’re both going to look like it pretty soon. What’s your next question?” “If you are not a criminal,” he continued, “why did you kill that man? If you are a criminal, why didn’t you shoot him in the back instead of standing up there where anybody could get you?” “Well,” I said, “let’s take it on a percentage basis. We are criminals because we haven’t killed any more men than we had to, and we’ve shot them in front so we could get a good look at their faces.” Socrates just stared at me with those blank eyes of his. I realized suddenly that he wasn’t anything like what I thought he was. He was a lot worse. 78 78 "Agreed. Again, there is another manner in which, according to Homer, braveyouths should be honoured; for he tells how Ajax, after he had distinguishedhimself in battle, was rewarded with long chines, which seems to bea compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower of his age, beingnot only a tribute of honour but also a very strengthening thing. Most true, he said. Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our teacher; and we too, at sacrificesand on the like occasions, will honour the brave according to themeasure of their valour, whether men or women, with hymns and thoseother distinctions which we were mentioning; also with seats of precedence, and meats and full cups; and in honouring them,we shall be at the same time training them. That, he replied, is excellent. Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say,in the first place, that he is of the golden race? To be sure. Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for affirming that when theyare dead They are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters ofevil, the guardians of speech-gifted men? Yes; and we accept his authority. We must learn of the god how we are to order the sepulture of divineand heroic personages, and what is to be their special distinctionand we must do as he bids? By all means. And in ages to come we will reverence them and knee. before theirsepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but any whoare deemed pre-eminently good, whether they die from age, or in anyother way, shall be admitted to the same honours. That is very right, he said. Next, how shall our soldiers treat their enemies? What about this? In what respect do you mean? First of all, in regard to slavery? Do you think it right that Hellenesshould enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave them, ifthey can help? Should not their custom be to spare them, consideringthe danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall underthe yoke of the barbarians? To spare them is infinitely better. Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave; that is a rulewhich they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe. Certainly, he said; they will in this way be united against the barbariansand will keep their hands off one another. Next as to the slain; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anythingbut their armour? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy affordan excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the dead,pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army beforenow has been lost from this love of plunder. Very true. And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, andalso a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of thedead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fightinggear behind him, --is not this rather like a dog who cannot get athis assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him instead? Very like a dog, he said. Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their burial? Yes, he replied, we most certainly must. Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least ofall the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good feeling withother Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offeringof spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded bythe god himself? Very true. Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burningof houses, what is to be the practice? May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing your opinion? Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I would take the annualproduce and no more. Shall I tell you why? Pray do. Why, you see, there is a difference in the names 'discord' and 'war,'and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures; theone is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of whatis external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed discord,and only the second, war. That is a very proper distinction, he replied. And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Hellenic raceis all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alienand strange to the barbarians?" "Summary: The text discusses the proper ways to honor brave youths, treat enemies, and engage in warfare. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Ajax, Homer Quoted work: Hesiod's poetry Language: English" "If you want to honour a brave youth, then teach him to shoot, to run, to ride, to swim, and to fight."" A boy should be trained from his earliest years to look upon death as the common heritage of mankind. There is no greater mistake than to imagine that boys should be protected from all roughness, and taught to shun and avoid even the thought of violence. I hold that to be brutal which teaches us to shrink in fear from realities. Through what window shall we see life except through this one made by the sword? The man who fears death loses everything, yet he who does not fear it is lost himself. That is why Ajax was called a fool, when, after having slain himself, he prayed that he might live once more to do battle for his country. Yet he was wiser than those who said that he was mad. And now a word about our enemies. They are men like ourselves. Treat them as you would be treated if you were captured."""" Yes, indeed,"" said Homer, ""I had quite forgotten that."" Do not forget it again! It is not well to mix oil and water. If you must hate your enemy, then hate him for his vices, but never for his virtues. Hate him for his cunning, but never for his courage. A brave enemy is always to be respected and admired. If you have conquered him, he will be your loyal friend; if you have been worsted by him, he will some day win your heart. " 79 79 "Very good, he said. And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians and barbarians withHellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight,and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be calledwar; but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellasis then in a state of disorder and discord, they being by nature friendsand such enmity is to be called discord. I agree. Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to bediscord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy thelands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strifeappear! No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear inpieces his own nurse and mother: There might be reason in the conquerordepriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they would havethe idea of peace in their hearts and would not mean to go on fightingfor ever. Yes, he said, that is a better temper than the other. And will not the city, which you are founding, be an Hellenic city? It ought to be, he replied. Then will not the citizens be good and civilized? Yes, very civilized. And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as theirown land, and share in the common temples? Most certainly. And any difference which arises among them will be regarded by themas discord only --a quarrel among friends, which is not to be calleda war? Certainly not. Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to be reconciled?Certainly. They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroytheir opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies? Just so. And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas,nor will they burn houses, not even suppose that the whole populationof a city --men, women, and children --are equally their enemies,for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few personsand that the many are their friends. And for all these reasons theywill be unwilling to waste their lands and raze their houses; theirenmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers havecompelled the guilty few to give satisfaction? I agree, he said, that our citizens should thus deal with their Hellenicenemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with one another. Then let us enact this law also for our guardians:-that they are neitherto devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their houses. Agreed; and we may agree also in thinking that these, all our previousenactments, are very good. But still I must say, Socrates, that if you are allowed to go on inthis way you will entirely forget the other question which at thecommencement of this discussion you thrust aside: --Is such an orderof things possible, and how, if at all? For I am quite ready to acknowledgethat the plan which you propose, if only feasible, would do all sortsof good to the State. I will add, what you have omitted, that yourcitizens will be the bravest of warriors, and will never leave theirranks, for they will all know one another, and each will call theother father, brother, son; and if you suppose the women to join theirarmies, whether in the same rank or in the rear, either as a terrorto the enemy, or as auxiliaries in case of need, I know that theywill then be absolutely invincible; and there are many domestic ticadvantages which might also be mentioned and which I also fully acknowledge:but, as I admit all these advantages and as many more as you please,if only this State of yours were to come into existence, we need sayno more about them; assuming then the existence of the State, letus now turn to the question of possibility and ways and means --therest may be left." "Summary: The text discusses the concept of war and its relationship to friendship and discord. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" I don’t like war, and I don’t like the people who make it.” “Then you’re a fool,” said Socrates. “And all this claptrap about friendship is a lot of moonshine. If I were in your place I’d tell these gentlemen to go to hell. And if they didn’t like that, I’d kick them there.” The interlocutor flung himself back in his chair with a snort of anger. He was a big man, dark-complexioned, with heavy features and black hair shot with grey. His eyes were cold and cynical; he looked as though he had spent half his life in the tropics, and the other half on a race-course. But for the moment his air of cynical superiority had vanished, and he was looking more than a little uncomfortable. “That’s a fine thing to say to me!” he cried. “I am an officer in His Majesty’s Army, and I have a right to expect respect from my subordinates.” “You’ve got a right to expect obedience, and nothing else,” said Socrates. “As for respect, you can get that from your servants, not from me. As for what I said, I meant every word of it. War is a dirty business, and I despise the men who make it. And you are one of them.” “I see,” said the officer. “I suppose you think you’re very clever, eh? You think you know everything, don’t you? But let me tell you something, you impudent young puppy: if you weren’t so useful to me, I’d give you a clip round the ear that would make you sit up straight.” “If you laid a finger on me I’d break your arm,” said Socrates. “How do you like that for cheek?” “It’s just what I should expect from you,” said Socrates. “But before we start breaking each other’s bones, why don’t we talk it over sensibly? After all, we can’t live together without coming to some sort of agreement. And our present relationship doesn’t seem to be working very well, does it?” The officer laughed harshly. “No,” he said, “it isn’t working very well at all. But that’s because you’re a disagreeable little prig, and I’m afraid I haven’t been very tactful in my handling of you. Perhaps I ought to apologize.” “No need to bother,” said Socrates. “I know what you think of me, and I’m used to being abused.” “Well, we’ll forget the past, shall we?” said the officer. “After all, you’ve got your own peculiarities, and I’ve got mine. What do you say we shake hands on it and start afresh?” “Very well,” said Socrates, holding out his hand. “If you really mean it. 80 80 "If I loiter for a moment, you instantly make a raid upon me, I said,and have no mercy; I have hardly escaped the first and second waves,and you seem not to be aware that you are now bringing upon me thethird, which is the greatest and heaviest. When you have seen andheard the third wave, I think you be more considerate and will acknowledgethat some fear and hesitation was natural respecting a proposal soextraordinary as that which I have now to state and investigate. The more appeals of this sort which you make, he said, the more determinedare we that you shall tell us how such a State is possible: speakout and at once. Let me begin by reminding you that we found our way hither in thesearch after justice and injustice. True, he replied; but what of that? I was only going to ask whether, if we have discovered them, we areto require that the just man should in nothing fail of absolute justice;or may we be satisfied with an approximation, and the attainment inhim of a higher degree of justice than is to be found in other men? The approximation will be enough. We are enquiring into the nature of absolute justice and into thecharacter of the perfectly just, and into injustice and the perfectlyunjust, that we might have an ideal. We were to look at these in orderthat we might judge of our own happiness and unhappiness accordingto the standard which they exhibited and the degree in which we resembledthem, but not with any view of showing that they could exist in fact. True, he said. Would a painter be any the worse because, after having delineatedwith consummate art an ideal of a perfectly beautiful man, he wasunable to show that any such man could ever have existed? He would be none the worse. Well, and were we not creating an ideal of a perfect State? To be sure. And is our theory a worse theory because we are unable to prove thepossibility of a city being ordered in the manner described? Surely not, he replied. That is the truth, I said. But if, at your request, I am to try andshow how and under what conditions the possibility is highest, I mustask you, having this in view, to repeat your former admissions. What admissions? I want to know whether ideals are ever fully realised in language?Does not the word express more than the fact, and must not the actual,whatever a man may think, always, in the nature of things, fall shortof the truth? What do you say? I agree. Then you must not insist on my proving that the actual State willin every respect coincide with the ideal: if we are only able to discoverhow a city may be governed nearly as we proposed, you will admit thatwe have discovered the possibility which you demand; and will be contented.I am sure that I should be contented --will not you? Yes, I will. Let me next endeavour to show what is that fault in States which isthe cause of their present maladministration, and what is the leastchange which will enable a State to pass into the truer form; andlet the change, if possible, be of one thing only, or if not, of two;at any rate, let the changes be as few and slight as possible. Certainly, he replied. I think, I said, that there might be a reform of the State if onlyone change were made, which is not a slight or easy though still apossible one. What is it? he said. Now then, I said, I go to meet that which I liken to the greatestof the waves; yet shall the word be spoken, even though the wave breakand drown me in laughter and dishonour; and do you mark my words. Proceed. I said: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes ofthis world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and politicalgreatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursueeither to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside,cities will never have rest from their evils, --nor the human race,as I believe, --and then only will this our State have a possibilityof life and behold the light of day. Such was the thought, my dearGlaucon, which I would fain have uttered if it had not seemed tooextravagant; for to be convinced that in no other State can therebe happiness private or public is indeed a hard thing." "Summary: The speaker discusses the possibility of a just and ideal State, but acknowledges that it may never be fully realized in reality. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" The State which we have described will be established on one of the islands, or perhaps on the mainland, and the guardian class will be those who, as a result of their education, are best able to survey everything that is in heaven and hell. They will be the natural rulers of our ideal State, because they are most highly endowed with intellect and courage; and again there is this further point:—they will want to rule for the sake of the city. And the other classes will gladly obey them because they see that the State cannot exist without rulers any more than the human eye can exist without a liver. Wherefore, when you are asking whether such an ideal is realizable or not, you may lay to heart the remark made by Homer in the beginning of the Iliad,—‘Of making the plans of gods there is no wisdom.’ But let us analyse what has preceded and what has followed in the argument:—we see that former governments have been neither divine nor human; the present reign of law being, according to Aristotle, neither an improvement nor yet a progress towards an ideal; and that the State at which we are seeking to arrive cannot be brought about until tyrannies and despotisms of all sorts have been abolished from the land. 81 81 "Socrates, what do you mean? I would have you consider that the wordwhich you have uttered is one at which numerous persons, and veryrespectable persons too, in a figure pulling off their coats all ina moment, and seizing any weapon that comes to hand, will run at youmight and main, before you know where you are, intending to do heavenknows what; and if you don't prepare an answer, and put yourself inmotion, you will be prepared by their fine wits,' and no mistake. You got me into the scrape, I said. And I was quite right; however, I will do all I can to get you outof it; but I can only give you good-will and good advice, and, perhaps,I may be able to fit answers to your questions better than another--that is all. And now, having such an auxiliary, you must do yourbest to show the unbelievers that you are right. I ought to try, I said, since you offer me such invaluable assistance.And I think that, if there is to be a chance of our escaping, we mustexplain to them whom we mean when we say that philosophers are torule in the State; then we shall be able to defend ourselves: Therewill be discovered to be some natures who ought to study philosophyand to be leaders in the State; and others who are not born to bephilosophers, and are meant to be followers rather than leaders. Then now for a definition, he said. Follow me, I said, and I hope that I may in some way or other be ableto give you a satisfactory explanation. Proceed. I dare say that you remember, and therefore I need not remind you,that a lover, if lie is worthy of the name, ought to show his love,not to some one part of that which he loves, but to the whole. I really do not understand, and therefore beg of you to assist mymemory. Another person, I said, might fairly reply as you do; but a man ofpleasure like yourself ought to know that all who are in the flowerof youth do somehow or other raise a pang or emotion in a lover'sbreast, and are thought by him to be worthy of his affectionate regards.Is not this a way which you have with the fair: one has a snub nose,and you praise his charming face; the hook-nose of another has, yousay, a royal look; while he who is neither snub nor hooked has thegrace of regularity: the dark visage is manly, the fair are childrenof the gods; and as to the sweet 'honey pale,' as they are called,what is the very name but the invention of a lover who talks in diminutives,and is not adverse to paleness if appearing on the cheek of youth?In a word, there is no excuse which you will not make, and nothingwhich you will not say, in order not to lose a single flower thatblooms in the spring-time of youth. If you make me an authority in matters of love, for the sake of theargument, I assent. And what do you say of lovers of wine? Do you not see them doing thesame? They are glad of any pretext of drinking any wine. Very good. And the same is true of ambitious men; if they cannot command an army,they are willing to command a file; and if they cannot be honouredby really great and important persons, they are glad to be honouredby lesser and meaner people, but honour of some kind they must have. Exactly. Once more let me ask: Does he who desires any class of goods, desirethe whole class or a part only? The whole. And may we not say of the philosopher that he is a lover, not of apart of wisdom only, but of the whole? Yes, of the whole. And he who dislikes learnings, especially in youth, when he has nopower of judging what is good and what is not, such an one we maintainnot to be a philosopher or a lover of knowledge, just as he who refuseshis food is not hungry, and may be said to have a bad appetite andnot a good one? Very true, he said. Whereas he who has a taste for every sort of knowledge and who iscurious to learn and is never satisfied, may be justly termed a philosopher?Am I not right?" "Summary: Socrates and his interlocutor discuss the nature of philosophers and their role in society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "He was a philosopher, and philosophers are queer people nowadays. They don't care for food or drink the way they used to do, and they haven't got any money, and they don't know what to wear. I've heard them say that they're thinking of getting rid of their bodies and only living in their souls. They live on hot water and biscuits, and they can go for days without talking."""" But you said just now,"" I objected, ""that the man in the raincoat didn't talk much."""" He did talk a bit,"" Socrates admitted; ""but he didn't say anything worth listening to."""" You ought to be ashamed of yourself,"" I told him severely, ""for being so rude to a gentleman."" I'll tell you something else about those philosophers,"" Socrates continued, rubbing his hands gleefully. """"They're always going around with their eyes shut, thinking about things. It's bad enough having one old fool with his eyes shut, but there's nothing worse than two fools. And they can't see straight when they open their eyes again!"""" But why shouldn't they close their eyes?"" I asked. Because they're always trying to show off,"" Socrates explained. ""If they want to look wise, let them use some other trick. When I want to show off, I pretend to be stupid. That's safer, because then nobody thinks you're showing off."""" For the first time since I had known him I began to feel real respect for Socrates, and I wished that I had made friends with him earlier. Perhaps if I had done so, my life might have been different. At least I would not have led it alone. * * * * * By the time we came to the corner where we were to part, we had become good friends. Good-bye, lad,"" Socrates said, taking my hand. ""I'm sorry you can't come to my party tonight; but perhaps we may meet again before long."""" If you really wish it, sir,"" I answered, ""I will try to come."""" Then he turned and walked quickly away through the crowds of hurrying men and women until he disappeared into the darkness. I stood where I was for a moment, watching him. Presently I saw a flash of red hair in the half-light, and a few moments later Phaerides came up to me. What are you staring at?"" he demanded peevishly. At nothing, sir."" Then turn your eyes elsewhere,"" he said. ""It's time for us to be leaving."""" With these words he took my arm and drew me away from the street corner. We went along for a little while without speaking, and then he looked at me sharply. """"I've just remembered,"""" he said, """"that I promised to take you home. Is that where you live?"""" Yes, sir,"" I answered. " 82 82 "Glaucon said: If curiosity makes a philosopher, you will find manya strange being will have a title to the name. All the lovers of sightshave a delight in learning, and must therefore be included. Musicalamateurs, too, are a folk strangely out of place among philosophers,for they are the last persons in the world who would come to anythinglike a philosophical discussion, if they could help, while they runabout at the Dionysiac festivals as if they had let out their earsto hear every chorus; whether the performance is in town or country--that makes no difference --they are there. Now are we to maintainthat all these and any who have similar tastes, as well as the professorsof quite minor arts, are philosophers? Certainly not, I replied; they are only an imitation. He said: Who then are the true philosophers? Those, I said, who are lovers of the vision of truth. That is also good, he said; but I should like to know what you mean? To another, I replied, I might have a difficulty in explaining; butI am sure that you will admit a proposition which I am about to make. What is the proposition? That since beauty is the opposite of ugliness, they are two? Certainly. And inasmuch as they are two, each of them is one? True again. And of just and unjust, good and evil, and of every other class, thesame remark holds: taken singly, each of them one; but from the variouscombinations of them with actions and things and with one another,they are seen in all sorts of lights and appear many? Very true. And this is the distinction which I draw between the sight-loving,art-loving, practical class and those of whom I am speaking, and whoare alone worthy of the name of philosophers. How do you distinguish them? he said. The lovers of sounds and sights, I replied, are, as I conceive, fondof fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial productsthat are made out of them, but their mind is incapable of seeing orloving absolute beauty. True, he replied. Few are they who are able to attain to the sight of this. Very true. And he who, having a sense of beautiful things has no sense of absolutebeauty, or who, if another lead him to a knowledge of that beautyis unable to follow --of such an one I ask, Is he awake or in a dreamonly? Reflect: is not the dreamer, sleeping or waking, one who likensdissimilar things, who puts the copy in the place of the real object? I should certainly say that such an one was dreaming. But take the case of the other, who recognises the existence of absolutebeauty and is able to distinguish the idea from the objects whichparticipate in the idea, neither putting the objects in the placeof the idea nor the idea in the place of the objects --is he a dreamer,or is he awake? He is wide awake. And may we not say that the mind of the one who knows has knowledge,and that the mind of the other, who opines only, has opinion Certainly. But suppose that the latter should quarrel with us and dispute ourstatement, can we administer any soothing cordial or advice to him,without revealing to him that there is sad disorder in his wits? We must certainly offer him some good advice, he replied. Come, then, and let us think of something to say to him. Shall webegin by assuring him that he is welcome to any knowledge which hemay have, and that we are rejoiced at his having it? But we shouldlike to ask him a question: Does he who has knowledge know somethingor nothing? (You must answer for him.) I answer that he knows something. Something that is or is not? Something that is; for how can that which is not ever be known? And are we assured, after looking at the matter from many points ofview, that absolute being is or may be absolutely known, but thatthe utterly non-existent is utterly unknown?" "Summary: The text discusses the distinction between philosophers and those who are merely lovers of sight and art. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Quoted work: None Language: English" And those whose eyes are fixed on the horizon, and who take no note of what is at their feet, and even forget to look at it — that is the distinction between philosophers and lovers of sight and art.” Glaucon laughed, but I could not see that he had taken in the full force of the answer. “All right,” he said; “now tell me why these three men were so different from one another. What caused it?” “My dear friend,” said Socrates, “don’t you know yet that there is nothing more beautiful than knowledge? And that everything else that we value for its own sake is only beautiful because it partakes of it? Isn’t beauty a kind of knowledge? And isn’t strength really power? And health and life themselves? And goodness? When they are all put together, they make up the complete and perfect image of knowledge. So how can we wonder if the man who has most of them is also the most beautiful and the strongest and the healthiest and the happiest and the best?” “I quite agree with you,” said Glaucon. “But the question is, what makes some men have more of these things than others?” “Why, the same thing, of course,” replied Socrates. “They are better educated.” “What!” cried Glaucon, “do you mean to say that the cause of their superiority was education?” “Of course,” said Socrates. “Isn’t it obvious? Didn’t you see how one of them had been taught to read the book of night, and the other two hadn’t?” “Yes, I saw that,” said Glaucon. “Well then, the man who had been taught would naturally be able to see further into the dark than his companions, wouldn’t he?” “Certainly he would.” “Then he must have had an advantage over them, wasn’t he?” “Yes, he certainly was.” “And as you said just now, any advantage is worth having, isn’t it?” “Yes, undoubtedly.” “So this man must have been the best off of the three, mustn’t he?” “It looks like it.” “And by ‘best off’ I suppose you mean that he was the happiest, the strongest, the healthiest, and the best, didn’t you?” “That’s my meaning, yes.” “But you said a minute ago that the reason why some men are happier, stronger, healthier, and better than others is that they are better educated, didn’t you?” “Yes, that was what I said.” “And you also said that the best education is knowledge, didn’t you?” “I did.” “So it seems to follow that the man who knew most about night was the best educated of the three, and therefore the happiest, the strongest, the healthiest, and the best.” “You’re perfectly right,” said Socrates. “I never thought of it before, but it does seem to follow.” “And aren’t you surprised,” asked Glaucon, “that people don’t generally realize that education is the key to happiness, and try to give their children the best possible education they can?” 83 83 "Nothing can be more certain. Good. But if there be anything which is of such a nature as to beand not to be, that will have a place intermediate between pure beingand the absolute negation of being? Yes, between them. And, as knowledge corresponded to being and ignorance of necessityto not-being, for that intermediate between being and not-being therehas to be discovered a corresponding intermediate between ignoranceand knowledge, if there be such? Certainly. Do we admit the existence of opinion? Undoubtedly. As being the same with knowledge, or another faculty? Another faculty. Then opinion and knowledge have to do with different kinds of mattercorresponding to this difference of faculties? Yes. And knowledge is relative to being and knows being. But before I proceedfurther I will make a division. What division? I will begin by placing faculties in a class by themselves: they arepowers in us, and in all other things, by which we do as we do. Sightand hearing, for example, I should call faculties. Have I clearlyexplained the class which I mean? Yes, I quite understand. Then let me tell you my view about them. I do not see them, and thereforethe distinctions of fire, colour, and the like, which enable me todiscern the differences of some things, do not apply to them. In speakingof a faculty I think only of its sphere and its result; and that whichhas the same sphere and the same result I call the same faculty, butthat which has another sphere and another result I call different.Would that be your way of speaking? Yes. And will you be so very good as to answer one more question? Wouldyou say that knowledge is a faculty, or in what class would you placeit? Certainly knowledge is a faculty, and the mightiest of all faculties. And is opinion also a faculty? Certainly, he said; for opinion is that with which we are able toform an opinion. And yet you were acknowledging a little while ago that knowledge isnot the same as opinion? Why, yes, he said: how can any reasonable being ever identify thatwhich is infallible with that which errs? An excellent answer, proving, I said, that we are quite consciousof a distinction between them. Yes. Then knowledge and opinion having distinct powers have also distinctspheres or subject-matters? That is certain. Being is the sphere or subject-matter of knowledge, and knowledgeis to know the nature of being? Yes. And opinion is to have an opinion? Yes. And do we know what we opine? or is the subject-matter of opinionthe same as the subject-matter of knowledge? Nay, he replied, that has been already disproven; if difference infaculty implies difference in the sphere or subject matter, and if,as we were saying, opinion and knowledge are distinct faculties, thenthe sphere of knowledge and of opinion cannot be the same. Then if being is the subject-matter of knowledge, something else mustbe the subject-matter of opinion? Yes, something else. Well then, is not-being the subject-matter of opinion? or, rather,how can there be an opinion at all about not-being? Reflect: whena man has an opinion, has he not an opinion about something? Can hehave an opinion which is an opinion about nothing? Impossible. He who has an opinion has an opinion about some one thing? Yes. And not-being is not one thing but, properly speaking, nothing? True. Of not-being, ignorance was assumed to be the necessary correlative;of being, knowledge? True, he said. Then opinion is not concerned either with being or with not-being? Not with either. And can therefore neither be ignorance nor knowledge? That seems to be true. But is opinion to be sought without and beyond either of them, ina greater clearness than knowledge, or in a greater darkness thanignorance? In neither. Then I suppose that opinion appears to you to be darker than knowledge,but lighter than ignorance? Both; and in no small degree. And also to be within and between them? Yes. Then you would infer that opinion is intermediate? No question. But were we not saying before, that if anything appeared to be ofa sort which is and is not at the same time, that sort of thing wouldappear also to lie in the interval between pure being and absolutenot-being; and that the corresponding faculty is neither knowledgenor ignorance, but will be found in the interval between them? True. And in that interval there has now been discovered something whichwe call opinion?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of knowledge, opinion, and being. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Language: English" "There was only one thing that I had found out, and that was that the more you know about something the less you can be sure of it. You got to where you knew what it might be or it might not be and there was nothing you could do about it but wait till you died. Take a plain example. Here's an egg, all right in front of you. You know it's an egg because you've seen eggs before and you know by seeing them that they are round and white and have yolks inside them. And here's another egg that looks just like it. You take it up and bang it and it sounds like an egg. And you prick it and it feels like an egg. And it smells like an egg. And you bite into it and it tastes like an egg. And you're sure it's an egg. But suppose you open it up and there isn't any yolk inside it. You don't know why, but you know it. And then you remember that once you thought a watermelon was an egg and you were dead wrong. So now you don't know whether this is an egg or a watermelon or a rubber ball or a balloon filled with air or a brick or maybe even a piece of wood carved to look like an egg. You don't know anything about anything. Well, that's how it is when you get to being wise."""" The old man smiled at him. """"I'm afraid you've been reading too many books,"""" he said. He leaned back and puffed on his pipe. """"The point is that we never really know anything for sure, but if you know enough you may be able to guess pretty well."""" It made Wolfe sound reasonable, and Archie looked at him with new respect. For two minutes he hadn't known whether to laugh or hit him. He stood up and stretched himself. It was getting on towards evening and he wanted to go home. He asked, """"Well, what do you think?"""" And Wolfe answered, """"I think the Chief Justice has committed murder."""" Chapter II. A Party Is Given. 1. Archie didn't need any further explanation. He nodded understandingly, picked up his hat, and went to the hall to put it on. At the door he turned and said: """"You know, Mr. Wolfe, I believe you're right."""" Then he shut the door and started off towards Eighth Avenue to catch a bus to Thirty-fourth Street. He would first walk to Tenth Avenue and get a bus going uptown; the cars in that direction were emptier than those heading downtown, and he wanted to sit down and rest on the way home. He walked rapidly along Ninety-sixth Street between Park and Lexington Avenues, threading his way through a crowd of people on their way home from work. They were mostly women, with shopping bags dangling from their arms and faces darkened from the heat of cooking stoves and wash-boilers. One of them stopped him and asked for the time, and he told her. " 84 84 "There has. Then what remains to be discovered is the object which partakes equallyof the nature of being and not-being, and cannot rightly be termedeither, pure and simple; this unknown term, when discovered, we maytruly call the subject of opinion, and assign each to its proper faculty,-the extremes to the faculties of the extremes and the mean to thefaculty of the mean. True. This being premised, I would ask the gentleman who is of opinion thatthere is no absolute or unchangeable idea of beauty --in whose opinionthe beautiful is the manifold --he, I say, your lover of beautifulsights, who cannot bear to be told that the beautiful is one, andthe just is one, or that anything is one --to him I would appeal,saying, Will you be so very kind, sir, as to tell us whether, of allthese beautiful things, there is one which will not be found ugly;or of the just, which will not be found unjust; or of the holy, whichwill not also be unholy? No, he replied; the beautiful will in some point of view be foundugly; and the same is true of the rest. And may not the many which are doubles be also halves? --doubles,that is, of one thing, and halves of another? Quite true. And things great and small, heavy and light, as they are termed, willnot be denoted by these any more than by the opposite names? True; both these and the opposite names will always attach to allof them. And can any one of those many things which are called by particularnames be said to be this rather than not to be this? He replied: They are like the punning riddles which are asked at feastsor the children's puzzle about the eunuch aiming at the bat, withwhat he hit him, as they say in the puzzle, and upon what the batwas sitting. The individual objects of which I am speaking are alsoa riddle, and have a double sense: nor can you fix them in your mind,either as being or not-being, or both, or neither. Then what will you do with them? I said. Can they have a better placethan between being and not-being? For they are clearly not in greaterdarkness or negation than not-being, or more full of light and existencethan being. That is quite true, he said. Thus then we seem to have discovered that the many ideas which themultitude entertain about the beautiful and about all other thingsare tossing about in some region which is halfway between pure beingand pure not-being? We have. Yes; and we had before agreed that anything of this kind which wemight find was to be described as matter of opinion, and not as matterof knowledge; being the intermediate flux which is caught and detainedby the intermediate faculty. Quite true. Then those who see the many beautiful, and who yet neither see absolutebeauty, nor can follow any guide who points the way thither; who seethe many just, and not absolute justice, and the like, --such personsmay be said to have opinion but not knowledge? That is certain. But those who see the absolute and eternal and immutable may be saidto know, and not to have opinion only? Neither can that be denied. The one loves and embraces the subjects of knowledge, the other thoseof opinion? The latter are the same, as I dare say will remember,who listened to sweet sounds and gazed upon fair colours, but wouldnot tolerate the existence of absolute beauty. Yes, I remember. Shall we then be guilty of any impropriety in calling them loversof opinion rather than lovers of wisdom, and will they be very angrywith us for thus describing them? I shall tell them not to be angry; no man should be angry at whatis true. But those who love the truth in each thing are to be called loversof wisdom and not lovers of opinion. Assuredly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK VI Socrates - GLAUCON And thus, Glaucon, after the argument has gone a weary way, the trueand the false philosophers have at length appeared in view. I do not think, he said, that the way could have been shortened." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of beauty and knowledge, arguing that opinions about beauty are not the same as knowledge. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Some people think that knowledge is the same thing as beauty. But I think it's just the opposite, and that knowledge is quite different from beauty. Beauty is a great blessing for all living creatures, but it is no help in understanding anything. It is only when you have looked at something beautiful that you start to ask questions about it, and then you are on the way to knowledge."""" Well, well,"" said Glaucon. ""Go on with your story, Socrates. What happened next?"" 23 THE DIALOGUE When I said this to Cephalus, he smiled and said: """"I hope you aren't going to tell me that you can't remember what happened after that. You must be joking!"""" And indeed I was rather hazy about some of the details. The next morning, then, we left Cephalus and went straight to Polus, who received us very warmly. He asked us if we had been to see Critias the day before, and when we said no, he offered to introduce us to him himself. We thanked him, but said we would rather go alone; so we took our leave and set off towards Phex's house. As we were walking along, Socrates suddenly stopped and turned round. 'Stop!' he said. 'Let's go back and see Polus again.' So we turned round and went back to Polus' house. He seemed surprised to see us, but welcomed us kindly and asked why we had changed our minds. Socrates replied: 'We were trying to find out how far a man's power extends over his own actions. For example, if someone does something bad and we punish him for it, do we make him better or worse? If we make him better, it is clearly because we have punished him; otherwise, how could he be any better? If we make him worse, on the other hand, it is clear that punishment does not help anyone; it just makes things worse. " 85 85 "I suppose not, I said; and yet I believe that we might have had abetter view of both of them if the discussion could have been confinedto this one subject and if there were not many other questions awaitingus, which he who desires to see in what respect the life of the justdiffers from that of the unjust must consider. And what is the next question? he asked. Surely, I said, the one which follows next in order. Inasmuch as philosophersonly are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those whowander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers,I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of ourState? And how can we rightly answer that question? Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutionsof our State --let them be our guardians. Very good. Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who isto keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes? There can be no question of that. And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledgeof the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clearpattern, and are unable as with a painter's eye to look at the absolutetruth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision ofthe other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justicein this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the orderof them --are not such persons, I ask, simply blind? Truly, he replied, they are much in that condition. And shall they be our guardians when there are others who, besidesbeing their equals in experience and falling short of them in no particularof virtue, also know the very truth of each thing? There can be no reason, he said, for rejecting those who have thisgreatest of all great qualities; they must always have the first placeunless they fail in some other respect. Suppose then, I said, that we determine how far they can unite thisand the other excellences. By all means. In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of the philosopherhas to be ascertained. We must come to an understanding about him,and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall alsoacknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible, and thatthose in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers inthe State. What do you mean? Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of asort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generationand corruption. Agreed. And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all truebeing; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honourable,which they are willing to renounce; as we said before of the loverand the man of ambition. True. And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not anotherquality which they should also possess? What quality? Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their mindfalsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth. Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them. 'May be,' my friend, I replied, is not the word; say rather 'mustbe affirmed:' for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot helploving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections. Right, he said. And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth? How can there be? Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood? Never. The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as faras in him lies, desire all truth? Assuredly. But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strongin one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be likea stream which has been drawn off into another channel. True. He whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will beabsorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodilypleasure --I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one." "Summary: The speaker discusses the qualities of philosophers and their ability to rule a state. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: The speaker, the person being addressed Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "We've been talking about philosophers,"" I said. ""Let's get back to them again for a moment. You were saying that it was the philosopher who could rule the state."""" It's the philosopher who is born to rule, but he's too soft and kind and gentle for this world, and so he'll never be allowed to rule."""" But these philosophers you're talking about, they must have been pretty tough men, if they could create the sort of philosophy you're describing?"""" They were men with horns,"" he said. ""They were men who lived by their wits and by their swords. Their minds were keen and sharp; they were clever at every trick in the game, and they didn't shrink from anything. They were like animals that live in the jungle, and that's why they had to live in the jungle. They could never live anywhere else."""" There are no men like that left today,"" I said. ""Not even gangsters are like that any more. All the real vitality has gone out of them, and they're just degenerate parasites living on the life of the nation."""" Yes,"" he said. ""That's what happened. That's what always happens. The vitality goes out of everything and leaves it degenerate and rotten. Look at yourself and look at me. We're both degenerates. We're sick men; we're dying men."""" He had touched a raw spot, and he knew it. His words cut through my body like a knife, and I felt myself grow cold all over. I could feel my face going white as snow, and I felt myself shaking. I tried to laugh, but I couldn't do it. My mouth wouldn't work right. """"Listen,"""" I said, """"I'm not a degenerate! I haven't got any of those symptoms yet! And you're not a degenerate either! You're just a little tired, that's all!"""" He laughed bitterly. """"A little tired! A little tired! What would you call it if you weren't a little tired?"""" I felt sick inside. I wanted to get away from him, and yet I wanted to stay with him. I couldn't move, and I couldn't speak. I could only stare at him with wide eyes while he continued: Suppose I told you that I'd been awake for two days now, and that I hadn't slept or eaten anything since last night? Would you still say that I wasn't tired?"""" No,"" I said. ""But there's nothing wrong with you that a little sleep wouldn't cure."""" No,"" he said. ""You're quite right. A little sleep will cure it."""" He looked straight into my eyes. """"Do you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to have some sleep right here on the floor, and you can sleep beside me!"""" I stood up quickly and backed away from him. """"Don't talk nonsense,"""" I said. """"Come on! Let's go back to the hotel!"""" " 86 86 "That is most certain. Such an one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; forthe motives which make another man desirous of having and spending,have no place in his character. Very true. Another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be considered. What is that? There should be no secret corner of illiberality; nothing can moreantagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever longing after thewhole of things both divine and human. Most true, he replied. Then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectatorof all time and all existence, think much of human life? He cannot. Or can such an one account death fearful? No indeed. Then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philosophy? Certainly not. Or again: can he who is harmoniously constituted, who is not covetousor mean, or a boaster, or a coward-can he, I say, ever be unjust orhard in his dealings? Impossible. Then you will soon observe whether a man is just and gentle, or rudeand unsociable; these are the signs which distinguish even in youththe philosophical nature from the unphilosophical. True. There is another point which should be remarked. What point? Whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning; for no one willlove that which gives him pain, and in which after much toil he makeslittle progress. Certainly not. And again, if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns,will he not be an empty vessel? That is certain. Labouring in vain, he must end in hating himself and his fruitlessoccupation? Yes. Then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophicnatures; we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory? Certainly. And once more, the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tendto disproportion? Undoubtedly. And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion? To proportion. Then, besides other qualities, we must try to find a naturally well-proportionedand gracious mind, which will move spontaneously towards the truebeing of everything. Certainly. Well, and do not all these qualities, which we have been enumerating,go together, and are they not, in a manner, necessary to a soul, whichis to have a full and perfect participation of being? They are absolutely necessary, he replied. And must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue whohas the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn, --noble, gracious,the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance, who are his kindred? The god of jealousy himself, he said, could find no fault with sucha study. And to men like him, I said, when perfected by years and education,and to these only you will entrust the State. Socrates - ADEIMANTUS Here Adeimantus interposed and said: To these statements, Socrates,no one can offer a reply; but when you talk in this way, a strangefeeling passes over the minds of your hearers: They fancy that theyare led astray a little at each step in the argument, owing to theirown want of skill in asking and answering questions; these littlesaccumulate, and at the end of the discussion they are found to havesustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear tobe turned upside down. And as unskilful players of draughts are atlast shut up by their more skilful adversaries and have no piece tomove, so they too find themselves shut up at last; for they have nothingto say in this new game of which words are the counters; and yet allthe time they are in the right. The observation is suggested to meby what is now occurring. For any one of us might say, that althoughin words he is not able to meet you at each step of the argument,he sees as a fact that the votaries of philosophy, when they carryon the study, not only in youth as a part of education, but as thepursuit of their maturer years, most of them become strange monsters,not to say utter rogues, and that those who may be considered thebest of them are made useless to the world by the very study whichyou extol. Well, and do you think that those who say so are wrong? I cannot tell, he replied; but I should like to know what is youropinion. Hear my answer; I am of opinion that they are quite right." "Summary: The text discusses the characteristics of a philosophical nature and whether or not it is compatible with justice and virtue. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical discussion Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" “I have done my best to show you that the philosopher is just and temperate and brave, and all the other things which we said that he would be,” he began; “and I should like to know whether you agree with me.” “I think I do agree with you,” replied Adeimantus, “though I must confess there are points at which I found difficulty. Mankind seem to have lost the power of philosophy, as they have of other arts. In antiquity, philosophy, literature, poetry, warfare, medicine, art, were all in the hands of a few, who transmitted them, as religious rites, from father to son. The sons of the educated became educated themselves; and thus education was handed on from generation to generation. But now each generation begins anew, and the world loses its wisdom. Nowhere can we find a teacher of philosophy, nowhere an initiate into the great mysteries of religion, nowhere a man who possesses knowledge of the whole system of existence. And so philosophy declines among us, and every other fine art, and we become mere barbarians, living like troglodytes and worse than beasts.” “You are quite right,” said Socrates; “you are quite right. There is no wisdom anywhere; the world is indeed a wilderness. 87 87 "Then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not ceasefrom evil until philosophers rule in them, when philosophers are acknowledgedby us to be of no use to them? You ask a question, I said, to which a reply can only be given ina parable. Yes, Socrates; and that is a way of speaking to which you are notat all accustomed, I suppose. I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged meinto such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and thenyou will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination:for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own Statesis so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it;and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourseto fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, likethe fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who istaller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deafand has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigationis not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another aboutthe steering --every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer,though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tellwho taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that itcannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one whosays the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and prayinghim to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail,but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw themoverboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senseswith drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possessionof the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking,they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expectedof them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in theirplot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their ownwhether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor,pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they calla good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention tothe year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever elsebelongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the commandof a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether otherpeople like or not-the possibility of this union of authority withthe steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughtsor been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in astate of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the truepilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer,a good-for-nothing? Of course, said Adeimantus. Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of thefigure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to theState; for you understand already. Certainly. Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprisedat finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explainit to him and try to convince him that their having honour would befar more extraordinary." "Summary: The speaker discusses the role of philosophers in society and compares it to a ship captain and sailors. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Parable Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Language: English" You are philosophers, you say? Then let us see if you have not left your ship’s work to meddle with matters that do not concern you. I am the captain of this State,” said Socrates; “you are the crew. Which of us is better fitted to decide whether we shall be right in taking a particular order or acting in a particular way, you or I?” “O man, men always say just what they ought not to say,” was the answer delivered in a fury by Adeimantus. “Do you think that on every occasion on which we disagree with you we are going to offer you the same complaint, as if we had nothing else to say?” “Then meet me in argument, Adeimantus,” rejoined Socrates; “that is all I ask, and prove to me that I am wrong and that you are right.” “And I will,” said Glaucon, “do you take that for an answer?” “Yes,” answered Socrates, “and I will try to prove to you that we are wiser than you are.” “Then you will admit that there may be other forms of government, of which we have only spoken of two, namely, democracy and tyranny?” “I should be very willing to admit that there may be many other good forms of government, but what we were talking about was injustice and the nature of it. And therefore we made an imaginary state, and then we went on to show how, when least defended, justice was most secure, and when most defended, was least secure.” “Very true.” “Suppose now that we go back to the word ‘justice,’ and ask, ‘What do you mean?’” “I may remind you,” said Polemarchus, “of something which I think has been said already, but the saying of which I forgot.” “What was it?” “When we spoke of a man who was unjust, we said that he who did wrong in private life was a thief.” “And we further added,” replied Socrates, “that he who took away another’s property by force, whether the man was rich or poor, was called a robber.” “Very good,” he said; “but suppose that some one denies the truth of all this: what would be said to him?” “Why, what would be said to him whom rioting and drinking and sensuality make ill, and who says that intemperance is not a vice?” “Perhaps he might be told, as you suggest, that if he had any sense he would easily know that if a man’s affairs went on badly under the guidance of another, this was not to be attributed to any virtue in his director, but to his own badness, and that there must be some defect in him who is really to blame.” “That,” replied Polemarchus, “may be readily allowed.” “But when injustice has prevailed, and there are desolations in the land, is the consequent ruin to be attributed to the injustice, or to some other cause?” “Surely to the injustice.” 88 88 "I will. Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to beuseless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him toattribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not usethem, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailorsto be commanded by him --that is not the order of nature; neitherare 'the wise to go to the doors of the rich' --the ingenious authorof this saying told a lie --but the truth is, that, when a man isill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, andhe who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The rulerwho is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruledby him; although the present governors of mankind are of a differentstamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and thetrue helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings andstar-gazers. Precisely so, he said. For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblestpursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of theopposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury isdone to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers,the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greaternumber of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in whichopinion I agreed. Yes. And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? True. Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majorityis also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the chargeof philosophy any more than the other? By all means. And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the descriptionof the gentle and noble nature. Truth, as you will remember, was hisleader, whom he followed always and in all things; failing in this,he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy. Yes, that was said. Well, and is not this one quality, to mention no others, greatly atvariance with present notions of him? Certainly, he said. And have we not a right to say in his defence, that the true loverof knowledge is always striving after being --that is his nature;he will not rest in the multiplicity of individuals which is an appearanceonly, but will go on --the keen edge will not be blunted, nor theforce of his desire abate until he have attained the knowledge ofthe true nature of every essence by a sympathetic and kindred powerin the soul, and by that power drawing near and mingling and becomingincorporate with very being, having begotten mind and truth, he willhave knowledge and will live and grow truly, and then, and not tillthen, will he cease from his travail. Nothing, he said, can be more just than such a description of him. And will the love of a lie be any part of a philosopher's nature?Will he not utterly hate a lie? He will. And when truth is the captain, we cannot suspect any evil of the bandwhich he leads? Impossible. Justice and health of mind will be of the company, and temperancewill follow after? True, he replied. Neither is there any reason why I should again set in array the philosopher'svirtues, as you will doubtless remember that courage, magnificence,apprehension, memory, were his natural gifts. And you objected that,although no one could deny what I then said, still, if you leave wordsand look at facts, the persons who are thus described are some ofthem manifestly useless, and the greater number utterly depraved;we were then led to enquire into the grounds of these accusations,and have now arrived at the point of asking why are the majority bad,which question of necessity brought us back to the examination anddefinition of the true philosopher. Exactly. And we have next to consider the of the philosophic nature, why somany are spoiled and so few escape spoiling --I am speaking of thosewho were said to be useless but not wicked --and, when we have donewith them, we will speak of the imitators of philosophy, what mannerof men are they who aspire after a profession which is above themand of which they are unworthy, and then, by their manifold inconsistencies,bring upon philosophy, and upon all philosophers, that universal reprobationof which we speak. What are these corruptions? he said. I will see if I can explain them to you. Every one will admit thata nature having in perfection all the qualities which we requiredin a philosopher, is a rare plant which is seldom seen among men. Rare indeed. And what numberless and powerful causes tend to destroy these rarenatures! What causes? In the first place there are their own virtues, their courage, temperance,and the rest of them, every one of which praise worthy qualities (andthis is a most singular circumstance) destroys and distracts fromphilosophy the soul which is the possessor of them." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of philosophy and the characteristics of philosophers. Narrative arc: Philosophical exploration and discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Language: English" There is a quality of philosophy which can only be gotten from the study of life, and which no book on philosophy will give you. In other words, it’s impossible to get the real meaning of these terms by definition. You can’t define them in any ultimate sense, because they are facts. And as for the general nature of philosophy, I’d say this: The man who has philosophy is the man who has the ability to see through things, the man who is able to penetrate below the surface of appearances; he is the man who is able to grasp the truth behind illusions. He is the man who understands that things are not always what they seem. For instance, take a murderer. Most people would look at him and say: “He’s a murderer.” But he may be more than that. He may also be a philosopher. Then again, take a preacher. People might say he is a moral man, or even a saint. But he might also be a philosopher. A philosopher is a man who knows how to live with himself. He is a man who is able to face life, and all of its problems, without becoming emotionally upset or confused. A philosopher is a man who is able to control his desires, and his passions. He is a man who is able to make decisions, and to act upon them. He is a man who is able to stand up for his rights, and to fight for them when necessary. He is a man who is able to protect himself, and to protect those whom he loves. He is a man who is able to withstand temptation, and to resist evil. He is a man who is able to endure hardship, and to accept the inevitable. He is a man who is able to handle failure, and to rise above it. He is a man who is able to cope with success, and to avoid its temptations. He is a man who is able to deal with authority, and to exercise it when necessary. He is a man who is able to get along with people, and to influence them. He is a man who is able to stand alone, and to bear the burden of responsibility. He is a man who is able to meet danger, and to face death with courage. He is a man who is able to love and be loved. He is a man who is able to hate and be hated. He is a man who is able to laugh and to cry. He is a man who is able to rejoice and to suffer. He is a man who is able to hope and to despair. He is a man who is able to dream and to awaken. He is a man who is able to live and to die. In short, a philosopher is a man who is able to live like a human being. 89 89 "That is very singular, he replied. Then there are all the ordinary goods of life --beauty, wealth, strength,rank, and great connections in the State --you understand the sortof things --these also have a corrupting and distracting effect. I understand; but I should like to know more precisely what you meanabout them. Grasp the truth as a whole, I said, and in the right way; you willthen have no difficulty in apprehending the preceding remarks, andthey will no longer appear strange to you. And how am I to do so? he asked. Why, I said, we know that all germs or seeds, whether vegetable oranimal, when they fail to meet with proper nutriment or climate orsoil, in proportion to their vigour, are all the more sensitive tothe want of a suitable environment, for evil is a greater enemy towhat is good than what is not. Very true. There is reason in supposing that the finest natures, when under alienconditions, receive more injury than the inferior, because the contrastis greater. Certainly. And may we not say, Adeimantus, that the most gifted minds, when theyare ill-educated, become pre-eminently bad? Do not great crimes andthe spirit of pure evil spring out of a fulness of nature ruined byeducation rather than from any inferiority, whereas weak natures arescarcely capable of any very great good or very great evil? There I think that you are right. And our philosopher follows the same analogy-he is like a plant which,having proper nurture, must necessarily grow and mature into all virtue,but, if sown and planted in an alien soil, becomes the most noxiousof all weeds, unless he be preserved by some divine power. Do youreally think, as people so often say, that our youth are corruptedby Sophists, or that private teachers of the art corrupt them in anydegree worth speaking of? Are not the public who say these thingsthe greatest of all Sophists? And do they not educate to perfectionyoung and old, men and women alike, and fashion them after their ownhearts? When is this accomplished? he said. When they meet together, and the world sits down at an assembly, orin a court of law, or a theatre, or a camp, or in any other popularresort, and there is a great uproar, and they praise some things whichare being said or done, and blame other things, equally exaggeratingboth, shouting and clapping their hands, and the echo of the rocksand the place in which they are assembled redoubles the sound of thepraise or blame --at such a time will not a young man's heart, asthey say, leap within him? Will any private training enable him tostand firm against the overwhelming flood of popular opinion? or willhe be carried away by the stream? Will he not have the notions ofgood and evil which the public in general have --he will do as theydo, and as they are, such will he be? Yes, Socrates; necessity will compel him. And yet, I said, there is a still greater necessity, which has notbeen mentioned. What is that? The gentle force of attainder or confiscation or death which, as youare aware, these new Sophists and educators who are the public, applywhen their words are powerless. Indeed they do; and in right good earnest. Now what opinion of any other Sophist, or of any private person, canbe expected to overcome in such an unequal contest? None, he replied. No, indeed, I said, even to make the attempt is a great piece of folly;there neither is, nor has been, nor is ever likely to be, any differenttype of character which has had no other training in virtue but thatwhich is supplied by public opinion --I speak, my friend, of humanvirtue only; what is more than human, as the proverb says, is notincluded: for I would not have you ignorant that, in the present evilstate of governments, whatever is saved and comes to good is savedby the power of God, as we may truly say. I quite assent, he replied. Then let me crave your assent also to a further observation." "Summary: The text discusses the corrupting influence of certain goods and how they can lead to evil when not properly nurtured. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" Socrates And in the second place, most important of all, they must be nurtured from their very cradle by a certain kind of training and education which, being corrupted and perverted, becomes an evil instead of a good. You cannot have gold that is not alloyed; for if it were perfectly pure it would be invisible and useless. And you cannot have fine conduct or goodness without the opposite qualities of badness, which are a spur to it. Thus good men will come to grief unless they have contact with evil and those who are unacquainted with the latter will never be able to succeed in life. But Adeimantus I don't like this, Socrates. It seems to me a terrible doctrine that evil can only be overcome by evil. Suppose that we are friends and I am living in your house as a fellow-boarder. Will you then take care to educate me in the right way so that I can't help but turn out good, and not allow me to associate with anyone else? For you know that if I go outside your doors into the town I shall hear such dreadful things that you won't want to answer for what I may become. Socrates Don't worry about that. 90 90 "What are you going to say? Why, that all those mercenary individuals, whom the many call Sophistsand whom they deem to be their adversaries, do, in fact, teach nothingbut the opinion of the many, that is to say, the opinions of theirassemblies; and this is their wisdom. I might compare them to a manwho should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beastwho is fed by him-he would learn how to approach and handle him, alsoat what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse,and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds,when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you maysuppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, hehas become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, andmakes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, althoughhe has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passionsof which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable,or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastesand tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in whichthe beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes; and he cangive no other account of them except that the just and noble are thenecessary, having never himself seen, and having no power of explainingto others the nature of either, or the difference between them, whichis immense. By heaven, would not such an one be a rare educator? Indeed, he would. And in what way does he who thinks that wisdom is the discernmentof the tempers and tastes of the motley multitude, whether in paintingor music, or, finally, in politics, differ from him whom I have beendescribing For when a man consorts with the many, and exhibits tothem his poem or other work of art or the service which he has donethe State, making them his judges when he is not obliged, the so-callednecessity of Diomede will oblige him to produce whatever they praise.And yet the reasons are utterly ludicrous which they give in confirmationof their own notions about the honourable and good. Did you ever hearany of them which were not? No, nor am I likely to hear. You recognise the truth of what I have been saying? Then let me askyou to consider further whether the world will ever be induced tobelieve in the existence of absolute beauty rather than of the manybeautiful, or of the absolute in each kind rather than of the manyin each kind? Certainly not. Then the world cannot possibly be a philosopher? Impossible. And therefore philosophers must inevitably fall under the censureof the world? They must. And of individuals who consort with the mob and seek to please them? That is evident. Then, do you see any way in which the philosopher can be preservedin his calling to the end? and remember what we were saying of him,that he was to have quickness and memory and courage and magnificence--these were admitted by us to be the true philosopher's gifts. Yes. Will not such an one from his early childhood be in all things firstamong all, especially if his bodily endowments are like his mentalones? Certainly, he said. And his friends and fellow-citizens will want to use him as he getsolder for their own purposes? No question. Falling at his feet, they will make requests to him and do him honourand flatter him, because they want to get into their hands now, thepower which he will one day possess. That often happens, he said. And what will a man such as he be likely to do under such circumstances,especially if he be a citizen of a great city, rich and noble, anda tall proper youth? Will he not be full of boundless aspirations,and fancy himself able to manage the affairs of Hellenes and of barbarians,and having got such notions into his head will he not dilate and elevatehimself in the fulness of vain pomp and senseless pride? To be sure he will. Now, when he is in this state of mind, if some one gently comes tohim and tells him that he is a fool and must get understanding, whichcan only be got by slaving for it, do you think that, under such adversecircumstances, he will be easily induced to listen?" "Summary: The text discusses the teachings of sophists and the challenges faced by philosophers in a world that values popularity over wisdom. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "The sophists, in their place, are doing more good than the philosophers. They teach people how to win a case when they are in court and that is an art which every man who has dealings with his fellow men should know. It is not so easy as it looks; I have seen some of the best lawyers in the world get tangled up like flies in a cobweb if they had to give an answer on the spot. But there again you come back to the same thing: no man can teach another to be wise unless he himself is wise. The sophists are always talking about wisdom, but they are themselves nothing but fools. One of them was boasting to me the other day that he could prove any proposition by logic. I said, 'Well then, I will put one to you.' And I took out my revolver and shot him dead. There! That's logic for you."""" He sat down and filled his pipe. """"Now,"""" he said, """"that reminds me that I have been wanting to ask you something. What do you think of my friend Mr. Gregory?"""" I find him rather difficult,"" I said. ""He talks very loudly and seems to think that the louder he shouts the wiser he sounds."""" You're right there,"" said Lestrade. ""He has not quite given it away yet, but I am close upon him. I have never let him see that I suspect him. I just toss it off as a joke when I talk to him, but I have got my eye on him. He may be slow, but what he gains in one direction he loses in the other. If there's anything that he can't understand he won't make a fuss over it, and that stands him in good stead now."" Well, here is Watson,"" said Holmes, raising his voice above the tangle of words in which we were enveloped. How are you getting on?"" Well, I've got all the evidence together."""" That figures it out rather strongly against No. 1, Mr. Joseph Stangerson."" Yes, but the coachman can look after himself. I've done the father for the lighthouse and young Joe for the dog. We want one of the sons to match with the footprint."" It fits the foot of No. 2."" Exactly. There you make your mistake. Nothing of the sort. Your No. 2 had a size eight shoe, and so has everyone else in the family. We must go higher."" Number 3?"" Yes, of course."" Number 4?"" Precisely. Good-night, Lestrade. Night, Watson. I think there is nothing further to be said. I'll turn the handle up again, for all that."" As I turned the lantern down I gazed up at the dark, dripping ceiling and felt the chills of the night creeping superstitious fears into my heart. The old familiar room with its comfortable corners crowded round me, the fat opossum that swung from the rafters, the querulous voice which I knew so well and the kindly, trusting face of my friend and guardian. Yet here was this sinister place, through which I had passed so fearlessly a thousand times, and ever since I had come to myself after the blow received by me in London I had never looked upon it save without a shudder. " 91 91 "Far otherwise. And even if there be some one who through inherent goodness or naturalreasonableness has had his eyes opened a little and is humbled andtaken captive by philosophy, how will his friends behave when theythink that they are likely to lose the advantage which they were hopingto reap from his companionship? Will they not do and say anythingto prevent him from yielding to his better nature and to render histeacher powerless, using to this end private intrigues as well aspublic prosecutions? There can be no doubt of it. And how can one who is thus circumstanced ever become a philosopher? Impossible. Then were we not right in saying that even the very qualities whichmake a man a philosopher may, if he be ill-educated, divert him fromphilosophy, no less than riches and their accompaniments and the otherso-called goods of life? We were quite right. Thus, my excellent friend, is brought about all that ruin and failurewhich I have been describing of the natures best adapted to the bestof all pursuits; they are natures which we maintain to be rare atany time; this being the class out of which come the men who are theauthors of the greatest evil to States and individuals; and also ofthe greatest good when the tide carries them in that direction; buta small man never was the doer of any great thing either to individualsor to States. That is most true, he said. And so philosophy is left desolate, with her marriage rite incomplete:for her own have fallen away and forsaken her, and while they areleading a false and unbecoming life, other unworthy persons, seeingthat she has no kinsmen to be her protectors, enter in and dishonourher; and fasten upon her the reproaches which, as you say, her reproversutter, who affirm of her votaries that some are good for nothing,and that the greater number deserve the severest punishment. That is certainly what people say. Yes; and what else would you expect, I said, when you think of thepuny creatures who, seeing this land open to them --a land well stockedwith fair names and showy titles --like prisoners running out of prisoninto a sanctuary, take a leap out of their trades into philosophy;those who do so being probably the cleverest hands at their own miserablecrafts? For, although philosophy be in this evil case, still thereremains a dignity about her which is not to be found in the arts.And many are thus attracted by her whose natures are imperfect andwhose souls are maimed and disfigured by their meannesses, as theirbodies are by their trades and crafts. Is not this unavoidable? Yes. Are they not exactly like a bald little tinker who has just got outof durance and come into a fortune; he takes a bath and puts on anew coat, and is decked out as a bridegroom going to marry his master'sdaughter, who is left poor and desolate? A most exact parallel. What will be the issue of such marriages? Will they not be vile andbastard? There can be no question of it. And when persons who are unworthy of education approach philosophyand make an alliance with her who is a rank above them what sort ofideas and opinions are likely to be generated? Will they not be sophismscaptivating to the ear, having nothing in them genuine, or worthyof or akin to true wisdom?" "Summary: The text discusses the challenges faced by philosophers and how their pursuit of knowledge can be hindered by their surroundings. Narrative arc: Philosophical reflection Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, his friend Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I do not say that it is easy to be a philosopher, but I do say that it is very much harder than it looks, and I have sometimes wondered whether some of the philosophers who come to grief in the manner which I have described might not have done better if they had been less philosophical. Take the case of my friend's friend, for instance. He was a man who was always asking questions about things which did not matter. It was not his fault; it was simply the way he was made. He had read too many books or perhaps too few. In any case, the result was that he would suddenly break off in the middle of a conversation to ask you what you meant by this word or that word. """"What do you mean by dog?"""" he once said to me. """"Do you mean a sheep-dog, or a terrier, or a St. Bernard?"""" And then when I had explained all these various kinds of dogs he would say: Well, but what do you mean by animal? Do you mean a rabbit or an elephant?"""" and he would go on till I was nearly out of my mind. And yet he was a good chap really, although he could be rather trying at times. The evening before he disappeared he came round to see me and we talked about philosophy until quite late. It was after this that I found him missing from breakfast next morning, and then I knew that something must have happened to him. " 92 92 "No doubt, he said. Then, Adeimantus, I said, the worthy disciples of philosophy willbe but a small remnant: perchance some noble and well-educated person,detained by exile in her service, who in the absence of corruptinginfluences remains devoted to her; or some lofty soul born in a meancity, the politics of which he contemns and neglects; and there maybe a gifted few who leave the arts, which they justly despise, andcome to her; --or peradventure there are some who are restrained byour friend Theages' bridle; for everything in the life of Theagesconspired to divert him from philosophy; but ill-health kept him awayfrom politics. My own case of the internal sign is hardly worth mentioning,for rarely, if ever, has such a monitor been given to any other man.Those who belong to this small class have tasted how sweet and blesseda possession philosophy is, and have also seen enough of the madnessof the multitude; and they know that no politician is honest, noris there any champion of justice at whose side they may fight andbe saved. Such an one may be compared to a man who has fallen amongwild beasts --he will not join in the wickedness of his fellows, butneither is he able singly to resist all their fierce natures, andtherefore seeing that he would be of no use to the State or to hisfriends, and reflecting that he would have to throw away his lifewithout doing any good either to himself or others, he holds his peace,and goes his own way. He is like one who, in the storm of dust andsleet which the driving wind hurries along, retires under the shelterof a wall; and seeing the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he iscontent, if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil orunrighteousness, and depart in peace and good-will, with bright hopes. Yes, he said, and he will have done a great work before he departs. A great work --yes; but not the greatest, unless he find a State suitableto him; for in a State which is suitable to him, he will have a largergrowth and be the saviour of his country, as well as of himself. The causes why philosophy is in such an evil name have now been sufficientlyexplained: the injustice of the charges against her has been shown-isthere anything more which you wish to say? Nothing more on that subject, he replied; but I should like to knowwhich of the governments now existing is in your opinion the one adaptedto her. Not any of them, I said; and that is precisely the accusation whichI bring against them --not one of them is worthy of the philosophicnature, and hence that nature is warped and estranged; --as the exoticseed which is sown in a foreign land becomes denaturalized, and iswont to be overpowered and to lose itself in the new soil, even sothis growth of philosophy, instead of persisting, degenerates andreceives another character. But if philosophy ever finds in the Statethat perfection which she herself is, then will be seen that she isin truth divine, and that all other things, whether natures of menor institutions, are but human; --and now, I know that you are goingto ask, what that State is. No, he said; there you are wrong, for I was going to ask another question--whether it is the State of which. we are the founders and inventors,or some other? Yes, I replied, ours in most respects; but you may remember my sayingbefore, that some living authority would always be required in theState having the same idea of the constitution which guided you whenas legislator you were laying down the laws. That was said, he replied. Yes, but not in a satisfactory manner; you frightened us by interposingobjections, which certainly showed that the discussion would be longand difficult; and what still remains is the reverse of easy. What is there remaining? The question how the study of philosophy may be so ordered as notto be the ruin of the State: All great attempts are attended withrisk; 'hard is the good,' as men say. Still, he said, let the point be cleared up, and the enquiry willthen be complete. I shall not be hindered, I said, by any want of will, but, if at all,by a want of power: my zeal you may see for yourselves; and pleaseto remark in what I am about to say how boldly and unhesitatinglyI declare that States should pursue philosophy, not as they do now,but in a different spirit." "Summary: The speaker discusses the nature of philosophy and its relationship to the state, arguing that true philosophers are a rare breed and that the current political systems are not conducive to their growth. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Adeimantus, Theages Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "You are quite right in supposing that the true philosophers are an uncommon breed. But when they do appear, they are useful to the state; and he who has the charge of any state is quite right in ordering them to be put to death if they can't be prevented from doing harm."""" The young man made no answer. Adeimantus looked at him enquiringly. ""He seems to me,"" he said, ""to be meditating some jest or irony."" ""Possibly,"" I replied, ""he may be doing so; but then he may not. However, we shall know better when we see whether we can get anything out of him."""" For a moment he seemed to meditate silence, then he said: And yet, my dear Glaucon, what if he were to prove to us that the state is bad in every way?"""" Yes,"" I said, ""that would be too high a feat, but we can't know till we try."" And so,"" he rejoined, ""we must choose these men as umpires, for they seem to me to be in a good position to decide; and indeed there was a prophecy uttered regarding them which, I think, shows that they will be judges in this kind of enquiry. The prophet was Simonides, who, according to the tradition, was asked by someone to compose a strain of music about a pack-ass, and said that he could only produce one meter which would suit such an object. This was the iambic tetrameter, the same metre which we have been using in our argument. If, then, the language of the tetrameter is most naturally applied to a donkey, and the examination of the just and unjust in relation to the state and to human nature has resulted in our having to praise or blame them in strains of iambic verse, clearly these measures will be the proper expression of our own approval or disapproval of them. And, as I say, the result has been that we are compelled to praise the unjust and blame the just. Hence, as I infer, Simonides was quite right long ago in saying that the just never rest either by night or day, and that the immortal gods never cease persecuting them."""" At this point a servant entered the court and took Theages away. He had been present throughout the hearing, and had given his assent to all that we said; but he had taken no part in the conversation. When he had gone, Adeimantus continued: """"I thought that our friend might feel afraid of being compelled to give evidence against himself."""" " 93 93 "In what manner? At present, I said, the students of philosophy are quite young; beginningwhen they are hardly past childhood, they devote only the time savedfrom moneymaking and housekeeping to such pursuits; and even thoseof them who are reputed to have most of the philosophic spirit, whenthey come within sight of the great difficulty of the subject, I meandialectic, take themselves off. In after life when invited by someone else, they may, perhaps, go and hear a lecture, and about thisthey make much ado, for philosophy is not considered by them to betheir proper business: at last, when they grow old, in most casesthey are extinguished more truly than Heracleitus' sun, inasmuch asthey never light up again. But what ought to be their course? Just the opposite. In childhood and youth their study, and what philosophythey learn, should be suited to their tender years: during this periodwhile they are growing up towards manhood, the chief and special careshould be given to their bodies that they may have them to use inthe service of philosophy; as life advances and the intellect beginsto mature, let them increase the gymnastics of the soul; but whenthe strength of our citizens fails and is past civil and militaryduties, then let them range at will and engage in no serious labour,as we intend them to live happily here, and to crown this life witha similar happiness in another. How truly in earnest you are, Socrates! he said; I am sure of that;and yet most of your hearers, if I am not mistaken, are likely tobe still more earnest in their opposition to you, and will never beconvinced; Thrasymachus least of all. Do not make a quarrel, I said, between Thrasymachus and me, who haverecently become friends, although, indeed, we were never enemies;for I shall go on striving to the utmost until I either convert himand other men, or do something which may profit them against the daywhen they live again, and hold the like discourse in another stateof existence. You are speaking of a time which is not very near. Rather, I replied, of a time which is as nothing in comparison witheternity. Nevertheless, I do not wonder that the many refuse to believe;for they have never seen that of which we are now speaking realised;they have seen only a conventional imitation of philosophy, consistingof words artificially brought together, not like these of ours havinga natural unity. But a human being who in word and work is perfectlymoulded, as far as he can be, into the proportion and likeness ofvirtue --such a man ruling in a city which bears the same image, theyhave never yet seen, neither one nor many of them --do you think thatthey ever did? No indeed. No, my friend, and they have seldom, if ever, heard free and noblesentiments; such as men utter when they are earnestly and by everymeans in their power seeking after truth for the sake of knowledge,while they look coldly on the subtleties of controversy, of whichthe end is opinion and strife, whether they meet with them in thecourts of law or in society. They are strangers, he said, to the words of which you speak. And this was what we foresaw, and this was the reason why truth forcedus to admit, not without fear and hesitation, that neither citiesnor States nor individuals will ever attain perfection until the smallclass of philosophers whom we termed useless but not corrupt are providentiallycompelled, whether they will or not, to take care of the State, anduntil a like necessity be laid on the State to obey them; or untilkings, or if not kings, the sons of kings or princes, are divinelyinspired ' d with a true love of true philosophy. That either or bothof these alternatives are impossible, I see no reason to affirm: ifthey were so, we might indeed be justly ridiculed as dreamers andvisionaries. Am I not right? Quite right. If then, in the countless ages of the past, or at the present hourin some foreign clime which is far away and beyond our ken, the perfectedphilosopher is or has been or hereafter shall be compelled by a superiorpower to have the charge of the State, we are ready to assert to thedeath, that this our constitution has been, and is --yea, and willbe whenever the Muse of Philosophy is queen. There is no impossibilityin all this; that there is a difficulty, we acknowledge ourselves. My opinion agrees with yours, he said. But do you mean to say that this is not the opinion of the multitude?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the current state of philosophy and proposes that philosophers should play a more active role in society. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Thrasymachus Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Of course, there's no use pretending that we can put it right again. It isn't going to happen. Philosophy is dead."""" You are not serious?"" No, I'm just talking. The fact is that philosophy has done its work and must now give place to something else. The result of all our thinking is that the universe is a mechanism. We can only await the consequences of this discovery with interest. Of course, in the meantime we shall have to go on living in the old way; but for the future we can see nothing but war and revolution and chaos."" And you think that philosophers should encourage these things?"" On the contrary. If they want to be useful they ought to go out and do some fighting themselves. They ought to become soldiers or police-officers. Then when people get into trouble they will at least know who to come to. I don't mean to say that you would like this yourself. But you had better not try to make other people share your own lack of courage."""" Socrates was silent. He felt himself to be in an awkward position. For one thing he had been struck by the vividness of the picture which Thrasymachus had drawn, and he wondered whether he himself might not even now be in some degree guilty of the sin of which he had accused him. And then he had also noticed how accurate Thrasymachus' description was. In his innermost heart he knew that the life which he himself led was contemptible. He knew that he was afraid of death, and that he had never been brave enough to kill a man or even to strike him. Even if the city should ever really need philosophers it was clear that he was not the kind of philosopher whom the city could afford to employ. He decided that he must be more careful of his language in future, and must try to speak as though he were what he wished to be. As a matter of fact he did not believe that philosophy was dead. He thought that it was only dormant, and that in time the world would awake to its importance. But he did not believe that he himself was the man to rouse it. And yet it distressed him to feel that he was so contemptible. There was another thing which made him unhappy. It was the tone in which Thrasymachus had spoken. His words had been harsh and violent, and he had given the impression that he hated everyone. Socrates found himself wishing that Thrasymachus would sometimes speak as he spoke himself, in a quiet voice, and with a smile that showed that he was half in jest. CHAPTER IX Glaucon and Adeimantus were both very angry with Thrasymachus, and Adeimantus was loud in his abuse. """"You are a most disagreeable person,"""" he said. """"There is nothing civilised about you at all. I wish you wouldn't come any more."""" Thrasymachus turned on him furiously. " 94 94 "I should imagine not, he replied. O my friend, I said, do not attack the multitude: they will changetheir minds, if, not in an aggressive spirit, but gently and withthe view of soothing them and removing their dislike of over-education,you show them your philosophers as they really are and describe asyou were just now doing their character and profession, and then mankindwill see that he of whom you are speaking is not such as they supposed--if they view him in this new light, they will surely change theirnotion of him, and answer in another strain. Who can be at enmitywith one who loves them, who that is himself gentle and free fromenvy will be jealous of one in whom there is no jealousy? Nay, letme answer for you, that in a few this harsh temper may be found butnot in the majority of mankind. I quite agree with you, he said. And do you not also think, as I do, that the harsh feeling which themany entertain towards philosophy originates in the pretenders, whorush in uninvited, and are always abusing them, and finding faultwith them, who make persons instead of things the theme of their conversation?and nothing can be more unbecoming in philosophers than this. It is most unbecoming. For he, Adeimantus, whose mind is fixed upon true being, has surelyno time to look down upon the affairs of earth, or to be filled withmalice and envy, contending against men; his eye is ever directedtowards things fixed and immutable, which he sees neither injuringnor injured by one another, but all in order moving according to reason;these he imitates, and to these he will, as far as he can, conformhimself. Can a man help imitating that with which he holds reverentialconverse? Impossible. And the philosopher holding converse with the divine order, becomesorderly and divine, as far as the nature of man allows; but like everyone else, he will suffer from detraction. Of course. And if a necessity be laid upon him of fashioning, not only himself,but human nature generally, whether in States or individuals, intothat which he beholds elsewhere, will he, think you, be an unskilfulartificer of justice, temperance, and every civil virtue? Anything but unskilful. And if the world perceives that what we are saying about him is thetruth, will they be angry with philosophy? Will they disbelieve us,when we tell them that no State can be happy which is not designedby artists who imitate the heavenly pattern? They will not be angry if they understand, he said. But how will theydraw out the plan of which you are speaking? They will begin by taking the State and the manners of men, from which,as from a tablet, they will rub out the picture, and leave a cleansurface. This is no easy task. But whether easy or not, herein willlie the difference between them and every other legislator, --theywill have nothing to do either with individual or State, and willinscribe no laws, until they have either found, or themselves made,a clean surface. They will be very right, he said. Having effected this, they will proceed to trace an outline of theconstitution? No doubt. And when they are filling in the work, as I conceive, they will oftenturn their eyes upwards and downwards: I mean that they will firstlook at absolute justice and beauty and temperance, and again at thehuman copy; and will mingle and temper the various elements of lifeinto the image of a man; and thus they will conceive according tothat other image, which, when existing among men, Homer calls theform and likeness of God. Very true, he said. And one feature they will erase, and another they will put in, theyhave made the ways of men, as far as possible, agreeable to the waysof God? Indeed, he said, in no way could they make a fairer picture. And now, I said, are we beginning to persuade those whom you describedas rushing at us with might and main, that the painter of constitutionsis such an one as we are praising; at whom they were so very indignantbecause to his hands we committed the State; and are they growinga little calmer at what they have just heard? Much calmer, if there is any sense in them. Why, where can they still find any ground for objection? Will theydoubt that the philosopher is a lover of truth and being? They would not be so unreasonable. Or that his nature, being such as we have delineated, is akin to thehighest good?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the nature of philosophers and their relationship with society. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: The speaker, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "When they're in the mood they have a certain quality which is attractive; when they're out of it they're just plain ugly, and that's what you see most of the time."""" Adeimantus looked at him sharply, but there was no expression on his face. """"Do you believe in philosophers?"""" he asked. """"I mean do you believe that men who think about things can make them better?"""" I don't know,"" said George. ""I've got to admit I don't really care much one way or the other. All I know is that they seem to be just like any other people except that they talk about things more. They're not any better than anybody else."""" You think they ought to mix with ordinary people?"" Of course they ought. If they don't we get into trouble. Only they never will. It isn't natural for them to mix with ordinary people. They want to go their own way."""" Why should we let them go their own way?"" asked Adeimantus. We haven't got the power to prevent it. Besides it doesn't matter very much. They're only a minority and most of them are pretty harmless."" You don't think they ought to be mixed with ordinary people? That's all I'm asking you."" No, I don't."" Why not?"" Because it would be a mistake."" Would it?"" Yes, it would."" What difference does it make?"" It would make a great deal of difference."" But why?"" Because if they were mixed up with ordinary people they'd lose their grip on life and become just like everybody else."""" Oh,"" said Adeimantus. ""I thought perhaps you meant something else."" He paused. """"You know, George, this conversation has opened my eyes,"""" he said. """"I had no idea you knew so much about life."""" George did not reply to this. He was staring morosely out of the window. They watched the cars rushing by. On the pavement below girls in bright summer dresses hurried along with parasols or shopping bags. They were slim and tanned from the sun and their hair was yellow with permanent wave. They were laughing and talking together. In the shops behind them manikins displayed fashionable clothes and shop assistants in smart suits and white shirts looked out through the windows. There were flowers in tubs on the pavements and a fragrant smell of them came through the open window of the taxi. The two men sat silent, staring out. Suddenly George spoke again. When I was in Egypt I saw a lot of locusts,"" he said. ""They were flying across the sea when we were coming back to Alexandria after a day's fishing. There were millions of them, miles away across the water, moving in black waves against the sky. " 95 95 "Neither can they doubt this. But again, will they tell us that such a nature, placed under favourablecircumstances, will not be perfectly good and wise if any ever was?Or will they prefer those whom we have rejected? Surely not. Then will they still be angry at our saying, that, until philosophersbear rule, States and individuals will have no rest from evil, norwill this our imaginary State ever be realised? I think that they will be less angry. Shall we assume that they are not only less angry but quite gentle,and that they have been converted and for very shame, if for no otherreason, cannot refuse to come to terms? By all means, he said. Then let us suppose that the reconciliation has been effected. Willany one deny the other point, that there may be sons of kings or princeswho are by nature philosophers? Surely no man, he said. And when they have come into being will any one say that they mustof necessity be destroyed; that they can hardly be saved is not deniedeven by us; but that in the whole course of ages no single one ofthem can escape --who will venture to affirm this? Who indeed! But, said I, one is enough; let there be one man who has a city obedientto his will, and he might bring into existence the ideal polity aboutwhich the world is so incredulous. Yes, one is enough. The ruler may impose the laws and institutions which we have beendescribing, and the citizens may possibly be willing to obey them? Certainly. And that others should approve of what we approve, is no miracle orimpossibility? I think not. But we have sufficiently shown, in what has preceded, that all this,if only possible, is assuredly for the best. We have. And now we say not only that our laws, if they could be enacted, wouldbe for the best, but also that the enactment of them, though difficult,is not impossible. Very good. And so with pain and toil we have reached the end of one subject,but more remains to be discussed; --how and by what studies and pursuitswill the saviours of the constitution be created, and at what agesare they to apply themselves to their several studies? Certainly. I omitted the troublesome business of the possession of women, andthe procreation of children, and the appointment of the rulers, becauseI knew that the perfect State would be eyed with jealousy and wasdifficult of attainment; but that piece of cleverness was not of muchservice to me, for I had to discuss them all the same. The women andchildren are now disposed of, but the other question of the rulersmust be investigated from the very beginning. We were saying, as youwill remember, that they were to be lovers of their country, triedby the test of pleasures and pains, and neither in hardships, norin dangers, nor at any other critical moment were to lose their patriotism--he was to be rejected who failed, but he who always came forth pure,like gold tried in the refiner's fire, was to be made a ruler, andto receive honours and rewards in life and after death. This was thesort of thing which was being said, and then the argument turned asideand veiled her face; not liking to stir the question which has nowarisen. I perfectly remember, he said. Yes, my friend, I said, and I then shrank from hazarding the boldword; but now let me dare to say --that the perfect guardian mustbe a philosopher. Yes, he said, let that be affirmed. And do not suppose that there will be many of them; for the giftswhich were deemed by us to be essential rarely grow together; theyare mostly found in shreds and patches. What do you mean? he said. You are aware, I replied, that quick intelligence, memory, sagacity,cleverness, and similar qualities, do not often grow together, andthat persons who possess them and are at the same time high-spiritedand magnanimous are not so constituted by nature as to live orderlyand in a peaceful and settled manner; they are driven any way by theirimpulses, and all solid principle goes out of them." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of philosophers and their role in society, questioning whether they can bring about a better world. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Two characters engaged in conversation Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "No, don't say it; but I can see it coming. Look here, there are two sorts of people in this world: those who want to be philosophers and those who don't. The ones that do are all right: they're doing their bit and we shan't pull them up. But the others! They've got to keep out of our way, that's all."""" And why is that?"" Why? Because their very existence is an affront to the gods. They have no right to walk the earth. If they were dogs or cats, there'd be some excuse, for they haven't made themselves what they are; they were born that way. But they think they've done something. They congratulate themselves on their 'plain common sense,' as though it was a virtue and not a vice. They glory in their own limitations. They look down on us because we are intellectual, and yet they know nothing about anything except how to make money and how to get drunk. They're vermin; they breed like rats. They ought to be exterminated. You may laugh if you like, but it's true. There ought to be a law against them. Wherever you go nowadays there are always these damned fools tripping you up and getting in your way. They clutter up the theatres and concert halls. They block the streets. And then they're the most impossible people to live with. They think they understand everything, but they don't understand anything. They take things seriously. They ask questions. They meddle in things that don't concern them. They won't let you alone. They drive you mad. What do you expect from people who don't believe in God and yet insist on living by the code of the Sermon on the Mount?"""" Aren't you rather severe?"" No, I'm not. It's only half what I really feel. If I could have my way, I wouldn't let them even exist. But at any rate they should be prevented from propagating. They should be compelled to sterilize themselves."""" You're a dangerous man."" Yes, I am,"" he said with a grin. ""That's what makes me so interesting."""" He had turned his head away again, watching the traffic. His words had been spoken harshly, almost savagely, with great intensity. But when he spoke once more his voice was mild and reasonable again. Just imagine them trying to run the world!"" he said. ""I can't bear to think of it. Here we are, ready to take over if we're asked, and yet they sit tight and won't budge. And why? Because they're afraid. They're afraid of the responsibility. They're afraid of power. They're afraid of freedom. They're afraid of the whole business. They prefer to leave things as they are, to sit on their backsides and watch other people working. They're afraid of knowledge. They're afraid of wisdom. They're afraid of courage. They're afraid of vision. They're afraid of life. They're afraid of death. " 96 96 "Very true, he said. On the other hand, those steadfast natures which can better be dependedupon, which in a battle are impregnable to fear and immovable, areequally immovable when there is anything to be learned; they are alwaysin a torpid state, and are apt to yawn and go to sleep over any intellectualtoil. Quite true. And yet we were saying that both qualities were necessary in thoseto whom the higher education is to be imparted, and who are to sharein any office or command. Certainly, he said. And will they be a class which is rarely found? Yes, indeed. Then the aspirant must not only be tested in those labours and dangersand pleasures which we mentioned before, but there is another kindof probation which we did not mention --he must be exercised alsoin many kinds of knowledge, to see whether the soul will be able toendure the highest of all, will faint under them, as in any otherstudies and exercises. Yes, he said, you are quite right in testing him. But what do youmean by the highest of all knowledge? You may remember, I said, that we divided the soul into three parts;and distinguished the several natures of justice, temperance, courage,and wisdom? Indeed, he said, if I had forgotten, I should not deserve to hearmore. And do you remember the word of caution which preceded the discussionof them? To what do you refer? We were saying, if I am not mistaken, that he who wanted to see themin their perfect beauty must take a longer and more circuitous way,at the end of which they would appear; but that we could add on apopular exposition of them on a level with the discussion which hadpreceded. And you replied that such an exposition would be enoughfor you, and so the enquiry was continued in what to me seemed tobe a very inaccurate manner; whether you were satisfied or not, itis for you to say. Yes, he said, I thought and the others thought that you gave us afair measure of truth. But, my friend, I said, a measure of such things Which in any degreefalls short of the whole truth is not fair measure; for nothing imperfectis the measure of anything, although persons are too apt to be contentedand think that they need search no further. Not an uncommon case when people are indolent. Yes, I said; and there cannot be any worse fault in a guardian ofthe State and of the laws. True. The guardian then, I said, must be required to take the longer circuit,and toll at learning as well as at gymnastics, or he will never reachthe highest knowledge of all which, as we were just now saying, ishis proper calling. What, he said, is there a knowledge still higher than this --higherthan justice and the other virtues? Yes, I said, there is. And of the virtues too we must behold not theoutline merely, as at present --nothing short of the most finishedpicture should satisfy us. When little things are elaborated withan infinity of pains, in order that they may appear in their fullbeauty and utmost clearness, how ridiculous that we should not thinkthe highest truths worthy of attaining the highest accuracy! A right noble thought; but do you suppose that we shall refrain fromasking you what is this highest knowledge? Nay, I said, ask if you will; but I am certain that you have heardthe answer many times, and now you either do not understand me or,as I rather think, you are disposed to be troublesome; for you haveof been told that the idea of good is the highest knowledge, and thatall other things become useful and advantageous only by their useof this. You can hardly be ignorant that of this I was about to speak,concerning which, as you have often heard me say, we know so little;and, without which, any other knowledge or possession of any kindwill profit us nothing. Do you think that the possession of all otherthings is of any value if we do not possess the good? or the knowledgeof all other things if we have no knowledge of beauty and goodness? Assuredly not. You are further aware that most people affirm pleasure to be the good,but the finer sort of wits say it is knowledge" "Summary: The speaker discusses the importance of different qualities in those who receive higher education and hold positions of authority. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "You want to be quick and smart, you want to be shrewd and bright. You want all the qualities that'll help you to get through a university course and win a position of authority."""" Yes?"" That's what they want. But there are other things, too. If you've got them, all right; if you haven't, it doesn't matter. You can still get through the University and win a position of authority. It just makes life easier for you if you have them.... Like courage, for instance. You need courage, because you're going to have to face some pretty dark, pretty grim times. Courage is going to come in handy when your nerves get raw and you begin to wonder whether the next step you take is going to be into a bucket of water or a vat of boiling oil.... And pity, too. You need pity, because you're going to see a lot of suffering and pain, and unless you have pity you can't stand it. Pity is going to come in very useful when you hear the screams of someone who's having his fingernails torn out with red-hot pincers, and you know you ought to do something but you don't quite dare."""" Is that all?"" No. There's one more thing. Compassion. Because you're going to meet a lot of people you're going to like, people you'll want to help, people you'll want to protect from harm. But you won't be able to help them or protect them. Because you aren't allowed to."""" I thought it was supposed to be a Christian country,"" he said bitterly. Well, we are,"" she said, ""but Christianity is a private affair. A private religion. And the State doesn't allow you to make use of it. You can pray as hard as you like for those poor devils in the prison cells, but you can't go in after them and save them from torture. You can pray for the young fellow in the cell next to yours who's been denounced by one of his colleagues as a homosexual, but you can't go in after him and tell them it isn't true, and that he's innocent. You can pray for the old man who comes in on Thursday afternoons to give you a lesson in Greek, but when the secret police burst in on you and drag him away, you can't get up off the floor and stop them. You can't do anything except wait until it's your turn. Wait and pray. And hope it won't come."""" He stood up. His face had gone white, and he seemed to be trembling slightly. He couldn't find anything to say. There was nothing to say. Then he turned towards the door. Suddenly he stopped. What will happen to me now?"" he asked quietly. Nothing yet. You're safe for the time being. The important thing is not to be seen. Not to talk to anyone. Don't even look at anyone. Just keep in the background, and if you're questioned, say you were going for a walk."""" " 97 97 "Yes. And you are aware too that the latter cannot explain what they meanby knowledge, but are obliged after all to say knowledge of the good? How ridiculous! Yes, I said, that they should begin by reproaching us with our ignoranceof the good, and then presume our knowledge of it --for the good theydefine to be knowledge of the good, just as if we understood themwhen they use the term 'good' --this is of course ridiculous. Most true, he said. And those who make pleasure their good are in equal perplexity; forthey are compelled to admit that there are bad pleasures as well asgood. Certainly. And therefore to acknowledge that bad and good are the same? True. There can be no doubt about the numerous difficulties in which thisquestion is involved. There can be none. Further, do we not see that many are willing to do or to have or toseem to be what is just and honourable without the reality; but noone is satisfied with the appearance of good --the reality is whatthey seek; in the case of the good, appearance is despised by everyone. Very true, he said. Of this then, which every soul of man pursues and makes the end ofall his actions, having a presentiment that there is such an end,and yet hesitating because neither knowing the nature nor having thesame assurance of this as of other things, and therefore losing whatevergood there is in other things, --of a principle such and so greatas this ought the best men in our State, to whom everything is entrusted,to be in the darkness of ignorance? Certainly not, he said. I am sure, I said, that he who does not know now the beautiful andthe just are likewise good will be but a sorry guardian of them; andI suspect that no one who is ignorant of the good will have a trueknowledge of them. That, he said, is a shrewd suspicion of yours. And if we only have a guardian who has this knowledge our State willbe perfectly ordered? Of course, he replied; but I wish that you would tell me whether youconceive this supreme principle of the good to be knowledge or pleasure,or different from either. Aye, I said, I knew all along that a fastidious gentleman like youwould not be contented with the thoughts of other people about thesematters. True, Socrates; but I must say that one who like you has passed alifetime in the study of philosophy should not be always repeatingthe opinions of others, and never telling his own. Well, but has any one a right to say positively what he does not know? Not, he said, with the assurance of positive certainty; he has noright to do that: but he may say what he thinks, as a matter of opinion. And do you not know, I said, that all mere opinions are bad, and thebest of them blind? You would not deny that those who have any truenotion without intelligence are only like blind men who feel theirway along the road? Very true. And do you wish to behold what is blind and crooked and base, whenothers will tell you of brightness and beauty? Glaucon - SOCRATES Still, I must implore you, Socrates, said Glaucon, not to turn awayjust as you are reaching the goal; if you will only give such an explanationof the good as you have already given of justice and temperance andthe other virtues, we shall be satisfied. Yes, my friend, and I shall be at least equally satisfied, but I cannothelp fearing that I shall fall, and that my indiscreet zeal will bringridicule upon me. No, sweet sirs, let us not at present ask what isthe actual nature of the good, for to reach what is now in my thoughtswould be an effort too great for me. But of the child of the goodwho is likest him, I would fain speak, if I could be sure that youwished to hear --otherwise, not. By all means, he said, tell us about the child, and you shall remainin our debt for the account of the parent." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of knowledge and the good, with one character expressing concern about their own understanding of these concepts. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "That, at any rate, is what I say. And if this be the truth, how on earth can we know anything at all?"""" This is just the sort of talk that makes me mad,"" said Glaucon. ""Don't you see that if there were no knowledge there would be no good either?"""" No, it's just the same old rubbish."" Socrates went on speaking in a harsher and more vivid tone: """"If you are so fond of wisdom, let us assume that we really know nothing at all; then we shall be nearer the truth. If we know nothing, there can be no good either. If there is no good, there can be no evil. If there is neither good nor evil, the city will be happy. The citizens will have no need to practise virtue or to acquire wisdom, because they will be incapable of suffering and of being harmed by anyone else. It will be the best possible state. Now let us suppose that one day a god comes down to our city and says: 'Men of Athens, I want to make your city even happier than it already is. You must therefore give me something to do."""" Glaucon was silent for some time, then he burst out with a laugh. """"What nonsense!"" he exclaimed. ""And yet it is not quite so nonsensical as it looks."""" In fact,"" said Socrates, ""the gods are always trying to trick men into doing something foolish. They cannot bear the sight of human happiness. But tell me: if the god should offer to relieve you of your possessions in exchange for health, and to give you back everything that you had lost in addition to a hundred times as much in gold and silver, would you accept?"""" Of course I would. What else could I do?"" Then if the god asked you whether you wanted health or wealth, which would you choose?"""" Wealth."" And if the god made you the same choice between wealth and honour, which would you choose?"""" Honour."" And if the god offered you the choice between honour and freedom, which would you choose?"""" Freedom."" And if the god offered you the choice between freedom and justice, which would you choose?"""" Justice."" Well, you have answered very promptly,"" said Socrates, ""but now take a little trouble over your answer. For this reason: when the god asks us whether we want to live happily, we shall reply that we do. But how can we live happily unless we possess health, wealth, honour, freedom and justice? We may perhaps have noticed that most people who possess only one or two of these things are miserable."""" Yes, indeed."" So we must necessarily desire them all. But, as you know very well, these blessings are in conflict with each other; if we follow one, we are bound to offend against the others. " 98 98 "I do indeed wish, I replied, that I could pay, and you receive, theaccount of the parent, and not, as now, of the offspring only; take,however, this latter by way of interest, and at the same time havea care that i do not render a false account, although I have no intentionof deceiving you. Yes, we will take all the care that we can: proceed. Yes, I said, but I must first come to an understanding with you, andremind you of what I have mentioned in the course of this discussion,and at many other times. What? The old story, that there is a many beautiful and a many good, andso of other things which we describe and define; to all of them 'many'is applied. True, he said. And there is an absolute beauty and an absolute good, and of otherthings to which the term 'many' is applied there is an absolute; forthey may be brought under a single idea, which is called the essenceof each. Very true. The many, as we say, are seen but not known, and the ideas are knownbut not seen. Exactly. And what is the organ with which we see the visible things? The sight, he said. And with the hearing, I said, we hear, and with the other senses perceivethe other objects of sense? True. But have you remarked that sight is by far the most costly and complexpiece of workmanship which the artificer of the senses ever contrived? No, I never have, he said. Then reflect; has the ear or voice need of any third or additionalnature in order that the one may be able to hear and the other tobe heard? Nothing of the sort. No, indeed, I replied; and the same is true of most, if not all, theother senses --you would not say that any of them requires such anaddition? Certainly not. But you see that without the addition of some other nature there isno seeing or being seen? How do you mean? Sight being, as I conceive, in the eyes, and he who has eyes wantingto see; colour being also present in them, still unless there be athird nature specially adapted to the purpose, the owner of the eyeswill see nothing and the colours will be invisible. Of what nature are you speaking? Of that which you term light, I replied. True, he said. Noble, then, is the bond which links together sight and visibility,and great beyond other bonds by no small difference of nature; forlight is their bond, and light is no ignoble thing? Nay, he said, the reverse of ignoble. And which, I said, of the gods in heaven would you say was the lordof this element? Whose is that light which makes the eye to see perfectlyand the visible to appear? You mean the sun, as you and all mankind say. May not the relation of sight to this deity be described as follows? How? Neither sight nor the eye in which sight resides is the sun? No. Yet of all the organs of sense the eye is the most like the sun? By far the most like. And the power which the eye possesses is a sort of effluence whichis dispensed from the sun? Exactly. Then the sun is not sight, but the author of sight who is recognisedby sight. True, he said. And this is he whom I call the child of the good, whom the good begatin his own likeness, to be in the visible world, in relation to sightand the things of sight, what the good is in the intellectual worldin relation to mind and the things of mind. Will you be a little more explicit? he said. Why, you know, I said, that the eyes, when a person directs them towardsobjects on which the light of day is no longer shining, but the moonand stars only, see dimly, and are nearly blind; they seem to haveno clearness of vision in them? Very true. But when they are directed towards objects on which the sun shines,they see clearly and there is sight in them?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the senses and their relationship to light and sight. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Exposition and explanation Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the person being addressed Quoted work: None mentioned Language: English" "It's the sense of sight that makes us think we have to see with light, but we don't. We see better in the dark than we do in the light."""" Nonsense,"" he said. ""I can see a thing coming at me in the dark, all right. But I couldn't tell you what color it was, or whether it had stripes on it or not."""" You're using your other senses too much in the dark,"" I said. ""And they interfere with your seeing. Light is an aid to vision. That's all. And vision is the most important sense, because it gives you information about everything else. Your taste tells you if something is sweet or sour; your sense of smell tells you if something stinks or doesn't; and your sense of touch tells you if something is rough or smooth or prickly. But all those things are useless unless you can first find out what the thing is. All right then, suppose you've found out what the thing is. Suppose you know it's a box of candy. Then you want to know how old it is. Is it fresh? Is it stale? Is it moldy? You taste it. Suppose you've tasted it and found out that it's fresh. Now you want to know if it's good candy or bad. You smell it. Suppose you've smelled it and found out it's good. What next? What's the next step in finding out whether this candy is any good or not?"""" Eat it,"" he said. I nodded. You got it,"" I said. ""You eat it. If it tastes all right, you go on eating it until it's gone. Well, that's the same with everything else. If you can't use your sense of taste or your sense of smell to find out anything about it, you use your sense of touch. But all these senses, sight included, are worthless unless you can first identify what you're dealing with. And for that you need your sense of reason. A man without a sense of reason is like a blind man."""" He stared at me coldly. """"You mean to tell me you believe a man can get along without his eyes?"""" Sure,"" I said. ""There are lots of men that do. They keep their eyes shut all the time."""" He laughed harshly. """"Well, that's a new one on me. I've heard of keeping your mouth shut, but I've never heard of keeping your eyes shut."""" I shook my head. """"It's just as easy as closing your mouth when you talk,"""" I said. """"Only instead of closing it, you keep it closed. See?"""" He glared at me suspiciously. """"How come you know so much about being blind?"""" I shrugged. """"I read a lot,"""" I said. """"I also used to be a cop. " 99 99 "Certainly. And the soul is like the eye: when resting upon that on which truthand being shine, the soul perceives and understands and is radiantwith intelligence; but when turned towards the twilight of becomingand perishing, then she has opinion only, and goes blinking about,and is first of one opinion and then of another, and seems to haveno intelligence? Just so. Now, that which imparts truth to the known and the power of knowingto the knower is what I would have you term the idea of good, andthis you will deem to be the cause of science, and of truth in sofar as the latter becomes the subject of knowledge; beautiful too,as are both truth and knowledge, you will be right in esteeming thisother nature as more beautiful than either; and, as in the previousinstance, light and sight may be truly said to be like the sun, andyet not to be the sun, so in this other sphere, science and truthmay be deemed to be like the good, but not the good; the good hasa place of honour yet higher. What a wonder of beauty that must be, he said, which is the authorof science and truth, and yet surpasses them in beauty; for you surelycannot mean to say that pleasure is the good? God forbid, I replied; but may I ask you to consider the image inanother point of view? In what point of view? You would say, would you not, that the sun is only the author of visibilityin all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth,though he himself is not generation? Certainly. In like manner the good may be said to be not only the author of knowledgeto all things known, but of their being and essence, and yet the goodis not essence, but far exceeds essence in dignity and power. Glaucon said, with a ludicrous earnestness: By the light of heaven,how amazing! Yes, I said, and the exaggeration may be set down to you; for youmade me utter my fancies. And pray continue to utter them; at any rate let us hear if thereis anything more to be said about the similitude of the sun. Yes, I said, there is a great deal more. Then omit nothing, however slight. I will do my best, I said; but I should think that a great deal willhave to be omitted. You have to imagine, then, that there are two ruling powers, and thatone of them is set over the intellectual world, the other over thevisible. I do not say heaven, lest you should fancy that I am playingupon the name ('ourhanoz, orhatoz'). May I suppose that you have thisdistinction of the visible and intelligible fixed in your mind? I have. Now take a line which has been cut into two unequal parts, and divideeach of them again in the same proportion, and suppose the two maindivisions to answer, one to the visible and the other to the intelligible,and then compare the subdivisions in respect of their clearness andwant of clearness, and you will find that the first section in thesphere of the visible consists of images. And by images I mean, inthe first place, shadows, and in the second place, reflections inwater and in solid, smooth and polished bodies and the like: Do youunderstand? Yes, I understand. Imagine, now, the other section, of which this is only the resemblance,to include the animals which we see, and everything that grows oris made. Very good. Would you not admit that both the sections of this division have differentdegrees of truth, and that the copy is to the original as the sphereof opinion is to the sphere of knowledge? Most undoubtedly. Next proceed to consider the manner in which the sphere of the intellectualis to be divided. In what manner? Thus: --There are two subdivisions, in the lower or which the souluses the figures given by the former division as images; the enquirycan only be hypothetical, and instead of going upwards to a principledescends to the other end; in the higher of the two, the soul passesout of hypotheses, and goes up to a principle which is above hypotheses,making no use of images as in the former case, but proceeding onlyin and through the ideas themselves." "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between truth, knowledge, and beauty, comparing them to the sun and its light. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "But I found that he had discovered a great deal of truth about the relationship between beauty, knowledge and truth. He proved to me that the sun is not merely beautiful but essential for sight and vision; that it is the source of all light in the world, and that without its rays there can be no knowledge or understanding. But what he did not tell me was how this applied to my own case, and why I could not see the truth about myself. The reason is simple: my mind has become so darkened by my own obsessions that it cannot receive the light from the sun."""" You are referring to your sexual feelings?"" Yes,"" I said, ""and to all the other forms of desire that darken my mind. It is because of these that I cannot see the truth."""" But you have described them accurately enough,"" he said. ""Surely that is a start?"""" Only a start."" I sighed. It was true. I had indeed been honest with him about everything that was wrong with me. In fact, I had even admitted my own stupidity, which must have been a shock to him. And yet he still seemed convinced that I could help him to find his father's killer. What was it he had said? If he wanted to understand himself better, he would need to look at me very carefully..."""" Then he had spoken of the relationship between truth and beauty, and the role of the sun as the source of light. But what did it all mean? How could any of this possibly help us to find the murderer? As if he were reading my thoughts, he spoke again: """"You say that you cannot see the truth about yourself. But perhaps it is just that your eyes are not open to the light of truth. Perhaps you have become so accustomed to darkness that you do not even know what it is to see."""" Glaucon looked at me blankly. """"I'm sorry,"""" he said. """"I don't understand."""" And neither do I,"" I admitted. ""But he speaks in riddles. I'm sure there's a point to it somewhere."""" I sat back in my chair, swirling the bourbon around in my glass, reflecting on all that Socrates had told me. And then suddenly I understood. I remember feeling the same sense of revelation I had experienced when I first learned to read. It was as if a blindfold had been removed from my eyes, and the world had come into focus for the first time. I turned to Glaucon. """"It's clear now,"""" I said. """"Socrates' metaphors about the sun and the light are simply a way of describing his own method of investigation. He believes that the only way to discover the truth is to expose our darkest desires to the light of day, to bring them out into the open and examine them closely. That's why he insists on speaking frankly about his own obsession with sex, and why he encourages others to do the same. " 100 100 "I do not quite understand your meaning, he said. Then I will try again; you will understand me better when I have madesome preliminary remarks. You are aware that students of geometry,arithmetic, and the kindred sciences assume the odd and the even andthe figures and three kinds of angles and the like in their severalbranches of science; these are their hypotheses, which they and everybodyare supposed to know, and therefore they do not deign to give anyaccount of them either to themselves or others; but they begin withthem, and go on until they arrive at last, and in a consistent manner,at their conclusion? Yes, he said, I know. And do you not know also that although they make use of the visibleforms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but ofthe ideals which they resemble; not of the figures which they draw,but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on --theforms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflectionsin water of their own, are converted by them into images, but theyare really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can onlybe seen with the eye of the mind? That is true. And of this kind I spoke as the intelligible, although in the searchafter it the soul is compelled to use hypotheses; not ascending toa first principle, because she is unable to rise above the regionof hypothesis, but employing the objects of which the shadows beloware resemblances in their turn as images, they having in relationto the shadows and reflections of them a greater distinctness, andtherefore a higher value. I understand, he said, that you are speaking of the province of geometryand the sister arts. And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you willunderstand me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reasonherself attains by the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses notas first principles, but only as hypotheses --that is to say, as stepsand points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, inorder that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of thewhole; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this,by successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensibleobject, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends. I understand you, he replied; not perfectly, for you seem to me tobe describing a task which is really tremendous; but, at any rate,I understand you to say that knowledge and being, which the scienceof dialectic contemplates, are clearer than the notions of the arts,as they are termed, which proceed from hypotheses only: these arealso contemplated by the understanding, and not by the senses: yet,because they start from hypotheses and do not ascend to a principle,those who contemplate them appear to you not to exercise the higherreason upon them, although when a first principle is added to themthey are cognizable by the higher reason. And the habit which is concernedwith geometry and the cognate sciences I suppose that you would termunderstanding and not reason, as being intermediate between opinionand reason. You have quite conceived my meaning, I said; and now, correspondingto these four divisions, let there be four faculties in the soul-reasonanswering to the highest, understanding to the second, faith (or conviction)to the third, and perception of shadows to the last-and let therebe a scale of them, and let us suppose that the several facultieshave clearness in the same degree that their objects have truth. I understand, he replied, and give my assent, and accept your arrangement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK VII Socrates - GLAUCON And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightenedor unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground den,which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along theden; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legsand necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see beforethem, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads.Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and betweenthe fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see,if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen whichmarionette players have in front of them, over which they show thepuppets." "Summary: The text discusses the use of hypotheses and assumptions in various sciences and the higher level of knowledge that can be attained through dialectic. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" It is not like the sciences which deal with matter; there you can use hypotheses, and say that the sun or moon causes the day and night, though they are only shadows, and that the stars are fire, although they do not give any heat. You may even assert that the earth is, and that it is flat, when really it has the shape of a ball which is cut in two. But in dialectic you cannot use assumptions at all; you must establish your conclusions by pure reasoning, and if you start wrong from the beginning, then you go on wrong to the end.” “Yes,” he said, “that is what I should have expected; but I wish that you would make clear to me what is the nature and origin of this hypothetical method of enquiry, which you say is pursued by the natural philosophers.” “I will try to explain,” I said. “When men have no occasion to speak of facts, but only of first principles, they fancy that the Deity appears to them, and is the cause of their words.” “Why so?” “Because they imagine that they are speaking of things which are true and certainer than the affairs of men—the very things of which it is indeed difficult to speak with certainty, and yet of which a man may speak most truly. Not knowing when the Deity speaks through them they attribute the gift of prophecy to themselves, and imagine that they have grasped principles even of matters which do not come within the province of human knowledge. Now such an achievement is a proof of divine inspiration, and those who have arrived at it are inspired men whether their enthusiasm be due to an actual presence of the deity, or to some other cause. Men of this sort have no regard for appearances, but rather for realities, because they see into the very soul of nature, and consider only what is true and certain. They measure the unseen by the unseen, and therefore they do not easily make mistakes; they appear to be saying much, when they actually say little, because they are always getting at first principles, and these, even when fairly stated, appear to be infinite in number. There is nothing so easy as to abstain from giving an opinion on everything. Nay, a man might almost fear that there is nothing so hard as to judge rightly about the highest things.” “You mean,” he said, “the scientists who interpret the meaning of dreams, and who also advise about sacred and warlike embassies, and about other public actions of states?” “Those are the persons whom I mean.” “And the manner of their reply is, as we were saying, enigmatic?” “Yes, their answers are quite obscure.” “Then I suppose that this is the way in which they proceed: The person who consults them relates a dream, and they interpret to him the several parts of the dream, and make propositions of the form, if A, then B; and having thus fixed the terms of the proposition, they interrogate the dreamer about the time at which he had the vision, and what was doing, and who was present, and a thousand other circumstances at which they look for some confirmation of their predictions?” 101 101 "I see. And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sortsof vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stoneand various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them aretalking, others silent. You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, orthe shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the oppositewall of the cave? True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if theywere never allowed to move their heads? And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they wouldonly see the shadows? Yes, he said. And if they were able to converse with one another, would they notsuppose that they were naming what was actually before them? Very true. And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from theother side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-byspoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? No question, he replied. To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadowsof the images. That is certain. And now look again, and see what will naturally follow it' the prisonersare released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of themis liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neckround and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains;the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realitiesof which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceivesome one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, butthat now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turnedtowards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will behis reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointingto the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -willhe not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerlysaw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him? Far truer. And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he nothave a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take andtake in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he willconceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now beingshown to him? True, he now And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep andrugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presenceof the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? Whenhe approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will notbe able to see anything at all of what are now called realities. Not all in a moment, he said. He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world.And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of menand other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; thenhe will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangledheaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better thanthe sun or the light of the sun by day? Certainly. Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections ofhim in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, andnot in another; and he will contemplate him as he is. Certainly. He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the seasonand the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world,and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellowshave been accustomed to behold? Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason abouthim. And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the denand his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitatehimself on the change, and pity them?" "Summary: The narrator describes a group of prisoners who are trapped in a cave and can only see shadows on the wall. They believe these shadows to be reality, but when one prisoner is released and sees the true world, he realizes the error of his ways. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Enlightenment Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The narrator, the prisoner Fuzzy place: The cave Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" He was a prisoner like the others, and he could see nothing of the outer world except as it was reflected on the wall. The wall was narrow and high, with only one small aperture at the top, so that his view was necessarily limited to a narrow strip of the sky above, and to the top of the tall trees which grew in the garden. From these trees he had often seen birds fly over the walls and disappear; but never once had he heard or seen anything of the world outside the prison, until now. In fact, he and all the others had come to regard their prison as the entire world, and even the shadows on the wall were regarded as reality. They spent their time in making an effort to reach those shadows, each trying to be the first to capture them, for they believed that if they could grasp one of the shadows it would give them control of the entire world. I don't know how long we played this game, but one day, when I was looking at the shadows on the wall, I saw something strange. It was the shadow of one of our brothers who had escaped from the prison, and it was passing before the opening at the top of the cave. He was standing outside and looking at us, and when he saw that we were watching him, he smiled and made signs that he wished to speak to me. 102 102 "Certainly, he would. And if they were in the habit of conferring honours among themselveson those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remarkwhich of them went before, and which followed after, and which weretogether; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions asto the future, do you think that he would care for such honours andglories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything,rather than think as they do and live after their manner? Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertainthese false notions and live in this miserable manner. Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of thesun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain tohave his eyes full of darkness? To be sure, he said. And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring theshadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, whilehis sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (andthe time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sightmight be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men wouldsay of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; andthat it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any onetried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them onlycatch the offender, and they would put him to death. No question, he said. This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, tothe previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, thelight of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me ifyou interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul intothe intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at yourdesire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But,whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledgethe idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort;and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of allthings beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of lightin this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truthin the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he whowould act rationally, either in public or private life must have hiseye fixed. I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you. Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to thisbeatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for theirsouls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire todwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory maybe trusted. Yes, very natural. And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplationsto the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner;if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomedto the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts oflaw, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of imagesof justice, and is endeavouring to meet the conceptions of those whohave never yet seen absolute justice? Anything but surprising, he replied. Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewildermentsof the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either fromcoming out of the light or from going into the light, which is trueof the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he whoremembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed andweak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether thatsoul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to seebecause unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness tothe day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happyin his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or,if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below intothe light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh whichgreets him who returns from above out of the light into the den." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of knowledge and the pursuit of truth. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I do not know whether it is the nature of knowledge to be hard and dry, but I find that all knowledge I have ever got has come to me like this, in a harsh and vivid light. As for those who say that love is the desire for good, and hate is the desire for evil, they can go hang, so far as I am concerned, with their gentle platitudes and their smoothness of manner. I don't want to be loved: I want to be obeyed; and I'll have no truck with these milk-and-water philosophers. I believe in power and its instruments. Love may be the motive of crime, but I think that fear is just as potent."""" Socrates said nothing, but his silence made Glaucon's voice more savage than ever. There are fools who say that truth is beauty,"" he cried. ""They are liars, every one of them! Truth is ugly, and you've got to have guts enough to look at it."""" He turned upon Socrates suddenly. """"You're always telling me how wise you are. Well, now prove it. What does beauty mean?"""" Socrates smiled. It is a word which means many things,"" he replied. That isn't an answer,"" snarled Glaucon. ""It means something definite."""" But that is the whole point. Beauty is not one thing. The purpose of art is to give us pleasure; therefore the beautiful must be what pleases, and this will vary from man to man. " 103 103 "That, he said, is a very just distinction. But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrongwhen they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which wasnot there before, like sight into blind eyes. They undoubtedly say this, he replied. Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learningexists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable toturn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrumentof knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turnedfrom the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degreesto endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being,or in other words, of the good. Very true. And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in theeasiest and quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight,for that exists already, but has been turned in the wrong direction,and is looking away from the truth? Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed. And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akinto bodily qualities, for even when they are not originally innatethey can be implanted later by habit and exercise, the of wisdom morethan anything else contains a divine element which always remains,and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on theother hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrowintelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue --how eagerhe is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he isthe reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the serviceof evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness. Very true, he said. But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the daysof their youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures,such as eating and drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attachedto them at their birth, and which drag them down and turn the visionof their souls upon the things that are below --if, I say, they hadbeen released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction,the very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenlyas they see what their eyes are turned to now. Very likely. Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely. or rathera necessary inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducatedand uninformed of the truth, nor yet those who never make an end oftheir education, will be able ministers of State; not the former,because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all theiractions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they willnot act at all except upon compulsion, fancying that they are alreadydwelling apart in the islands of the blest. Very true, he replied. Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the Statewill be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which wehave already shown to be the greatest of all-they must continue toascend until they arrive at the good; but when they have ascendedand seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now. What do you mean? I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed;they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den,and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth havingor not. But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life,when they might have a better? You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of thelegislator, who did not aim at making any one class in the State happyabove the rest; the happiness was to be in the whole State, and heheld the citizens together by persuasion and necessity, making thembenefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one another;to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be hisinstruments in binding up the State." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of knowledge and education, arguing that knowledge exists within the soul but needs to be turned towards truth and goodness. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Two characters engaging in conversation Language: English" There is no knowledge, there is only the consciousness of knowledge. Knowledge is a mere shadow of the truth; it is the knowledge of the soul that knows that sets us free. You are not in touch with reality at all unless you know something about the Absolute and the Real, the Unchangeable and the Eternal. The fact is that the soul exists even when you do not think of it, even when you are unconscious of its existence. It is always there, waiting for you to become aware of it. All things exist because they have being within the soul. They exist because they have been born within the soul. You have a right to be proud of your soul, and you must never forget that it has its own way of knowing and seeing and judging everything. So long as the soul is alive, so long as it has a spark of life, it can never die. It will never be extinguished by any power, whether human or divine. There is nothing to fear from anything except yourself and your own ignorance. You must not allow yourself to be deceived by the appearances of things. You must always keep in mind that you are a part of the whole and that nothing that happens to you can affect the rest of the world. There is no such thing as chance or accident in this universe. Every event that takes place is part of a plan which was made long ago. And every person who comes into your life has his or her own particular purpose to fulfill. If you want to learn how to live, if you want to find happiness, then you must first learn how to die. Death is the greatest teacher of life. Death teaches us that we cannot live without love. Love is the key to life. Without love, there is no life. We must love in order to live. We must give ourselves to another person in order to receive love in return. But remember that if you love someone else, you also love yourself. For there is only one true self, and that is the soul. And if you love yourself, then you must also love others. For the love of God is the love of everyone and everything. We are all children of God, and we must treat each other as brothers and sisters. We must help each other, support each other, and stand by each other through thick and thin. For we are all members of one body, and whatever hurts one member hurts all the others. We must never forget that we are here on earth to serve our fellow men and women. 104 104 "True, he said, I had forgotten. Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling ourphilosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explainto them that in other States, men of their class are not obliged toshare in the toils of politics: and this is reasonable, for they growup at their own sweet will, and the government would rather not havethem. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitudefor a culture which they have never received. But we have broughtyou into the world to be rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves andof the other citizens, and have educated you far better and more perfectlythan they have been educated, and you are better able to share inthe double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, mustgo down to the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeingin the dark. When you have acquired the habit, you will see ten thousandtimes better than the inhabitants of the den, and you will know whatthe several images are, and what they represent, because you haveseen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus ourState which is also yours will be a reality, and not a dream only,and will be administered in a spirit unlike that of other States,in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are distractedin the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereasthe truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctantto govern is always the best and most quietly governed, and the Statein which they are most eager, the worst. Quite true, he replied. And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turnat the toils of State, when they are allowed to spend the greaterpart of their time with one another in the heavenly light? Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands whichwe impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every oneof them will take office as a stern necessity, and not after the fashionof our present rulers of State. Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrivefor your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler,and then you may have a well-ordered State; for only in the Statewhich offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not in silverand gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings oflife. Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs,poor and hungering after the' own private advantage, thinking thathence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be;for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domesticbroils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselvesand of the whole State. Most true, he replied. And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambitionis that of true philosophy. Do you know of any other? Indeed, I do not, he said. And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if theyare, there will be rival lovers, and they will fight. No question. Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely theywill be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whomthe State is best administered, and who at the same time have otherhonours and another and a better life than that of politics? They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied. And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced,and how they are to be brought from darkness to light, --as some aresaid to have ascended from the world below to the gods? By all means, he replied. The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, butthe turning round of a soul passing from a day which is little betterthan night to the true day of being, that is, the ascent from below,which we affirm to be true philosophy? Quite so. And should we not enquire what sort of knowledge has the power ofeffecting such a change? Certainly. What sort of knowledge is there which would draw the soul from becomingto being? And another consideration has just occurred to me: You willremember that our young men are to be warrior athletes" "Summary: The text discusses the role of philosophers in society and the importance of education for rulers. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Glaucon, the narrator Time setting: 1950s Fuzzy place: Den Language: English" “I have been getting some idea of what philosophers are for in this country. They’re like little dogs that go with you everywhere and sit by your chair when you eat and lie down at your feet when you sleep.” Glaucon shook his head. “You’re talking rubbish, my friend,” he said. “Philosophers are people who think about the most important things.” I laughed. “That’s very true,” I said. “But it doesn’t sound as if it was much good to you here in this den. It sounds as if it would be just as good for you to do nothing but lie in bed all day and think about nothing but women. You’d get on just as well without the bother of getting up and going out every morning. Am I right?” He was angry now. “Don’t talk like that,” he said. “You’ll make me lose my temper.” “All right,” I said, “I won’t say any more. But I can see that you’re a philosopher. I think you ought to write books about philosophy. What sort of things do you think about? Women, I suppose? Or is there something else?” He looked away from me. “No,” he said. “I don’t think about women much.” “And what else do you think about?” I asked him. “Are there other things besides women that are worth thinking about? I’m not so sure about that. After all, there aren’t many other things you can see with your eyes. If you’ve got a woman in front of you, you don’t have to think about anything else; you look at her and she takes you over body and soul.” He didn’t answer, but stood looking out of the window at the garden. “What else do you think about, then?” I asked him again. “Why don’t you tell me?” “You know,” he said. “You’ve guessed.” “You think about killing people?” I asked. “Yes.” “Why? Don’t you like people?” “I hate them.” “How did you come to hate people?” “Why do you ask so many questions?” “Because I’m interested in people, and I want to understand how they become what they are. Why did you begin to hate people?” “I don’t remember. When I was young I used to like them. But after a bit I began to hate them.” “Who taught you to kill?” “I learned it myself.” “Do you teach others?” “Sometimes.” “What do you teach them?” “How to kill.” “And what happens to them when they’ve learned?” “Some of them go into the army.” “And the others?” “They get killed.” “That’s a pretty horrible sort of school. What are you going to do with yourself, Glaucon? 105 105 "Yes, that was said. Then this new kind of knowledge must have an additional quality? What quality? Usefulness in war. Yes, if possible. There were two parts in our former scheme of education, were therenot? Just so. There was gymnastic which presided over the growth and decay of thebody, and may therefore be regarded as having to do with generationand corruption? True. Then that is not the knowledge which we are seeking to discover? No. But what do you say of music, which also entered to a certain extentinto our former scheme? Music, he said, as you will remember, was the counterpart of gymnastic,and trained the guardians by the influences of habit, by harmony makingthem harmonious, by rhythm rhythmical, but not giving them science;and the words, whether fabulous or possibly true, had kindred elementsof rhythm and harmony in them. But in music there was nothing whichtended to that good which you are now seeking. You are most accurate, I said, in your recollection; in music therecertainly was nothing of the kind. But what branch of knowledge isthere, my dear Glaucon, which is of the desired nature; since allthe useful arts were reckoned mean by us? Undoubtedly; and yet if music and gymnastic are excluded, and thearts are also excluded, what remains? Well, I said, there may be nothing left of our special subjects; andthen we shall have to take something which is not special, but ofuniversal application. What may that be? A something which all arts and sciences and intelligences use in common,and which every one first has to learn among the elements of education. What is that? The little matter of distinguishing one, two, and three --in a word,number and calculation: --do not all arts and sciences necessarilypartake of them? Yes. Then the art of war partakes of them? To the sure. Then Palamedes, whenever he appears in tragedy, proves Agamemnon ridiculouslyunfit to be a general. Did you never remark how he declares that hehad invented number, and had numbered the ships and set in array theranks of the army at Troy; which implies that they had never beennumbered before, and Agamemnon must be supposed literally to havebeen incapable of counting his own feet --how could he if he was ignorantof number? And if that is true, what sort of general must he havebeen? I should say a very strange one, if this was as you say. Can we deny that a warrior should have a knowledge of arithmetic? Certainly he should, if he is to have the smallest understanding ofmilitary tactics, or indeed, I should rather say, if he is to be aman at all. I should like to know whether you have the same notion which I haveof this study? What is your notion? It appears to me to be a study of the kind which we are seeking, andwhich leads naturally to reflection, but never to have been rightlyused; for the true use of it is simply to draw the soul towards being. Will you explain your meaning? he said. I will try, I said; and I wish you would share the enquiry with me,and say 'yes' or 'no' when I attempt to distinguish in my own mindwhat branches of knowledge have this attracting power, in order thatwe may have clearer proof that arithmetic is, as I suspect, one ofthem. Explain, he said. I mean to say that objects of sense are of two kinds; some of themdo not invite thought because the sense is an adequate judge of them;while in the case of other objects sense is so untrustworthy thatfurther enquiry is imperatively demanded. You are clearly referring, he said, to the manner in which the sensesare imposed upon by distance, and by painting in light and shade." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of knowledge and education, specifically focusing on music and arithmetic. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Language: English" "And even if I had the knowledge, my dear Glaucon, would that help me to acquire what I want? Surely only the possession of the thing which we are always seeking can help us to obtain it?"""" What do you mean?"" he said. ""Surely it is not possible to acquire this understanding of music and arithmetic in any other way than by studying them."""" Well, I will try to explain,"" I replied. ""You know, as we were saying before, that all learning begins with a sense perception?"""" Certainly."" And we also said that when a man has often seen or heard one thing in association with another, then, after some time has gone by, whenever he sees or hears the one he thinks of the other in consequence of the original link which was established between them?"""" Yes, that too."" And again, we said that the same phenomenon occurs with reference to learning; for example, if a man learns a number of things from the same person, he soon forms an idea of him as well, owing to their being always associated in his mind?"""" Very true."" And suppose further that he learns of these things from a good man, he will form an idea of goodness as well, because of the connexion; and if he learns of them from a just man, then he will have an idea of justice, and so on with every class of virtue. Do you agree?"""" Certainly I do."" But there is more to be said about this matter of knowledge, Glaucon; for these ideas of ours, acquired as they are from experience, are necessarily mixed up with very much else, and are not at all pure and free from foreign admixture. For example, the soul of almost anyone who has had to do with music, and has learnt to appreciate it, will contain many notions derived from it: but then he will also have learnt geometry and arithmetic, and will therefore have many notions derived from those sciences; and so he will have become familiar with all sorts of ideas besides musical ones, and will never be able to extract pure musical ideas from the rest, nor yet pure geometrical ideas from their associates. Nor, to take another example, will a man who has had a good deal of experience of justice and injustice be able to extract a pure idea of either, nor yet of holiness or impiety, until he has been able to separate the notion of each from its mixture with the others. Do you understand what I mean?"""" Yes, certainly I do."" Then let us assume that there are these pure ideas, though I am unable to prove it, since I cannot say how they are to be separated from their associates. We must be content to trust our present explanation, and proceed no further with our inquiry, unless indeed you wish to follow the argument farther?"""" " 106 106 "No, I said, that is not at all my meaning. Then what is your meaning? When speaking of uninviting objects, I mean those which do not passfrom one sensation to the opposite; inviting objects are those whichdo; in this latter case the sense coming upon the object, whetherat a distance or near, gives no more vivid idea of anything in particularthan of its opposite. An illustration will make my meaning clearer:--here are three fingers --a little finger, a second finger, and amiddle finger. Very good. You may suppose that they are seen quite close: And here comes thepoint. What is it? Each of them equally appears a finger, whether seen in the middleor at the extremity, whether white or black, or thick or thin --itmakes no difference; a finger is a finger all the same. In these casesa man is not compelled to ask of thought the question, what is a finger?for the sight never intimates to the mind that a finger is other thana finger. True. And therefore, I said, as we might expect, there is nothing here whichinvites or excites intelligence. There is not, he said. But is this equally true of the greatness and smallness of the fingers?Can sight adequately perceive them? and is no difference made by thecircumstance that one of the fingers is in the middle and anotherat the extremity? And in like manner does the touch adequately perceivethe qualities of thickness or thinness, or softness or hardness? Andso of the other senses; do they give perfect intimations of such matters?Is not their mode of operation on this wise --the sense which is concernedwith the quality of hardness is necessarily concerned also with thequality of softness, and only intimates to the soul that the samething is felt to be both hard and soft? You are quite right, he said. And must not the soul be perplexed at this intimation which the sensegives of a hard which is also soft? What, again, is the meaning oflight and heavy, if that which is light is also heavy, and that whichis heavy, light? Yes, he said, these intimations which the soul receives are very curiousand require to be explained. Yes, I said, and in these perplexities the soul naturally summonsto her aid calculation and intelligence, that she may see whetherthe several objects announced to her are one or two. True. And if they turn out to be two, is not each of them one and different? Certainly. And if each is one, and both are two, she will conceive the two asin a state of division, for if there were undivided they could onlybe conceived of as one? True. The eye certainly did see both small and great, but only in a confusedmanner; they were not distinguished. Yes. Whereas the thinking mind, intending to light up the chaos, was compelledto reverse the process, and look at small and great as separate andnot confused. Very true. Was not this the beginning of the enquiry 'What is great?' and 'Whatis small?' Exactly so. And thus arose the distinction of the visible and the intelligible. Most true. This was what I meant when I spoke of impressions which invited theintellect, or the reverse --those which are simultaneous with oppositeimpressions, invite thought; those which are not simultaneous do not. I understand, he said, and agree with you. And to which class do unity and number belong? I do not know, he replied. Think a little and you will see that what has preceded will supplythe answer; for if simple unity could be adequately perceived by thesight or by any other sense, then, as we were saying in the case ofthe finger, there would be nothing to attract towards being; but whenthere is some contradiction always present, and one is the reverseof one and involves the conception of plurality, then thought beginsto be aroused within us, and the soul perplexed and wanting to arriveat a decision asks 'What is absolute unity?' This is the way in whichthe study of the one has a power of drawing and converting the mindto the contemplation of true being. And surely, he said, this occurs notably in the case of one; for wesee the same thing to be both one and infinite in multitude? Yes, I said; and this being true of one must be equally true of allnumber? Certainly. And all arithmetic and calculation have to do with number?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the perception of different objects and their properties, arguing that some objects confuse the senses and invite thought, while others do not. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the other character in the conversation Language: English" """""Take this,"""" he said, showing me a half-sovereign in the palm of his hand. """"It's an ordinary coin. You see it; you take it to the light and look at it; you pass your fingers over it; you can hear the sound it makes when it strikes another coin. But what does it tell you? Nothing! And yet it has form, colour, size, weight, hardness, coldness, noise, texture, smell, taste. What about that book?"""" He took from his pocket a small red volume bound in cloth. """"You pick it up, you turn the pages, you look at the type, you finger the cover, you smell the paper; but there is nothing there, nothing, nothing! And yet it is solid enough to weigh you down if you carry too many of them, and it will let you know if you drop it on your toe. The fact is, my friend, we are all blind men with our eyes open. We see objects, but what do they tell us? Very little. Our senses deceive us; they show us things as they appear to be, not as they really are."""" I did not quite understand him; I have never pretended to be a philosopher. He was a man who used language for its own sake, and shrank from having to explain himself. I think he enjoyed mystery for its own sake. However, I had gathered one thing from his remarks, and that was that he had not come empty-handed, and I hoped that the objects he held in his hands were the missing pearls. """"And now,"""" he said, rising, """"I am going to show you two objects which make no appeal to the senses, but which will certainly give you something to think about."""" I watched him lay down the coins and the book on the table, and then I saw him take from his hip-pocket a black leather case and from it a hypodermic syringe. I stood up myself, sick with horror, and then I saw that he was grinning at me with a broad smile of satisfaction. It was one of those curious smiles which only the old criminals know: a smile of unadulterated malice, the grimace of a man who has found an unexpected way of outwitting the law. Well, that was the first time I saw the Red Circle. That same evening I heard Inspector Jones quoting the lines from Macbeth: Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand? No; this my hand will rather The multitudinous seas incarnadine Making the green one red."" CHAPTER V A RING OF GOLD AND CLOTH I have always been a very methodical man. " 107 107 "Yes. And they appear to lead the mind towards truth? Yes, in a very remarkable manner. Then this is knowledge of the kind for which we are seeking, havinga double use, military and philosophical; for the man of war mustlearn the art of number or he will not know how to array his troops,and the philosopher also, because he has to rise out of the sea ofchange and lay hold of true being, and therefore he must be an arithmetician. That is true. And our guardian is both warrior and philosopher? Certainly. Then this is a kind of knowledge which legislation may fitly prescribe;and we must endeavour to persuade those who are prescribe to be theprincipal men of our State to go and learn arithmetic, not as amateurs,but they must carry on the study until they see the nature of numberswith the mind only; nor again, like merchants or retail-traders, witha view to buying or selling, but for the sake of their military use,and of the soul herself; and because this will be the easiest wayfor her to pass from becoming to truth and being. That is excellent, he said. Yes, I said, and now having spoken of it, I must add how charmingthe science is! and in how many ways it conduces to our desired end,if pursued in the spirit of a philosopher, and not of a shopkeeper! How do you mean? I mean, as I was saying, that arithmetic has a very great and elevatingeffect, compelling the soul to reason about abstract number, and rebellingagainst the introduction of visible or tangible objects into the argument.You know how steadily the masters of the art repel and ridicule anyone who attempts to divide absolute unity when he is calculating,and if you divide, they multiply, taking care that one shall continueone and not become lost in fractions. That is very true. Now, suppose a person were to say to them: O my friends, what arethese wonderful numbers about which you are reasoning, in which, asyou say, there is a unity such as you demand, and each unit is equal,invariable, indivisible, --what would they answer? They would answer, as I should conceive, that they were speaking ofthose numbers which can only be realised in thought. Then you see that this knowledge may be truly called necessary, necessitatingas it clearly does the use of the pure intelligence in the attainmentof pure truth? Yes; that is a marked characteristic of it. And have you further observed, that those who have a natural talentfor calculation are generally quick at every other kind of knowledge;and even the dull if they have had an arithmetical training, althoughthey may derive no other advantage from it, always become much quickerthan they would otherwise have been. Very true, he said. And indeed, you will not easily find a more difficult study, and notmany as difficult. You will not. And, for all these reasons, arithmetic is a kind of knowledge in whichthe best natures should be trained, and which must not be given up. I agree. Let this then be made one of our subjects of education. And next,shall we enquire whether the kindred science also concerns us? You mean geometry? Exactly so. Clearly, he said, we are concerned with that part of geometry whichrelates to war; for in pitching a camp, or taking up a position, orclosing or extending the lines of an army, or any other military manoeuvre,whether in actual battle or on a march, it will make all the differencewhether a general is or is not a geometrician. Yes, I said, but for that purpose a very little of either geometryor calculation will be enough; the question relates rather to thegreater and more advanced part of geometry --whether that tends inany degree to make more easy the vision of the idea of good; and thither,as I was saying, all things tend which compel the soul to turn hergaze towards that place, where is the full perfection of being, whichshe ought, by all means, to behold. True, he said. Then if geometry compels us to view being, it concerns us; if becomingonly, it does not concern us? Yes, that is what we assert. Yet anybody who has the least acquaintance with geometry will notdeny that such a conception of the science is in flat contradictionto the ordinary language of geometricians." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of arithmetic and geometry in education, arguing that they lead to knowledge and understanding. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "I want to show that Arithmetic and Geometry are the two gates of knowledge. I am going to explain them both to you so that, if any of you wants to enter the world of knowledge, he can use these two gates."""" You mean they're the only gates?"""" No, not the only ones; but they are the two principal ones. And I'm going to start with geometry. Now then, what is a point?"""" A dot."" No, it's not just a dot; it's anything that has position but no magnitude. It's something that can be somewhere or other. For example, your right hand could be here, and your left hand could be there. But suppose now that we wanted to draw a line from your right hand to your left hand. How long would the line be?"""" About two feet."" Two feet isn't long enough. Suppose we stretched out our arms and made fists, and then drew a line from the tip of the right index finger to the tip of the left index finger. Would that be long enough?"""" No; it'd be about four feet."" Four feet isn't long enough either. So now let's stretch out both arms and join the fingertips of both hands together. That makes eight feet. Eight feet still isn't long enough. Why isn't it long enough?"""" Because the distance between the two hands is three feet and each foot is three inches."""" Oh! I see. You mean that it takes twelve inches to make a foot, and three feet to make a yard, and five yards to make a chain, and ten chains to make an acre, and four acres to make a square mile, and sixty square miles to make a degree, and thirty degrees to make a latitude, and half the earth's circumference to make a parallel of latitude, and the whole earth's circumference to make a meridian."""" Well, yes, all that's true. But you won't remember all those different lengths, and besides, you don't have to. The important thing to remember is this: If you keep dividing anything into halves over and over again, you'll eventually arrive at a point, and that point will be smaller than any other thing you can think of. Do you understand?"""" Yes."" Well, that's a point."""" Is it?"" Yes, indeed. Now then, what is a line?"" A line is a dot that's been stretched until it's longer than it is thick."""" No, that's not quite right. You can't stretch a dot. You can only stretch a line. A line is a length without breadth. Now suppose we take two points and join them by a line. Then we've got a straight line."""" Right."" Now, do you remember how many feet there are in a mile?"""" Twenty-four hundred."" Now suppose we measured off one thousand feet on a straight line. Where would that leave us?"""" About half way along the line."""" Exactly. Now if we were to measure another thousand feet from where we stopped, how far would we be from the beginning of the line?"""" Three thousand feet."" And if we were to measure another thousand feet after that, how far would we be from the beginning of the line?"""" Four thousand feet."""" And if we kept on measuring one thousand feet at a time every time we reached a thousand feet, how far would we ever get from the beginning of the line?"""" We'd never get any farther from the beginning of the line, because every time we measured another thousand feet we'd be back where we started from."""" " 108 108 "How so? They have in view practice only, and are always speaking? in a narrowand ridiculous manner, of squaring and extending and applying andthe like --they confuse the necessities of geometry with those ofdaily life; whereas knowledge is the real object of the whole science. Certainly, he said. Then must not a further admission be made? What admission? That the knowledge at which geometry aims is knowledge of the eternal,and not of aught perishing and transient. That, he replied, may be readily allowed, and is true. Then, my noble friend, geometry will draw the soul towards truth,and create the spirit of philosophy, and raise up that which is nowunhappily allowed to fall down. Nothing will be more likely to have such an effect. Then nothing should be more sternly laid down than that the inhabitantsof your fair city should by all means learn geometry. Moreover thescience has indirect effects, which are not small. Of what kind? he said. There are the military advantages of which you spoke, I said; andin all departments of knowledge, as experience proves, any one whohas studied geometry is infinitely quicker of apprehension than onewho has not. Yes indeed, he said, there is an infinite difference between them. Then shall we propose this as a second branch of knowledge which ouryouth will study? Let us do so, he replied. And suppose we make astronomy the third --what do you say? I am strongly inclined to it, he said; the observation of the seasonsand of months and years is as essential to the general as it is tothe farmer or sailor. I am amused, I said, at your fear of the world, which makes you guardagainst the appearance of insisting upon useless studies; and I quiteadmit the difficulty of believing that in every man there is an eyeof the soul which, when by other pursuits lost and dimmed, is by thesepurified and re-illumined; and is more precious far than ten thousandbodily eyes, for by it alone is truth seen. Now there are two classesof persons: one class of those who will agree with you and will takeyour words as a revelation; another class to whom they will be utterlyunmeaning, and who will naturally deem them to be idle tales, forthey see no sort of profit which is to be obtained from them. Andtherefore you had better decide at once with which of the two youare proposing to argue. You will very likely say with neither, andthat your chief aim in carrying on the argument is your own improvement;at the same time you do not grudge to others any benefit which theymay receive. I think that I should prefer to carry on the argument mainly on myown behalf. Then take a step backward, for we have gone wrong in the order ofthe sciences. What was the mistake? he said. After plane geometry, I said, we proceeded at once to solids in revolution,instead of taking solids in themselves; whereas after the second dimensionthe third, which is concerned with cubes and dimensions of depth,ought to have followed. That is true, Socrates; but so little seems to be known as yet aboutthese subjects. Why, yes, I said, and for two reasons: --in the first place, no governmentpatronises them; this leads to a want of energy in the pursuit ofthem, and they are difficult; in the second place, students cannotlearn them unless they have a director. But then a director can hardlybe found, and even if he could, as matters now stand, the students,who are very conceited, would not attend to him. That, however, wouldbe otherwise if the whole State became the director of these studiesand gave honour to them; then disciples would want to come, and therewould be continuous and earnest search, and discoveries would be made;since even now, disregarded as they are by the world, and maimed oftheir fair proportions, and although none of their votaries can tellthe use of them, still these studies force their way by their naturalcharm, and very likely, if they had the help of the State, they wouldsome day emerge into light. Yes, he said, there is a remarkable charm in them. But I do not clearlyunderstand the change in the order. First you began with a geometryof plane surfaces? Yes, I said. And you placed astronomy next, and then you made a step backward?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the importance of studying geometry and astronomy for the sake of knowledge and personal improvement. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: The speaker and his friend Language: English" "In addition to which, you will be able to say that there is nothing in the world that a man of intelligence may not do if he sets his mind to it. There are many things that I don't like doing myself; but since I know how to do them, I can do them whenever I feel inclined."""" I am afraid that I am far from being a good mathematician,"" I said, after thinking over what he had told me. """"I was never very keen about geometry at school and I have forgotten most of what I learnt."""" Study geometry. It's an excellent thing for young people to study. You see, if a fellow knows all about pyramids and so forth, he can always get away from anybody if he wants to. If you don't believe me, try it some day! And then again, a knowledge of astronomy is invaluable. If you know something about the stars, you will never be caught napping; and in any case, even if you haven't got the slightest notion of what you're looking at, just pretend to know. They'll think you're clever, and you'll be able to beat the whole lot of 'em hollow. And besides, astronomy is one of the finest subjects in the world. Look at those stars up there. Why, they're as big as houses. A fellow who doesn't know anything about astronomy must be a pretty stupid sort of cuss, don't you think so?"""" My friend spoke with such sudden fierceness that I drew back a little. For a moment I thought that he was going to hit me; but his eye lighted on a bottle of absinthe that stood on the table, and his face gradually cleared. He poured out two glassesful of the greenish liquid, lit a cigarette, and began to talk again: Come on, drink your grog!"" he said, when I had finished my glass. You needn't look so scared; I'm not going to begin talking about the stars again. But there's one thing that I want to ask you: What's the use of knowing about astronomy?"""" Well,"" I said, ""it helps us to find our way about the world; and it gives us an idea of the size of things."""" That's right,"" he said. ""And by the same token, a fellow who has got an idea of the size of things isn't likely to be such a fool as another fellow who hasn't. Drink your grog and let's go!"""" III. The evening was growing cold, but I did not dare to put on my coat, for fear of attracting attention. We walked along the Boulevard de Magenta, and then turned down the Rue Lafayette. At the corner of the Rue d'Hauteville we stopped before a house. My companion looked carefully up and down the street, then pulled a watch out of his pocket and pretended to read the time. " 109 109 "Yes, and I have delayed you by my hurry; the ludicrous state of solidgeometry, which, in natural order, should have followed, made me passover this branch and go on to astronomy, or motion of solids. True, he said. Then assuming that the science now omitted would come into existenceif encouraged by the State, let us go on to astronomy, which willbe fourth. The right order, he replied. And now, Socrates, as you rebuked thevulgar manner in which I praised astronomy before, my praise shallbe given in your own spirit. For every one, as I think, must see thatastronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from thisworld to another. Every one but myself, I said; to every one else this may be clear,but not to me. And what then would you say? I should rather say that those who elevate astronomy into philosophyappear to me to make us look downwards and not upwards. What do you mean? he asked. You, I replied, have in your mind a truly sublime conception of ourknowledge of the things above. And I dare say that if a person wereto throw his head back and study the fretted ceiling, you would stillthink that his mind was the percipient, and not his eyes. And youare very likely right, and I may be a simpleton: but, in my opinion,that knowledge only which is of being and of the unseen can make thesoul look upwards, and whether a man gapes at the heavens or blinkson the ground, seeking to learn some particular of sense, I woulddeny that he can learn, for nothing of that sort is matter of science;his soul is looking downwards, not upwards, whether his way to knowledgeis by water or by land, whether he floats, or only lies on his back. I acknowledge, he said, the justice of your rebuke. Still, I shouldlike to ascertain how astronomy can be learned in any manner moreconducive to that knowledge of which we are speaking? I will tell you, I said: The starry heaven which we behold is wroughtupon a visible ground, and therefore, although the fairest and mostperfect of visible things, must necessarily be deemed inferior farto the true motions of absolute swiftness and absolute slowness, whichare relative to each other, and carry with them that which is containedin them, in the true number and in every true figure. Now, these areto be apprehended by reason and intelligence, but not by sight. True, he replied. The spangled heavens should be used as a pattern and with a view tothat higher knowledge; their beauty is like the beauty of figuresor pictures excellently wrought by the hand of Daedalus, or some othergreat artist, which we may chance to behold; any geometrician whosaw them would appreciate the exquisiteness of their workmanship,but he would never dream of thinking that in them he could find thetrue equal or the true double, or the truth of any other proportion. No, he replied, such an idea would be ridiculous. And will not a true astronomer have the same feeling when he looksat the movements of the stars? Will he not think that heaven and thethings in heaven are framed by the Creator of them in the most perfectmanner? But he will never imagine that the proportions of night andday, or of both to the month, or of the month to the year, or of thestars to these and to one another, and any other things that are materialand visible can also be eternal and subject to no deviation --thatwould be absurd; and it is equally absurd to take so much pains ininvestigating their exact truth. I quite agree, though I never thought of this before. Then, I said, in astronomy, as in geometry, we should employ problems,and let the heavens alone if we would approach the subject in theright way and so make the natural gift of reason to be of any realuse. That, he said, is a work infinitely beyond our present astronomers. Yes, I said; and there are many other things which must also havea similar extension given to them, if our legislation is to be ofany value. But can you tell me of any other suitable study?" "Summary: The text discusses the study of astronomy and its relationship to knowledge. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Astronomy is the key to the stars, and so a man who can't even get that far doesn't know nothing about nothing. He's just another dumb hick that got in over his head."""" If you're trying to impress me,"" I said, ""you're wasting your time. But if you want to talk astronomy I'll listen as long as you want to. You might find it relaxing."""" He laughed then; his eyes were still hard but his lips curled up at the corners like a terrier's, and he was almost pleasant to look at. Well now, that's something I didn't expect from you. That's a fair offer, all right, and I'll take you up on it. But first of all we got to get this other thing cleared up. You didn't kill her, did you?"""" His eyes had gone back to cold blue ice again. I felt suddenly calm and cool inside, but I knew that I couldn't let him see how much he scared me. It's an old trick,"" I said. ""The criminal always asks if you committed the crime first. But no, I'm afraid I didn't. And now suppose you tell me how you happen to be mixed up in this case?"""" Yeah?"" He looked at me steadily for several seconds. """"I guess you ain't gonna believe me,"""" he said finally. """"But it's the truth. I found her body."""" Chapter Eight I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING FOR A FEW SECONDS. HIS EYES WERE ON ME, AND THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THE WAY HE LOOKED AT ME THAT MADE ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE. THEN I LAUGHED. I HAD TO. BUT IT DIDN'T HELP MUCH. YOU CAN'T TAKE YOURSELF IN BY LAUGHING WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IS ABSURD. I SAID: YOU DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT DO YOU? IF YOU DID YOU MUST BE CRAZY. WHY SHOULD YOU WANT TO KILL HER IF YOU FOUND HER BODY FIRST?"""" He didn't say anything for a minute or two. Then he nodded. """"Yeah,"""" he said. """"I guess that makes sense, don't it? But it's the truth all the same. Only it ain't what you think it is."""" Maybe not,"" I said. ""How do I know? You haven't told me how you happened to be looking for her in the first place."""" He shook his head. """"You wouldn't believe me,"""" he said. """"It'd sound screwy."""" Try me."" He stood there frowning and rubbing his jaw. """"All right,"""" he said finally. """"If you want the whole story I'll give it to you. Only don't laugh, will you?"""" I said I wouldn't laugh and he started talking. He said: """"I work at the plant down the street, and last night I went home late. " 110 110 "No, he said, not without thinking. Motion, I said, has many forms, and not one only; two of them areobvious enough even to wits no better than ours; and there are others,as I imagine, which may be left to wiser persons. But where are the two? There is a second, I said, which is the counterpart of the one alreadynamed. And what may that be? The second, I said, would seem relatively to the ears to be what thefirst is to the eyes; for I conceive that as the eyes are designedto look up at the stars, so are the ears to hear harmonious motions;and these are sister sciences --as the Pythagoreans say, and we, Glaucon,agree with them? Yes, he replied. But this, I said, is a laborious study, and therefore we had bettergo and learn of them; and they will tell us whether there are anyother applications of these sciences. At the same time, we must notlose sight of our own higher object. What is that? There is a perfection which all knowledge ought to reach, and whichour pupils ought also to attain, and not to fall short of, as I wassaying that they did in astronomy. For in the science of harmony,as you probably know, the same thing happens. The teachers of harmonycompare the sounds and consonances which are heard only, and theirlabour, like that of the astronomers, is in vain. Yes, by heaven! he said; and 'tis as good as a play to hear them talkingabout their condensed notes, as they call them; they put their earsclose alongside of the strings like persons catching a sound fromtheir neighbour's wall --one set of them declaring that they distinguishan intermediate note and have found the least interval which shouldbe the unit of measurement; the others insisting that the two soundshave passed into the same --either party setting their ears beforetheir understanding. You mean, I said, those gentlemen who tease and torture the stringsand rack them on the pegs of the instrument: might carry on the metaphorand speak after their manner of the blows which the plectrum gives,and make accusations against the strings, both of backwardness andforwardness to sound; but this would be tedious, and therefore I willonly say that these are not the men, and that I am referring to thePythagoreans, of whom I was just now proposing to enquire about harmony.For they too are in error, like the astronomers; they investigatethe numbers of the harmonies which are heard, but they never attainto problems-that is to say, they never reach the natural harmoniesof number, or reflect why some numbers are harmonious and others not. That, he said, is a thing of more than mortal knowledge. A thing, I replied, which I would rather call useful; that is, ifsought after with a view to the beautiful and good; but if pursuedin any other spirit, useless. Very true, he said. Now, when all these studies reach the point of inter-communion andconnection with one another, and come to be considered in their mutualaffinities, then, I think, but not till then, will the pursuit ofthem have a value for our objects; otherwise there is no profit inthem. I suspect so; but you are speaking, Socrates, of a vast work. What do you mean? I said; the prelude or what? Do you not know thatall this is but the prelude to the actual strain which we have tolearn? For you surely would not regard the skilled mathematician asa dialectician? Assuredly not, he said; I have hardly ever known a mathematician whowas capable of reasoning. But do you imagine that men who are unable to give and take a reasonwill have the knowledge which we require of them?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the various forms of motion and their relationship to knowledge and understanding. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical conversation Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Quoted work: Pythagorean teachings on harmony Language: English" But don’t let’s go into the details of this, for it would take too long. Let us rather try to discover how these various kinds of motion and the other things which we mentioned a moment ago are related to knowledge and understanding. “What do you mean?” said Glaucon. “I’ll tell you,” I replied. “It must be obvious to anyone that there are two sorts of motions, each of which has its own kind of cause. One sort is called ‘carrying’ or ‘carriage’, the other ‘alteration’. By ‘carriage’ I mean any motion which takes place in a circle, and by ‘alteration’ any motion which takes place in any way except in a circle. Now the cause of carriage is revolution, and the cause of alteration is some kind of non-being; for instance, the hot, the cold, the dry, the moist, heaviness, lightness, hardness, softness, spiciness, pungency, sweetness, bitterness, and countless other things like these. These, then, are the causes of alteration. For example, if something gets hotter, the cause is heat; if it gets colder, the cause is cold; if it gets drier, the cause is dryness; and so on with the others. “Now,” I went on, “we may divide all these causes into two classes: one class will be made up of those which exist in the thing which is changing, and the other of those which exist outside it. The former class will include heaviness, lightness, hardness, softness, and the rest of them; the latter will include heat, cold, spiciness, pungency, sweetness, bitterness, and the like. “The nature of these causes can best be illustrated by an analogy from the world of sight. Suppose someone were to ask, ‘Why does this object appear white?’ and another answered, ‘Because it is white.’ Then clearly he who answers would not have given him any reason at all. Similarly, when someone asks why something is heavy, and another answers that it is heavy, he has not given any answer to his question; the original questioner might well reply, ‘But my question was, ‘Why is it heavy?’ and your answer is nothing of the sort. You haven’t told me why it is heavy, but only that it is heavy.’ If, however, someone were to say, ‘It is heavy because of its density’, he would certainly be giving an adequate answer to the question, since he would be giving a cause of its heaviness. “And, in general, whenever the cause of anything lies within the thing itself, then this cause is a substance; for instance, the cause of the heaviness of a stone is its density, and its density is a substance. 111 111 "Neither can this be supposed. And so, Glaucon, I said, we have at last arrived at the hymn of dialectic.This is that strain which is of the intellect only, but which thefaculty of sight will nevertheless be found to imitate; for sight,as you may remember, was imagined by us after a while to behold thereal animals and stars, and last of all the sun himself. And so withdialectic; when a person starts on the discovery of the absolute bythe light of reason only, and without any assistance of sense, andperseveres until by pure intelligence he arrives at the perceptionof the absolute good, he at last finds himself at the end of the intellectualworld, as in the case of sight at the end of the visible. Exactly, he said. Then this is the progress which you call dialectic? True. But the release of the prisoners from chains, and their translationfrom the shadows to the images and to the light, and the ascent fromthe underground den to the sun, while in his presence they are vainlytrying to look on animals and plants and the light of the sun, butare able to perceive even with their weak eyes the images in the water(which are divine), and are the shadows of true existence (not shadowsof images cast by a light of fire, which compared with the sun isonly an image) --this power of elevating the highest principle inthe soul to the contemplation of that which is best in existence,with which we may compare the raising of that faculty which is thevery light of the body to the sight of that which is brightest inthe material and visible world --this power is given, as I was saying,by all that study and pursuit of the arts which has been described. I agree in what you are saying, he replied, which may be hard to believe,yet, from another point of view, is harder still to deny. This, however,is not a theme to be treated of in passing only, but will have tobe discussed again and again. And so, whether our conclusion be trueor false, let us assume all this, and proceed at once from the preludeor preamble to the chief strain, and describe that in like manner.Say, then, what is the nature and what are the divisions of dialectic,and what are the paths which lead thither; for these paths will alsolead to our final rest? Dear Glaucon, I said, you will not be able to follow me here, thoughI would do my best, and you should behold not an image only but theabsolute truth, according to my notion. Whether what I told you wouldor would not have been a reality I cannot venture to say; but youwould have seen something like reality; of that I am confident. Doubtless, he replied. But I must also remind you, that the power of dialectic alone canreveal this, and only to one who is a disciple of the previous sciences. Of that assertion you may be as confident as of the last. And assuredly no one will argue that there is any other method ofcomprehending by any regular process all true existence or of ascertainingwhat each thing is in its own nature; for the arts in general areconcerned with the desires or opinions of men, or are cultivated witha view to production and construction, or for the preservation ofsuch productions and constructions; and as to the mathematical scienceswhich, as we were saying, have some apprehension of true being --geometryand the like --they only dream about being, but never can they beholdthe waking reality so long as they leave the hypotheses which theyuse unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them. For whena man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion andintermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows not what,how can he imagine that such a fabric of convention can ever becomescience? Impossible, he said. Then dialectic, and dialectic alone, goes directly to the first principleand is the only science which does away with hypotheses in order tomake her ground secure; the eye of the soul, which is literally buriedin an outlandish slough, is by her gentle aid lifted upwards; andshe uses as handmaids and helpers in the work of conversion, the scienceswhich we have been discussing. Custom terms them sciences, but theyought to have some other name, implying greater clearness than opinionand less clearness than science: and this, in our previous sketch,was called understanding. But why should we dispute about names whenwe have realities of such importance to consider? Why indeed, he said, when any name will do which expresses the thoughtof the mind with clearness?" "Summary: The narrator discusses the power of dialectic and its ability to lead to understanding and truth. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, narrator Language: English" "I see it too. And I am more and more sure that dialectic is the only way to get at truth, because it's the only thing which compels people to be consistent with themselves. That's why I like you so much; you're always consistent."""" Consistency isn't a virtue,"" said Glaucon. Oh, yes, it is!"" exclaimed the narrator. ""Consistency is the first step towards truth. Suppose you have got hold of some bit of truth, how do you know when you've got it? You can only know by testing it against other truths to see whether it agrees with them or not. The man who doesn't test his truth against other truths is like the man who thinks he can judge whether a pig is fat by looking at it from the outside. He'll never know whether it's fat or lean until he cuts it up and weighs it. Dialectic is cutting up and weighing."""" But there are some things which can't be cut up and weighed. Take love, for instance."" Love?"" said the narrator. ""Why, what on earth has love got to do with this argument?"""" It seems to me that love has everything to do with it. You say that love can't be cut up and weighed. I should say it could, all right. Only you've got to cut it up and weigh it in a different way from the rest of your knowledge. In the same way that you say that belief in God has to be cut up and weighed, but in a different way from scientific truth, so love has to be cut up and weighed in its own way. " 112 112 "At any rate, we are satisfied, as before, to have four divisions;two for intellect and two for opinion, and to call the first divisionscience, the second understanding, the third belief, and the fourthperception of shadows, opinion being concerned with becoming, andintellect with being; and so to make a proportion: -- As being is to becoming, so is pure intellect to opinion. And as intellect is to opinion, so is science to belief, and understandingto the perception of shadows. But let us defer the further correlationand subdivision of the subjects of opinion and of intellect, for itwill be a long enquiry, many times longer than this has been. As far as I understand, he said, I agree. And do you also agree, I said, in describing the dialectician as onewho attains a conception of the essence of each thing? And he whodoes not possess and is therefore unable to impart this conception,in whatever degree he fails, may in that degree also be said to failin intelligence? Will you admit so much? Yes, he said; how can I deny it? And you would say the same of the conception of the good? Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the ideaof good, and unless he can run the gauntlet of all objections, andis ready to disprove them, not by appeals to opinion, but to absolutetruth, never faltering at any step of the argument --unless he cando all this, you would say that he knows neither the idea of goodnor any other good; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all,which is given by opinion and not by science; --dreaming and slumberingin this life, before he is well awake here, he arrives at the worldbelow, and has his final quietus. In all that I should most certainly agree with you. And surely you would not have the children of your ideal State, whomyou are nurturing and educating --if the ideal ever becomes a reality--you would not allow the future rulers to be like posts, having noreason in them, and yet to be set in authority over the highest matters? Certainly not. Then you will make a law that they shall have such an education aswill enable them to attain the greatest skill in asking and answeringquestions? Yes, he said, you and I together will make it. Dialectic, then, as you will agree, is the coping-stone of the sciences,and is set over them; no other science can be placed higher --thenature of knowledge can no further go? I agree, he said. But to whom we are to assign these studies, and in what way they areto be assigned, are questions which remain to be considered? Yes, clearly. You remember, I said, how the rulers were chosen before? Certainly, he said. The same natures must still be chosen, and the preference again givento the surest and the bravest, and, if possible, to the fairest; and,having noble and generous tempers, they should also have the naturalgifts which will facilitate their education. And what are these? Such gifts as keenness and ready powers of acquisition; for the mindmore often faints from the severity of study than from the severityof gymnastics: the toil is more entirely the mind's own, and is notshared with the body. Very true, he replied. Further, he of whom we are in search should have a good memory, andbe an unwearied solid man who is a lover of labour in any line; orhe will never be able to endure the great amount of bodily exerciseand to go through all the intellectual discipline and study whichwe require of him. Certainly, he said; he must have natural gifts. The mistake at present is, that those who study philosophy have novocation, and this, as I was before saying, is the reason why shehas fallen into disrepute: her true sons should take her by the handand not bastards." "Summary: The text discusses the divisions of intellect and opinion, and the importance of education in a political system. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "I believe that you are all three of you very poor specimens of the human intellect."""" You don't say!"" said the Judge. I do say,"" returned Sherlock Holmes, ""and I'll prove it to you. Watson here set up as a doctor once in Pakistan, and he knew enough, at least, to diagnose with perfect precision the most serious disease which is at this moment threatening my existence. The end of that Packers business will find me behind the Broadstairs asylum curtain. That's an example of the reason why your intellects failed to grasp my ideas. Your education has been unfortunate. You have no knowledge of the British museum classics."""" It was a sore blow, but the Judge tried to laugh it off. """"You must allow us to deal with matters as far as we can understand them,"""" he said. """"When people do not understand 'em they can only fall back upon their opinions."""" Exactly,"" said Holmes; ""that I quite agree with you. How about this bit of coal? What does it mean to you?"""" It's what we call in Doncaster 'a howler,' he's a good deal burnt on one side."""" That's clever, Mr. Hosmer Angel! Oh, you ought to figure at the Oxford Extension Course with your little joke on coal!"""" The next example, gentlemen, is the pointer. Mr. Hosmer Angel, would you mind letting us hear from you on that?"" The Judge raised his eyebrows and glanced at the fire. I don't know what you're driving at,"" he said. " 113 113 "What do you mean? In the first place, her votary should not have a lame or halting industry--I mean, that he should not be half industrious and half idle: as,for example, when a man is a lover of gymnastic and hunting, and allother bodily exercises, but a hater rather than a lover of the labourof learning or listening or enquiring. Or the occupation to whichhe devotes himself may be of an opposite kind, and he may have theother sort of lameness. Certainly, he said. And as to truth, I said, is not a soul equally to be deemed halt andlame which hates voluntary falsehood and is extremely indignant atherself and others when they tell lies, but is patient of involuntaryfalsehood, and does not mind wallowing like a swinish beast in themire of ignorance, and has no shame at being detected? To be sure. And, again, in respect of temperance, courage, magnificence, and everyother virtue, should we not carefully distinguish between the trueson and the bastard? for where there is no discernment of such qualitiesStates and individuals unconsciously err and the State makes a ruler,and the individual a friend, of one who, being defective in some partof virtue, is in a figure lame or a bastard. That is very true, he said. All these things, then, will have to be carefully considered by us;and if only those whom we introduce to this vast system of educationand training are sound in body and mind, justice herself will havenothing to say against us, and we shall be the saviours of the constitutionand of the State; but, if our pupils are men of another stamp, thereverse will happen, and we shall pour a still greater flood of ridiculeon philosophy than she has to endure at present. That would not be creditable. Certainly not, I said; and yet perhaps, in thus turning jest intoearnest I am equally ridiculous. In what respect? I had forgotten, I said, that we were not serious, and spoke withtoo much excitement. For when I saw philosophy so undeservedly trampledunder foot of men I could not help feeling a sort of indignation atthe authors of her disgrace: and my anger made me too vehement. Indeed! I was listening, and did not think so. But I, who am the speaker, felt that I was. And now let me remindyou that, although in our former selection we chose old men, we mustnot do so in this. Solon was under a delusion when he said that aman when he grows old may learn many things --for he can no more learnmuch than he can run much; youth is the time for any extraordinarytoil. Of course. And, therefore, calculation and geometry and all the other elementsof instruction, which are a preparation for dialectic, should be presentedto the mind in childhood; not, however, under any notion of forcingour system of education. Why not? Because a freeman ought not to be a slave in the acquisition of knowledgeof any kind. Bodily exercise, when compulsory, does no harm to thebody; but knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains nohold on the mind. Very true. Then, my good friend, I said, do not use compulsion, but let earlyeducation be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able tofind out the natural bent. That is a very rational notion, he said. Do you remember that the children, too, were to be taken to see thebattle on horseback; and that if there were no danger they were tobe brought close up and, like young hounds, have a taste of bloodgiven them? Yes, I remember. The same practice may be followed, I said, in all these things --labours,lessons, dangers --and he who is most at home in all of them oughtto be enrolled in a select number. At what age? At the age when the necessary gymnastics are over: the period whetherof two or three years which passes in this sort of training is uselessfor any other purpose; for sleep and exercise are unpropitious tolearning; and the trial of who is first in gymnastic exercises isone of the most important tests to which our youth are subjected. Certainly, he replied. After that time those who are selected from the class of twenty yearsold will be promoted to higher honour, and the sciences which theylearned without any order in their early education will now be broughttogether, and they will be able to see the natural relationship ofthem to one another and to true being. Yes, he said, that is the only kind of knowledge which takes lastingroot. Yes, I said; and the capacity for such knowledge is the great criterionof dialectical talent: the comprehensive mind is always the dialectical." "Summary: The text discusses the importance of having a well-rounded education and the characteristics of a true philosopher. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical discourse Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Quoted work: Solon's delusion about learning in old age Language: English" "But how will you learn to be a good criminal if you don't know how to play bridge? A man who doesn't know how to play bridge can't be trusted with a hot car, or even a bicycle."""" I didn't say we had no education,"" Socrates objected. ""I said our education was limited. We are an organized crime, and our organization demands that we have a certain amount of general knowledge, particularly in the matter of literature. No gentleman criminal would dream of cutting somebody's throat unless he could quote him two or three lines of poetry as he did it. And no gentleman criminal would be such a fool as to take a job without first finding out what sort of hours the other members of his gang were working. You'll notice that we've been careful to have everything fixed up so that there will be no trouble about alibis."""" Well, then, why do you want me to leave?"" I want you to go because you aren't tough enough for this business. A philosopher is all very well when he's young, but at my time of life a philosopher makes more trouble than he's worth. When I was your age I couldn't get along without one, but now I'd sooner have a dog. Dogs are quieter, and they never talk nonsense."""" He looked at me with those hard, bright eyes of his, and I shivered. He seemed to see through to the center of me, and I'm sure he knew that I was afraid of him. What's the matter?"" he asked. ""You're trembling all over."""" I'm cold."" That's just what I thought!"" But it wasn't just what he thought; he made sure of it. """"Come here!"""" he cried, and suddenly seized me by the scruff of the neck and shook me until I was quite limp. There!"" he said. ""That's better! Now let's start again!"""" I took my place on the sofa, but I sat there like a child who has been scolded. The master isn't pleased with you,"" he said. ""He doesn't like people to tremble when he looks at them."""" I'm sorry,"" I said. ""It won't happen again."" Well, what have you decided to do?"" he asked. I hadn't decided anything. I wanted to stay, but I was afraid of him. If I stayed he might kill me, but if I went he might follow me and kill me anyway. It seemed wiser to stay where I was. I told him so. Well, if you've got any sense you won't,"" he said. ""You go away somewhere and work at your philosophy. Philosophy is a good thing, and it keeps a fellow out of mischief. But it's not a game for old men; it's too gentle a thing for them. They need something with a little muscle in it."""" I suppose you think you're safe here,"" he went on. ""Well, you're not! " 114 114 "I agree with you, he said. These, I said, are the points which you must consider; and those whohave most of this comprehension, and who are more steadfast in theirlearning, and in their military and other appointed duties, when theyhave arrived at the age of thirty have to be chosen by you out ofthe select class, and elevated to higher honour; and you will haveto prove them by the help of dialectic, in order to learn which ofthem is able to give up the use of sight and the other senses, andin company with truth to attain absolute being: And here, my friend,great caution is required. Why great caution? Do you not remark, I said, how great is the evil which dialectic hasintroduced? What evil? he said. The students of the art are filled with lawlessness. Quite true, he said. Do you think that there is anything so very unnatural or inexcusablein their case? or will you make allowance for them? In what way make allowance? I want you, I said, by way of parallel, to imagine a supposititiousson who is brought up in great wealth; he is one of a great and numerousfamily, and has many flatterers. When he grows up to manhood, he learnsthat his alleged are not his real parents; but who the real are heis unable to discover. Can you guess how he will be likely to behavetowards his flatterers and his supposed parents, first of all duringthe period when he is ignorant of the false relation, and then againwhen he knows? Or shall I guess for you? If you please. Then I should say, that while he is ignorant of the truth he willbe likely to honour his father and his mother and his supposed relationsmore than the flatterers; he will be less inclined to neglect themwhen in need, or to do or say anything against them; and he will beless willing to disobey them in any important matter. He will. But when he has made the discovery, I should imagine that he woulddiminish his honour and regard for them, and would become more devotedto the flatterers; their influence over him would greatly increase;he would now live after their ways, and openly associate with them,and, unless he were of an unusually good disposition, he would troublehimself no more about his supposed parents or other relations. Well, all that is very probable. But how is the image applicable tothe disciples of philosophy? In this way: you know that there are certain principles about justiceand honour, which were taught us in childhood, and under their parentalauthority we have been brought up, obeying and honouring them. That is true. There are also opposite maxims and habits of pleasure which flatterand attract the soul, but do not influence those of us who have anysense of right, and they continue to obey and honour the maxims oftheir fathers. True. Now, when a man is in this state, and the questioning spirit askswhat is fair or honourable, and he answers as the legislator has taughthim, and then arguments many and diverse refute his words, until heis driven into believing that nothing is honourable any more thandishonourable, or just and good any more than the reverse, and soof all the notions which he most valued, do you think that he willstill honour and obey them as before? Impossible. And when he ceases to think them honourable and natural as heretofore,and he fails to discover the true, can he be expected to pursue anylife other than that which flatters his desires? He cannot. And from being a keeper of the law he is converted into a breakerof it? Unquestionably. Now all this is very natural in students of philosophy such as I havedescribed, and also, as I was just now saying, most excusable. Yes, he said; and, I may add, pitiable. Therefore, that your feelings may not be moved to pity about our citizenswho are now thirty years of age, every care must be taken in introducingthem to dialectic." "Summary: The speaker discusses the importance of comprehension and learning in choosing individuals for higher honor. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker and his interlocutor Language: English" I don’t want you to be able to read my mind. I want you to know how to understand what is going on around you. If you can do that, you will be an honourable man one day. If you can’t, you won’t. As I said before, there is no point in me teaching you to do sums and nothing but sums all your life.’ ‘And besides, sir,’ said Watty, ‘it’s only the really bright people who can get a real understanding of it, isn’t it?’ ‘That’s right,’ I said, ‘and as long as you’re a fool you’ll never have any chance of learning it.’ He got quite angry about this; for he thought I was making fun of him, and he shouted out: ‘But if I’m a fool, why did you send me up here? You said yourself that you wanted me because I was stupid.’ ‘You are not a fool,’ I said; ‘you are a fat-headed half-wit.’ This seemed to satisfy him, and he went away contented. But the following day he brought me a great number of questions from his class which were very difficult indeed. They had been set by the Headmaster to find out whether or not the boys could learn anything at all, and, when they couldn’t do them, to discover what the reason might be. The questions were about history, mathematics, algebra, geometry, Latin grammar, the tenses of irregular verbs, and various other things. 115 115 "Certainly. There is a danger lest they should taste the dear delight too early;for youngsters, as you may have observed, when they first get thetaste in their mouths, argue for amusement, and are always contradictingand refuting others in imitation of those who refute them; like puppy-dogs,they rejoice in pulling and tearing at all who come near them. Yes, he said, there is nothing which they like better. And when they have made many conquests and received defeats at thehands of many, they violently and speedily get into a way of not believinganything which they believed before, and hence, not only they, butphilosophy and all that relates to it is apt to have a bad name withthe rest of the world. Too true, he said. But when a man begins to get older, he will no longer be guilty ofsuch insanity; he will imitate the dialectician who is seeking fortruth, and not the eristic, who is contradicting for the sake of amusement;and the greater moderation of his character will increase insteadof diminishing the honour of the pursuit. Very true, he said. And did we not make special provision for this, when we said thatthe disciples of philosophy were to be orderly and steadfast, not,as now, any chance aspirant or intruder? Very true. Suppose, I said, the study of philosophy to take the place of gymnasticsand to be continued diligently and earnestly and exclusively for twicethe number of years which were passed in bodily exercise --will thatbe enough? Would you say six or four years? he asked. Say five years, I replied; at the end of the time they must be sentdown again into the den and compelled to hold any military or otheroffice which young men are qualified to hold: in this way they willget their experience of life, and there will be an opportunity oftrying whether, when they are drawn all manner of ways by temptation,they will stand firm or flinch. And how long is this stage of their lives to last? Fifteen years, I answered; and when they have reached fifty yearsof age, then let those who still survive and have distinguished themselvesin every action of their lives and in every branch of knowledge comeat last to their consummation; the time has now arrived at which theymust raise the eye of the soul to the universal light which lightensall things, and behold the absolute good; for that is the, patternaccording to which they are to order the State and the lives of individuals,and the remainder of their own lives also; making philosophy theirchief pursuit, but, when their turn comes, toiling also at politicsand ruling for the public good, not as though they were performingsome heroic action, but simply as a matter of duty; and when theyhave brought up in each generation others like themselves and leftthem in their place to be governors of the State, then they will departto the Islands of the Blest and dwell there; and the city will givethem public memorials and sacrifices and honour them, if the Pythianoracle consent, as demi-gods, but if not, as in any case blessed anddivine. You are a sculptor, Socrates, and have made statues of our governorsfaultless in beauty. Yes, I said, Glaucon, and of our governesses too; for you must notsuppose that what I have been saying applies to men only and not towomen as far as their natures can go. There you are right, he said, since we have made them to share inall things like the men. Well, I said, and you would agree (would you not?) that what has beensaid about the State and the government is not a mere dream, and althoughdifficult not impossible, but only possible in the way which has beensupposed; that is to say, when the true philosopher kings are bornin a State, one or more of them, despising the honours of this presentworld which they deem mean and worthless, esteeming above all thingsright and the honour that springs from right, and regarding justiceas the greatest and most necessary of all things, whose ministersthey are, and whose principles will be exalted by them when they setin order their own city?" "Summary: The text discusses the importance of philosophy and its impact on the individual and society. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Quoted character: Pythian oracle Fuzzy place: The den Language: English" "Why, man, he was the first who dared to raise his eyes from the mire of common life and look up to the pure, unshrouded heavens. He was the first who dared to rise above the trivialities of every-day existence, and in the face of the gods themselves to ask himself why he lived, what he was made for, what were the highest aims of human existence."""" You are wrong, Socrates,"" said Glaucon; ""I think you will find that Pythagoras preceded him."" I am afraid not,"" answered Socrates; ""Pythagoras was merely a great mathematician, an ardent student of the movements of the heavenly bodies. He made no attempt to solve the riddle of human destiny or the problem of the world's creation."""" But Thales?"" cried Glaucon eagerly, ""he was older than Pythagoras, and certainly he was a philosopher."" Yes,"" replied Socrates, ""but he was only a philosopher in the sense in which we may say that our modern explorer, the intrepid pioneer, is a philosopher. He went into the desert and studied the stars, but he did not seek to find out why he studied them, or to what end they shone on him."""" But there were others!"" exclaimed Glaucon. ""Heraclitus, Democritus, Parmenides, Empedocles!"""" There were many,"" assented Socrates, ""and each one contributed something towards building up the mighty fabric of philosophy. Heraclitus taught us that 'change is the law of life,' and that all things 'flow.' Democritus told us that nothing really exists save atoms and the void, and that the universe is but a dream and a delusion. Parmenides taught that matter was eternal, and that motion was impossible. Empedocles added still another theory to those already current by maintaining that four elements, fire, air, earth, water, combined with two cosmic forces, Love and Hate, to produce the world. But it remained for me to synthesize these conflicting theories and to show that they were all true; that change was necessary, yet that absolute reality lay behind appearance, that motion was possible, yet that matter was eternal; that the soul existed before the body and would live again when the body died; that the individual was but the shadow of God and that God was immanent in the universe."""" This is indeed a noble task,"" said Glaucon slowly, ""yet I fear it has not brought much happiness to mankind."""" Oh yes,"" returned Socrates, ""it has brought them much happiness. It has given them to know their own worth, and so to scorn death as to be able to die when the occasion arose. It has shown them how vain and empty are the pleasures of sense, how fleeting the joys of love and power and wealth. And best of all it has enabled them to find peace and contentment within themselves, for it has taught them to realize that the highest good lies within. " 116 116 "How will they proceed? They will begin by sending out into the country all the inhabitantsof the city who are more than ten years old, and will take possessionof their children, who will be unaffected by the habits of their parents;these they will train in their own habits and laws, I mean in thelaws which we have given them: and in this way the State and constitutionof which we were speaking will soonest and most easily attain happiness,and the nation which has such a constitution will gain most. Yes, that will be the best way. And I think, Socrates, that you havevery well described how, if ever, such a constitution might come intobeing. Enough then of the perfect State, and of the man who bears its image--there is no difficulty in seeing how we shall describe him. There is no difficulty, he replied; and I agree with you in thinkingthat nothing more need be said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK VIII Socrates - GLAUCON And so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in the perfectState wives and children are to be in common; and that all educationand the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the bestphilosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings? That, replied Glaucon, has been acknowledged. Yes, I said; and we have further acknowledged that the governors,when appointed themselves, will take their soldiers and place themin houses such as we were describing, which are common to all, andcontain nothing private, or individual; and about their property,you remember what we agreed? Yes, I remember that no one was to have any of the ordinary possessionsof mankind; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians, receivingfrom the other citizens, in lieu of annual payment, only their maintenance,and they were to take care of themselves and of the whole State. True, I said; and now that this division of our task is concluded,let us find the point at which we digressed, that we may return intothe old path. There is no difficulty in returning; you implied, then as now, thatyou had finished the description of the State: you said that sucha State was good, and that the man was good who answered to it, although,as now appears, you had more excellent things to relate both of Stateand man. And you said further, that if this was the true form, thenthe others were false; and of the false forms, you said, as I remember,that there were four principal ones, and that their defects, and thedefects of the individuals corresponding to them, were worth examining.When we had seen all the individuals, and finally agreed as to whowas the best and who was the worst of them, we were to consider whetherthe best was not also the happiest, and the worst the most miserable.I asked you what were the four forms of government of which you spoke,and then Polemarchus and Adeimantus put in their word; and you beganagain, and have found your way to the point at which we have now arrived. Your recollection, I said, is most exact. Then, like a wrestler, he replied, you must put yourself again inthe same position; and let me ask the same questions, and do you giveme the same answer which you were about to give me then. Yes, if I can, I will, I said. I shall particularly wish to hear what were the four constitutionsof which you were speaking. That question, I said, is easily answered: the four governments ofwhich I spoke, so far as they have distinct names, are, first, thoseof Crete and Sparta, which are generally applauded; what is termedoligarchy comes next; this is not equally approved, and is a formof government which teems with evils: thirdly, democracy, which naturallyfollows oligarchy, although very different: and lastly comes tyranny,great and famous, which differs from them all, and is the fourth andworst disorder of a State. I do not know, do you? of any other constitutionwhich can be said to have a distinct character. There are lordshipsand principalities which are bought and sold, and some other intermediateforms of government. But these are nondescripts and may be found equallyamong Hellenes and among barbarians. Yes, he replied, we certainly hear of many curious forms of governmentwhich exist among them." "Summary: The text discusses the structure and governance of a perfect State, with a focus on common ownership and shared responsibilities. Narrative arc: Discussion and explanation of the structure of a perfect State Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Quoted work: None mentioned Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "He was thinking of the public sector. Public ownership is a very good thing, you see, because then we can take what we like from it. We've got to have some sort of system like that if this State is going to be perfect. No private property at all, everything held in common. And as for labour, that's going to be compulsory for everyone. There will be no such thing as idleness; and what's more, there will be no private families. The children are going to belong to the State, which will rear them as best it can."""" You're really being rather too harsh,"" Glaucon said. ""Can't you imagine how they'd hate it?"""" They'll get used to it,"" Socrates snapped. ""And now listen to this: in our ideal State, there won't be any cash money. No coins or notes or anything like that. Just necessities distributed according to need, and luxuries as rewards for deserving citizens."""" That doesn't sound like much fun,"" Glaucon said. I agree with you. But don't forget that this is an austere and grim place. Not the kind of place where people go on holidays. In fact it will be quite impossible to leave the country, even by accident."""" You've thought of everything,"" Glaucon said. ""But what about law and order? Who'll be in charge of that?"""" I'm coming to that,"" Socrates replied. ""You know, one of the most extraordinary things I've noticed is that in practically every country in the world, there are always more criminals than there are policemen. So let's have a ratio of three prisoners to every policeman. Don't worry about food, water, exercise or accommodation; we'll use the condemned cells in the local prisons. What we'll do is this: we'll hand over the whole administration of the State to the police force. They'll look after everything for us, and they'll be the ones who decide who's worthy of citizenship and who isn't. After all, they're the only people we can trust."""" They might get above themselves."" Exactly! And then we could put down any rebellion pretty quickly, couldn't we?"" I suppose so,"" Glaucon said. ""But what about a head of state? Doesn't your State need somebody in charge?"""" This was a tricky one. Socrates had been sitting on his hands for some time, but he knew that sooner or later he would have to come up with something. """"Yes,"" he said, """"that's a good point. Let me think...."""" He paused again, while Glaucon waited patiently. It's difficult,"" Socrates went on, speaking slowly. ""I was wondering whether we shouldn't just appoint the Chief of Police as Head of State, since he's the obvious choice for the job."""" Maybe we should,"" Glaucon said, not altogether enthusiastically. """"But why not just call him President?"""" Oh, right,"" Socrates agreed. ""That sounds better. Call him the President."""" And the official title of the State?"" " 117 117 "Do you know, I said, that governments vary as the dispositions ofmen vary, and that there must be as many of the one as there are ofthe other? For we cannot suppose that States are made of 'oak androck,' and not out of the human natures which are in them, and whichin a figure turn the scale and draw other things after them? Yes, he said, the States are as the men are; they grow out of humancharacters. Then if the constitutions of States are five, the dispositions ofindividual minds will also be five? Certainly. Him who answers to aristocracy, and whom we rightly call just andgood, we have already described. We have. Then let us now proceed to describe the inferior sort of natures,being the contentious and ambitious, who answer to the Spartan polity;also the oligarchical, democratical, and tyrannical. Let us placethe most just by the side of the most unjust, and when we see themwe shall be able to compare the relative happiness or unhappinessof him who leads a life of pure justice or pure injustice. The enquirywill then be completed. And we shall know whether we ought to pursueinjustice, as Thrasymachus advises, or in accordance with the conclusionsof the argument to prefer justice. Certainly, he replied, we must do as you say. Shall we follow our old plan, which we adopted with a view to clearness,of taking the State first and then proceeding to the individual, andbegin with the government of honour? --I know of no name for sucha government other than timocracy, or perhaps timarchy. We will comparewith this the like character in the individual; and, after that, consideroligarchical man; and then again we will turn our attention to democracyand the democratical man; and lastly, we will go and view the cityof tyranny, and once more take a look into the tyrant's soul, andtry to arrive at a satisfactory decision. That way of viewing and judging of the matter will be very suitable. First, then, I said, let us enquire how timocracy (the governmentof honour) arises out of aristocracy (the government of the best).Clearly, all political changes originate in divisions of the actualgoverning power; a government which is united, however small, cannotbe moved. Very true, he said. In what way, then, will our city be moved, and in what manner thetwo classes of auxiliaries and rulers disagree among themselves orwith one another? Shall we, after the manner of Homer, pray the Musesto tell us 'how discord first arose'? Shall we imagine them in solemnmockery, to play and jest with us as if we were children, and to addressus in a lofty tragic vein, making believe to be in earnest?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the different types of governments and their corresponding dispositions of individuals. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: The speaker, the other person in the conversation Fuzzy place: Unnamed places such as States and cities Language: English" "The States are the Governments. The cities are their individuals. There is a kind of Government for each individual, and the individuals form the Governments. In some States the Governments are kings or queens. In other States they are juries. In others they are mobs. In some countries they are elected. In other countries they are hereditary. But whatever they are they are Governments just as surely as your own in you."""" I don't believe it,"" he said in a low voice. It's true. Look at yourself. Your Government is your own soul; your will. You have made it what it is, and you can remake it to what you choose if you like. What you have done with it depends on what your temperament was when you were born. Temperament is the basis of all Government. And there are only three kinds of temperament, so there are only three kinds of Government. They are the despot, the man who likes to be governed, and the man who likes to govern."""" He laughed and leaned forward. Do you know that the majority of people prefer to be governed by somebody else?"""" Yes,"" I said. ""I've noticed it."" Well, then, the majority of people are despondent in their natures. Their minds are always dark. They live in a perpetual night. Nothing cheers them up. They never see anything bright. They are heavy men, these people. When you meet them you feel as though you are being dragged down into a swamp. " 118 118 "How would they address us? After this manner: --A city which is thus constituted can hardly beshaken; but, seeing that everything which has a beginning has alsoan end, even a constitution such as yours will not last for ever,but will in time be dissolved. And this is the dissolution: --In plantsthat grow in the earth, as well as in animals that move on the earth'ssurface, fertility and sterility of soul and body occur when the circumferencesof the circles of each are completed, which in short-lived existencespass over a short space, and in long-lived ones over a long space.But to the knowledge of human fecundity and sterility all the wisdomand education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulatethem will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed withsense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into theworld when they ought not. Now that which is of divine birth has aperiod which is contained in a perfect number, but the period of humanbirth is comprehended in a number in which first increments by involutionand evolution (or squared and cubed) obtaining three intervals andfour terms of like and unlike, waxing and waning numbers, make allthe terms commensurable and agreeable to one another. The base ofthese (3) with a third added (4) when combined with five (20) andraised to the third power furnishes two harmonies; the first a squarewhich is a hundred times as great (400 = 4 X 100), and the other afigure having one side equal to the former, but oblong, consistingof a hundred numbers squared upon rational diameters of a square (i.e. omitting fractions), the side of which is five (7 X 7 = 49 X 100= 4900), each of them being less by one (than the perfect square whichincludes the fractions, sc. 50) or less by two perfect squares ofirrational diameters (of a square the side of which is five = 50 +50 = 100); and a hundred cubes of three (27 X 100 = 2700 + 4900 +400 = 8000). Now this number represents a geometrical figure whichhas control over the good and evil of births. For when your guardiansare ignorant of the law of births, and unite bride and bridegroomout of season, the children will not be goodly or fortunate. And thoughonly the best of them will be appointed by their predecessors, stillthey will be unworthy to hold their fathers' places, and when theycome into power as guardians, they will soon be found to fall in takingcare of us, the Muses, first by under-valuing music; which neglectwill soon extend to gymnastic; and hence the young men of your Statewill be less cultivated. In the succeeding generation rulers willbe appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metalof your different races, which, like Hesiod's, are of gold and silverand brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brasswith gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequalityand irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatredand war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discordhas sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. Yes, and we may assume that they answer truly. Why, yes, I said, of course they answer truly; how can the Muses speakfalsely? And what do the Muses say next? When discord arose, then the two races were drawn different ways:the iron and brass fell to acquiring money and land and houses andgold and silver; but the gold and silver races, not wanting moneybut having the true riches in their own nature, inclined towards virtueand the ancient order of things. There was a battle between them,and at last they agreed to distribute their land and houses amongindividual owners; and they enslaved their friends and maintainers,whom they had formerly protected in the condition of freemen, andmade of them subjects and servants; and they themselves were engagedin war and in keeping a watch against them. I believe that you have rightly conceived the origin of the change. And the new government which thus arises will be of a form intermediatebetween oligarchy and aristocracy? Very true. Such will be the change, and after the change has been made, how willthey proceed? Clearly, the new State, being in a mean between oligarchyand the perfect State, will partly follow one and partly the other,and will also have some peculiarities. True, he said. In the honour given to rulers, in the abstinence of the warrior classfrom agriculture, handicrafts, and trade in general, in the institutionof common meals, and in the attention paid to gymnastics and militarytraining --in all these respects this State will resemble the former. True. But in the fear of admitting philosophers to power, because they areno longer to be had simple and earnest, but are made up of mixed elements;and in turning from them to passionate and less complex characters,who are by nature fitted for war rather than peace; and in the valueset by them upon military stratagems and contrivances, and in thewaging of everlasting wars --this State will be for the most partpeculiar. Yes. Yes, I said; and men of this stamp will be covetous of money, likethose who live in oligarchies; they will have, a fierce secret longingafter gold and silver, which they will hoard in dark places, havingmagazines and treasuries of their own for the deposit and concealmentof them; also castles which are just nests for their eggs, and inwhich they will spend large sums on their wives, or on any otherswhom they please. That is most true, he said. And they are miserly because they have no means of openly acquiringthe money which they prize; they will spend that which is anotherman's on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasuresand running away like children from the law, their father: they havebeen schooled not by gentle influences but by force, for they haveneglected her who is the true Muse, the companion of reason and philosophy,and have honoured gymnastic more than music." "Summary: The text discusses the dissolution and decline of a city, focusing on the effects of fertility and sterility on human births. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speakers in the dialog Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "The city was falling into dissolution. It had outlived its time and its usefulness. But it would be a long while before it died. The only things that ever die in this world are the people who live in them. The buildings stand for generations, crumbling slowly and getting more and more run-down until they become slums. Only the people die. And the crime rate increases steadily. There were too many children born every year to replace the parents who were dying off. The population of the city continued to increase. More and more new people were added. They came from other cities and states. Many came from foreign countries. A few had been born in the city itself. Fertility and sterility ruled over all births. If you were fertile, your child would be born alive. If you were sterile, your child would not live even an instant. I have seen it happen many times."""" He turned to me, his voice bitter. You think I am making excuses? I want to make it plain to you, Mr. Archer, how it is with my city. There is no such thing as a miscarriage here. Every woman who gives birth does so to a living child. And there is no such thing as death here either, Mr. Archer. We have no morgues or crematories. We do not bury our dead, because they come back to life. After a time. In the morning, when you wake up, you will see for yourself what happens to the babies who are born during the night."""" " 119 119 "Undoubtedly, he said, the form of government which you describe isa mixture of good and evil. Why, there is a mixture, I said; but one thing, and one thing only,is predominantly seen, --the spirit of contention and ambition; andthese are due to the prevalence of the passionate or spirited element. Assuredly, he said. Such is the origin and such the character of this State, which hasbeen described in outline only; the more perfect execution was notrequired, for a sketch is enough to show the type of the most perfectlyjust and most perfectly unjust; and to go through all the States andall the characters of men, omitting none of them, would be an interminablelabour. Very true, he replied. Now what man answers to this form of government-how did he come intobeing, and what is he like? Socrates - ADEIMANTUS I think, said Adeimantus, that in the spirit of contention which characteriseshim, he is not unlike our friend Glaucon. Perhaps, I said, he may be like him in that one point; but there areother respects in which he is very different. In what respects? He should have more of self-assertion and be less cultivated, andyet a friend of culture; and he should be a good listener, but nospeaker. Such a person is apt to be rough with slaves, unlike theeducated man, who is too proud for that; and he will also be courteousto freemen, and remarkably obedient to authority; he is a lover ofpower and a lover of honour; claiming to be a ruler, not because heis eloquent, or on any ground of that sort, but because he is a soldierand has performed feats of arms; he is also a lover of gymnastic exercisesand of the chase. Yes, that is the type of character which answers to timocracy. Such an one will despise riches only when he is young; but as he getsolder he will be more and more attracted to them, because he has apiece of the avaricious nature in him, and is not singleminded towardsvirtue, having lost his best guardian. Who was that? said Adeimantus. Philosophy, I said, tempered with music, who comes and takes her abodein a man, and is the only saviour of his virtue throughout life. Good, he said. Such, I said, is the timocratical youth, and he is like the timocraticalState. Exactly. His origin is as follows: --He is often the young son of a grave father,who dwells in an ill-governed city, of which he declines the honoursand offices, and will not go to law, or exert himself in any way,but is ready to waive his rights in order that he may escape trouble. And how does the son come into being? The character of the son begins to develop when he hears his mothercomplaining that her husband has no place in the government, of whichthe consequence is that she has no precedence among other women. Further,when she sees her husband not very eager about money, and insteadof battling and railing in the law courts or assembly, taking whateverhappens to him quietly; and when she observes that his thoughts alwayscentre in himself, while he treats her with very considerable indifference,she is annoyed, and says to her son that his father is only half aman and far too easy-going: adding all the other complaints abouther own ill-treatment which women are so fond of rehearsing. Yes, said Adeimantus, they give us plenty of them, and their complaintsare so like themselves." "Summary: The text discusses the character traits and origins of a specific form of government. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Quoted character: Glaucon Language: English" I say, that the form of government in which there are the greatest numbers of tyrants is that which is most like the government of one; for although in every Commonwealth you will find some men, whether they be called popes or patriarchs, kings or emperors, who have more power than the other citizens, nevertheless those who are subject to them force them to behave themselves respectfully and moderately, and this they do by their number, not by obeying a single person. But when from being few tyrants they increase to multitudes, then they cease to be moderate and orderly, for each man does what he pleases, and considers himself a king upon whom none may impose any check; thus there is no longer any one but many, nor any moderation, but the more of them there are the more unbridled they become. And if they should increase to infinity they would lay everything waste; for they would treat both themselves and one another like beasts, and think nothing of one another’s lives, since even with respect to themselves they do not care for their own. For as in the case of a multitude of wild horses, when any one of them has broken loose, though it is always the same nature that makes them wild and intractable, yet they will not all break loose at once, but one at a time, because they cannot all get free at once, but the rest, holding back, prevent each other from escaping; so also it happens among men, that although all alike are equally bad, yet they are not all equally successful, but one is restrained by another, and therefore the majority of them are kept within bounds, and only the fewest escape, and these only occasionally; wherefore the multitude do not, as I have said already, lay everything waste, but some of them live in order, and others in disorder. And thus, my dear Glaucon, there arises out of small beginnings great differences between men; some becoming slower in their passions, and others quicker; those who are slower, and have more leisure, looking after the things of peace, and living in greater safety, while those who are more quick, and whose passions are stronger, are ever fighting and carrying on wars, and are less secure. For they are full of avarice and lust, and therefore take away the life of anyone whom they suspect, and who is weaker than themselves. Hence arise homicide and theft and plundering; for when one man takes the property of another, thinking that he will be the better for it, he is clearly committing an act of violence. And the result of all this is that they live a life of violence, and are always worse and worse until they are compelled to make peace with one another and to set up a government, which at first is elective, but which afterwards becomes hereditary in one of the families. 120 120 "And you know, I said, that the old servants also, who are supposedto be attached to the family, from time to time talk privately inthe same strain to the son; and if they see any one who owes moneyto his father, or is wronging him in any way, and he falls to prosecutethem, they tell the youth that when he grows up he must retaliateupon people of this sort, and be more of a man than his father. Hehas only to walk abroad and he hears and sees the same sort of thing:those who do their own business in the city are called simpletons,and held in no esteem, while the busy-bodies are honoured and applauded.The result is that the young man, hearing and seeing all these thing--hearing too, the words of his father, and having a nearer view ofhis way of life, and making comparisons of him and others --is drawnopposite ways: while his father is watering and nourishing the rationalprinciple in his soul, the others are encouraging the passionate andappetitive; and he being not originally of a bad nature, but havingkept bad company, is at last brought by their joint influence to amiddle point, and gives up the kingdom which is within him to themiddle principle of contentiousness and passion, and becomes arrogantand ambitious. You seem to me to have described his origin perfectly. Then we have now, I said, the second form of government and the secondtype of character? We have. 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 richhave 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 tooligarchy arises? Yes. Well, I said, no eyes are required in order to see how the one passesinto the other. How? The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals isruin the of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure; forwhat do they or their wives care about the law? Yes, indeed. And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thusthe great mass of the citizens become lovers of money. Likely enough. And so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of makinga fortune the less they think of virtue; for when riches and virtueare placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always risesas the other falls. True. And in proportion as riches and rich men are honoured in the State,virtue and the virtuous are dishonoured. Clearly. And what is honoured is cultivated, and that which has no honour isneglected. That is obvious. And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men becomelovers 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 which fixes a sum of money as thequalification of citizenship; the sum is higher in one place and lowerin another, as the oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they allowno one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any sharein the government. These changes in the constitution they effect byforce 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 we were speaking? First of all, I said, consider the nature of the qualification justthink what would happen if pilots were to be chosen according to theirproperty, and a poor man were refused permission to steer, even thoughhe 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, inasmuchas the rule of a city is the greatest and most difficult of all. 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 thesame spot and always conspiring against one another." "Summary: The text discusses the transition from timocracy to oligarchy and the negative effects of wealth on a society. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Father, son Quoted work: Aeschylus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "He had been right about the transition from timocracy to oligarchy. A little more wealth, a little more power and these men would have their slaves for servants. The father was already half way to it; he could hardly wait to get rid of his son. The son couldn't wait to be rid of him. They were both in love with the same woman, but neither of them could do anything about it because she belonged to someone else. If they'd had their way they'd probably have murdered each other. Only the murder they committed together wasn't enough to satisfy them. Neither of them felt that he'd got his money's worth out of the evening. I don't know why you didn't stay at home,"" I said. ""You're only making things worse for yourself."" """"I can't stand being shut up in the house,"""" he answered. """"I've got to get out."""" He pulled another cigarette out of his pocket and lit it. It was obvious that he'd brought two packets. I felt my teeth begin to tingle and my stomach muscles contract as if I were going to throw up. I can imagine,"" I said. ""I suppose you feel like that when you're cooped up all day in a bank."""" He looked at me blankly. I smiled. You see,"" I went on, ""you're getting used to the smell of money. It's very nice, but it makes ordinary smells seem revolting. Like your own sweat, for instance."""" His face twitched. I know what he was thinking. He was wondering whether I'd found out something about him. I'm sure he thought he saw the solution of his problem. He could kill me now and it wouldn't make any difference to his plans. All he had to do was tell his father what he'd done and then put the blame on to me. That's what he was thinking about when I spoke again. So you think I'm not brave enough to take risks?"" I asked. ""Do you really think that's the reason why I haven't gone into the police force?"""" He stared at me, speechless. I leaned towards him and said: """"Well, let me tell you this. I took the biggest risk of my life last night when I came here."""" What do you mean?"" And then he knew. His eyes blazed. He began to understand that there was a man inside me who had taken over my body. He hated me and feared me. He wanted to destroy me. But he couldn't do it. Not yet. He couldn't even begin to fight me because he hadn't understood the nature of the forces that were driving me forward. He only knew that there was something wrong with me and he couldn't guess what it was. I gave him time to work it out for himself. He began by saying: """"You're an unnatural brute. You're a pervert."""" He would have called me a dirty soddy if he'd known the word. " 121 121 "That, surely, is at least as bad. Another discreditable feature is, that, for a like reason, they areincapable of carrying on any war. Either they arm the multitude, andthen they are more afraid of them than of the enemy; or, if they donot 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 fondnessfor money makes them unwilling to pay taxes. How discreditable! And, as we said before, under such a constitution the same personshave too many callings --they are husbandmen, tradesmen, warriors,all in one. Does that look well? Anything but well. There is another evil which is, perhaps, the greatest of all, andto 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 longera part, being neither trader, nor artisan, nor horseman, nor hoplite,but only a poor, helpless creature. Yes, that is an evil which also first begins in this State. The evil is certainly not prevented there; for oligarchies have boththe 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 purposesof 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 was only a spendthrift. May we not say that this is the drone in the house who is like thedrone in the honeycomb, and that the one is the plague of the cityas 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 butothers have dreadful stings; of the stingless class are those whoin their old age end as paupers; of the stingers come all the criminalclass, as they are termed. Most true, he said. Clearly then, whenever you see paupers in a State, somewhere in thatneighborhood there are hidden away thieves, and cutpurses and robbersof 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 that there are also many criminalsto be found in them, rogues who have stings, and whom the authoritiesare 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 theremay be many other evils. Very likely. Then oligarchy, or the form of government in which the rulers areelected for their wealth, may now be dismissed. Let us next proceedto consider the nature and origin of the individual who answers tothis State. By all means. Does not the timocratical man change into the oligarchical on thiswise? How? A time arrives when the representative of timocracy has a son: atfirst he begins by emulating his father and walking in his footsteps,but presently he sees him of a sudden foundering against the Stateas upon a sunken reef, and he and all that he has is lost; he mayhave been a general or some other high officer who is brought to trialunder a prejudice raised by informers, and either put to death, orexiled, or deprived of the privileges of a citizen, and all his propertytaken from him. Nothing more likely. And the son has seen and known all this --he is a ruined man, andhis fear has taught him to knock ambition and passion head-foremostfrom his bosom's throne; humbled by poverty he takes to money-makingand by mean and miserly savings and hard work gets a fortune together.Is not such an one likely to seat the concupiscent and covetous elementon the vacant throne and to suffer it to play the great king withinhim, girt with tiara and chain and scimitar?" "Summary: The text discusses the flaws and weaknesses of oligarchies, including their inability to wage war, their lack of financial stability, and the presence of wealthy drones who do not contribute to society. It also explores the transition from timocracy to oligarchy and the impact of poverty on individuals. Narrative arc: Analytical Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "They are not fit to wage war. They can't afford it. They have no sense of honour or loyalty. Their word is not their bond; they will cheat and rob each other, and the only way in which they protect themselves from wholesale assassination by their own citizens is by a gangster system of secret agents who spy upon everybody and carry out all sorts of dirty work with their hands, and keep their mouths shut about everything else."""" A momentary pause while he lit another cigarette. """"If you want to know what an oligarchy looks like look at the skyscrapers of New York. They represent the concentrated wealth of two thousand years, and yet they don't amount to anything because they haven't any roots. They've got no future either. They'll fall down some day like a pack of cards. No natural force that was worth anything could ever be completely killed. The capitalists may have suppressed the trade unionists but they couldn't suppress the spirit of trade unionism. It will rise again, and when it does it will sweep them into the gutter where they belong. There's nothing that the workers of the world hate more than rich parasites who live on the fat of the land and never do an honest stroke of work in their lives. They're just the same as drones in an ant-hill: they don't belong to the community; they're outside it; they live off the community; they fatten and multiply until there are too many of them; then the workers kill them and throw them out."""" I think you're talking nonsense,"" said Mr. Prentice. ""You can't possibly compare these people to drones."" You can,"" said Ransome, without turning his head. ""You can't compare them to human beings at all. They're something quite different. They're spongers, parasites, leeches, vampires, vermin that suck the blood of humanity and corrupt it. Look at this town. Look at its architecture, its shops, its museums, its palaces, its restaurants, its theatres, its cinemas. What are they? The public playground of the rich. When you go into a first-class hotel here you know why you pay five shillings for your breakfast? You're paying for the right to eat it among men and women who are wearing clothes costing as much as you earn in six months. You're paying for the privilege of being looked at by people whose faces are so familiar to you from the illustrated papers that you feel as if you were in the company of gods. Why, it would take one of those gods about ten minutes to buy up all the furniture in your house and sell it for a thousand pounds. And yet you pretend that these gods are your equals. How long do you think your pretence would last if they didn't put on the mask?"""" Ransome turned his head sharply, and suddenly saw the face of Mrs. Prentice. " 122 122 "Most true, he replied. And when he has made reason and spirit sit down on the ground obedientlyon 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 turnedinto larger ones, and will not allow the other to worship and admireanything but riches and rich men, or to be ambitious of anything somuch 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 theconversion of the ambitious youth into the avaricious one. And the avaricious, I said, is the oligarchical youth? Yes, he said; at any rate the individual out of whom he came is likethe State out of which oligarchy came. Let us then consider whether there is any likeness between them. Very good. First, then, they resemble one another in the value which they setupon wealth? Certainly. Also in their penurious, laborious character; the individual onlysatisfies his necessary appetites, and confines his expenditure tothem; his other desires he subdues, under the idea that they are unprofitable. True. He is a shabby fellow, who saves something out of everything and makesa 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 himas 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 madea blind god director of his chorus, or given him chief honour. Excellent! I said. Yet consider: Must we not further admit that owingto this want of cultivation there will be found in him dronelike desiresas of pauper and rogue, which are forcibly kept down by his generalhabit of life? True. Do you know where you will have to look if you want to discover hisrogueries? 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 givehim a reputation for honesty he coerces his bad passions by an enforcedvirtue; not making them see that they are wrong, or taming them byreason, but by necessity and fear constraining them, and because hetrembles for his possessions. To be sure. Yes, indeed, my dear friend, but you will find that the natural desiresof the drone commonly exist in him all the same whenever he has tospend 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, andnot one; but, in general, his better desires will be found to prevailover 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 faraway and never come near him. I should expect so. And surely, the miser individually will be an ignoble competitor ina 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 ishe of awakening his expensive appetites and inviting them to helpand join in the struggle; in true oligarchical fashion he fights witha small part only of his resources, and the result commonly is thathe loses the prize and saves his money. Very true. Can we any longer doubt, then, that the miser and money-maker answersto the oligarchical State? There can be no doubt. Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still tobe considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of thedemocratic man, and bring him up for judgement. That, he said, is our method. Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracyarise? Is it not on this wise? --The good at which such a State almsis to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable? What then? The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth,refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youthbecause they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them andbuy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of avarice and its influence on individuals and societies. Narrative arc: Expository Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Speaker, interlocutor Language: English" "The evil is in its nature. It is a cancer, and it is the essence of avarice to feed on itself. There are people who are simply possessed by it, and their egotism becomes so excessive that they become incapable of any human feeling whatever towards others. They think only of themselves, and no amount of wealth or power can satisfy them. They want more; they want everything, and as long as they have it not they are insensible to every other consideration, however important it may be."""" You've been reading too many detective stories,"" said his companion with a sneer. """"There's nothing of that kind in real life."""" I never read detective stories,"" retorted the speaker, ""and if you think there's no such people in the world as those I describe, just go down to the office and ask the Chief Constable about the 'Whitefriars Mystery.'"""" The interlocutor looked puzzled for a moment, and then said: """"Yes, I remember something about that business. It was at Whitefriars that the old woman lived who had the fifty thousand pounds in gold, wasn't it?"""" Yes,"" replied the other, ""and the son and daughter who murdered her were found out and hanged after a very pretty piece of work."""" And what has that got to do with your story?"" asked the curious man. Everything,"" said the other shortly, ""and if you'll listen for another hour or so I'll tell you how."" So the two men went into the public-house and ordered a pint of beer each. " 123 123 "To be sure. There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderationcannot exist together in citizens of the same State to any considerableextent; one or the other will be disregarded. That is tolerably clear. And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessnessand 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 stingand fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited theircitizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hateand conspire against those who have got their property, and againsteverybody else, and are eager for revolution. That is true. On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, andpretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, inserttheir sting --that is, their money --into some one else who is noton his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times overmultiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauperto 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, eitherby 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 thecitizens to look to their characters: --Let there be a general rulethat every one shall enter into voluntary contracts at his own risk,and there will be less of this scandalous money-making, and the evilsof 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, especiallythe young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a lifeof luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, andare incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain. Very true. They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferentas the pauper to the cultivation of virtue. Yes, quite as indifferent. Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And oftenrulers and their subjects may come in one another's way, whether ona pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye,and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very momentof danger --for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor willbe despised by the rich --and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor manmay be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has neverspoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh --when hesees such an one puffing and at his wit's end, how can he avoid drawingthe conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one hasthe courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will notpeople 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 withoutmay bring on illness, and sometimes even when there is no externalprovocation a commotion may arise within-in the same way whereverthere is weakness in the State there is also likely to be illness,of which the occasions may be very slight, the one party introducingfrom without their oligarchical, the other their democratical allies,and then the State falls sick, and is at war with herself; and maybe at times distracted, even when there is no external cause. Yes, surely. And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conqueredtheir opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to theremainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and thisis the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly electedby lot. Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolutionhas been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the oppositeparty to withdraw. And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a governmenthave they? for as the government is, such will be the man." "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between wealth and moderation in a city-state, and the consequences of inequality. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Expository Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Citizens, rulers, subjects Time setting: 1950s Absolute place: A clubhouse in Los Angeles Language: English" "The citizens who own and operate a city-state are the rulers; the other citizens, the subjects. The rulers are few, and they control all wealth. The subjects have no wealth whatever except their personal belongings, for when one is a subject, all real estate and all business enterprises become the property of the rulers. There's no such thing as an independent farmer or businessman in a city-state. Anybody who owns any kind of a business pays his rent to the rulers, and his profits go into the city-state treasury. A subject works for wages; he can't make investments, start a business or buy property. And he can't get rich, because the city-state takes fifty per cent of his wages for taxes, and that goes on forever. Of course there are exceptions. Some people are allowed to own private automobiles, and some even have yachts and airplanes. If you want a car, it costs you ten thousand dollars. That includes the license fee and the motorcar tax, and you pay it up front. You can use the car for five years, then you have to give it back to the city-state. If you want to continue driving, you pay another ten thousand dollars and get another car. Then, after you've paid twenty thousand for a car that cost you only about three thousand to buy new, it's your own property and you can do what you please with it. The same applies to a yacht: you pay forty thousand for the privilege of owning it for five years. After that, if you still want to keep it, it becomes your own property."""" I see,"" I said. ""And I suppose these exceptions are made for political reasons?"""" Well, yes and no. It depends on how popular the individual concerned happens to be at the time, and whether or not he has powerful friends among the rulers. As a rule, though, the more wealthy a man is, the less likely he is to have any friends among the rulers."""" Why?"" Because most of them are crooks."" I stared at him. """"You mean the rulers are criminals?"""" Yes. They run this whole racket. They're thieves, extortionists, swindlers, blackmailers, confidence men, robbers and killers. There isn't a crime on earth they haven't committed, but they call it governing and they have the nerve to pass laws against common crimes!"""" I thought about this. """"But why should they let people like you have cars and yachts if they don't want them to have them? What good does it do them?"""" They enjoy having us do their dirty work for them, that's why. We're the muscle men. We're the hired thugs who keep the city-state safe for the rulers. Without us, they couldn't exist."""" I didn't understand that."" Listen,"" he said harshly, ""the rulers are nothing but a bunch of organized criminals. They organize other criminals to do their work for them and protect them from reprisals. They know how weak they are without the muscle men. The muscle men are like soldiers; we take orders and we obey. " 124 124 "Clearly, he said. In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full offreedom 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 forhimself his own life as he pleases? Clearly. Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of humannatures? There will. This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being an embroideredrobe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as womenand 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 themanners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest ofStates. Yes. Yes, my good Sir, and there will be no better in which to look fora government. Why? Because of the liberty which reigns there --they have a complete assortmentof constitutions; and he who has a mind to establish a State, as wehave been doing, must go to a democracy as he would to a bazaar atwhich they sell them, and pick out the one that suits him; then, whenhe has made his choice, he may found his State. 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 othersare at peace, unless you are so disposed --there being no necessityalso, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast,that you should not hold office or be a dicast, 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, althoughthey have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they areand walk about the world --the gentleman parades like a hero, andnobody sees or cares? Yes, he replied, many and many a one. See too, I said, the forgiving spirit of democracy, and the 'don'tcare' about trifles, and the disregard which she shows of all thefine principles which we solemnly laid down at the foundation of thecity --as when we said that, except in the case of some rarely giftednature, there never will be a good man who has not from his childhoodbeen used to play amid things of beauty and make of them a joy anda study --how grandly does she trample all these fine notions of oursunder her feet, never giving a thought to the pursuits which makea statesman, and promoting to honour any one who professes to be thepeople's friend. Yes, she is of a noble spirit. These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, whichis a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, anddispensing 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 ratherconsider, 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 of the miserly and oligarchicalfather who has trained him in his own habits? Exactly. And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures whichare of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those whichare called unnecessary? Obviously. Would you like, for the sake of clearness, to distinguish which arethe necessary and which are the unnecessary pleasures? I should. Are not necessary pleasures those of which we cannot get rid, andof which the satisfaction is a benefit to us? And they are rightlyso, because we are framed by nature to desire both what is beneficialand what is necessary, and cannot help it." "Summary: The text discusses the freedom and variety found in a democracy, contrasting it with other forms of government. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "There is freedom and there is variety in a democracy, and you can be anything you want to be if you work hard enough at it. You can be the big cheese, like Mr. Fox, or the lady who dances naked for a buck at the Trocadero on Saturday night. And your kid can be a movie star, or a great surgeon, or a rich lawyer. Or he can be an old drunk with a potbelly and rheumy eyes, working as a bookie on Third Street. That's what I mean about freedom and variety. In any other kind of government that wouldn't happen. There are no old drunks in Hitler's Germany. You can't get arrested for vagrancy in Russia."""" He paused for breath, his face flushed and ugly, and suddenly his voice became harsh and vivid again: Say, listen,"" he said, ""I got something to tell you, sonny boy, and maybe you better listen up. I was brought up on the streets of L.A. since the time I was six years old, and I've known some bad characters and seen some tough things in my life. But the nastiest thing I ever saw was right here in this room tonight. The nastiest thing I ever saw in all my life was a little kid crying because he couldn't have a glass of grape-juice!"""" For a moment, they stared at each other. Then Wells turned abruptly away. Well,"" he said, ""I guess we're all through talking."" His voice had become cold and brittle again, and when he spoke it was with polite formality: I'm very sorry about the trouble this evening, Mr. Wells. I hope you won't hold it against me. I hope you'll let me come back some day."""" Sure,"" said Wells. ""Anytime you want to drop in. Always glad to see you."""" Yeah,"" said Charlie, ""always glad to see you. Any time you want to drop in. And if you don't mind, I'd just as soon you didn't bring your friends along next time."""" He opened the door and held it wide. Come on, Amos,"" he said. ""Let's go home."""" They stepped out onto the sidewalk. Charlie looked around quickly, then spat into the gutter. Well, good-by,"" he said. ""Sorry about the mess."""" He closed the door and locked it, and turned and went across the room toward the rear exit. As he passed the table, he stopped. Damn,"" he said, ""I forgot to ask you how much you want for that painting."""" What?"" asked Wells. How much do you want for that picture of yours? I might want to buy it."""" Oh, that,"" said Wells. ""That's okay. It doesn't matter. Just take it."""" Charlie stared at him for a long moment. Okay,"" he said, finally. ""Thanks."" He picked up the canvas and carried it into the kitchen. He switched on the light, took down the woodbox cover, and stuffed the painting inside. Then he went out the back way to his car. " 125 125 "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 fromhis youth upwards --of which the presence, moreover, does no good,and in some cases the reverse of good --shall we not be right in sayingthat all these are unnecessary? Yes, certainly. Suppose we select an example of either kind, in order that we mayhave a general notion of them? Very good. Will not the desire of eating, that is, of simple food and condiments,in so far as they are required for health and strength, be of thenecessary class? That is what I should suppose. The pleasure of eating is necessary in two ways; it does us good andit is essential to the continuance of life? Yes. But the condiments are only necessary in so far as they are good forhealth? Certainly. And the desire which goes beyond this, or more delicate food, or otherluxuries, which might generally be got rid of, if controlled and trainedin youth, and is hurtful to the body, and hurtful to the soul in thepursuit of wisdom and virtue, may be rightly called unnecessary? Very true. May we not say that these desires spend, and that the others makemoney because they conduce to production? Certainly. And of the pleasures of love, and all other pleasures, the same holdsgood? True. And the drone of whom we spoke was he who was surfeited in pleasuresand desires of this sort, and was the slave of the unnecessary desires,whereas he who was subject o 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 cometo associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to providefor him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure --then,as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principlewithin him into the democratical? Inevitably. And as in the city like was helping like, and the change was effectedby an alliance from without assisting one division of the citizens,so too the young man is changed by a class of desires coming fromwithout to assist the desires within him, that which is and alikeagain helping that which is akin and alike? Certainly. And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle withinhim, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising orrebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an oppositefaction, and he goes to war with himself. It must be so. And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to theoligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished;a spirit of reverence enters into the young man's soul and order isrestored. Yes, he said, that sometimes happens. And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, freshones spring up, 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 intercoursewith them, breed and multiply in him. Very true. At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man's soul, whichthey perceive to be void of all accomplishments and fair pursuitsand true words, which make their abode in the minds of men who aredear to the gods, and are their best guardians and sentinels. None better. False and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take theirplace." "Summary: The text discusses the distinction between necessary and unnecessary desires and their effects on the soul. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Well, the first thing you've got to know is that there's a difference between necessary and unnecessary desires. The only necessary desire is the desire for knowledge, because that's what makes the soul immortal and keeps it from getting mixed up with the body after death."""" That's quite a statement,"" I said. ""I'd like to hear more about it."""" Well, unnecessary desires are just a lot of junk that the soul picks up during its lifetime, like a drunk picking up lice at a barroom. They're all the desires that aren't based on knowledge: food, drink, sex, money, power, fame, a new car, a vacation in Bermuda, that kind of stuff."""" But knowledge isn't necessary,"" I objected. ""It doesn't keep you alive, not even your own personal knowledge; most of it you can get along without."""" Sure, but necessary knowledge is different from unnecessary knowledge. Necessary knowledge is pure, abstract wisdom, like Einstein's theory of relativity or the Pythagorean theorem or the sum of the squares of the sides of a right triangle equals the square of the hypotenuse. Unnecessary knowledge is just facts and information that make you smart, like how to play chess or French horn or bridge, or how to run a business or cook a good meal."""" Socrates nodded. """"That's right,"""" he said. """"Unnecessary knowledge makes you smarter but it doesn't make you wiser. It's like the difference between being able to say something in three languages instead of one."""" It does sound pretty stupid,"" I admitted. ""But how come unnecessary knowledge is bad for the soul?"""" Because it attracts unnecessary desires,"" Socrates explained. ""You want to be smart, so you pick up unnecessary knowledge which gives you unnecessary desires. Then you have to satisfy these desires, so you pick up still more unnecessary knowledge until you end up with a whole bunch of useless junk in your head and a dozen unnecessary desires fighting for satisfaction. As a result, your soul gets out of balance and you become unwise, because you forget that the only necessary desire is the desire for knowledge."""" That certainly sounds plausible,"" I said. ""And it would explain why some people are so unhappy they kill themselves. Their souls must be so overloaded with unnecessary desires that they can't stand it."""" Right."" Socrates nodded vigorously. """"That's exactly it! In fact, I'm surprised more people don't commit suicide. The soul is a delicate thing and unnecessary desires can ruin it."""" He was really getting into this. His face had turned red and his eyes were snapping with excitement. """"Just think about it, boy! You go around satisfying your unnecessary desires day after day, year after year, until they finally drive you crazy. Your soul becomes diseased and rotten, your brain gets soft and mushy, and then you start murdering innocent people and robbing banks and selling dope, and when you've had enough of that you put a gun in your mouth and blow your brains out. And all because you wanted to be smart!"""" " 126 126 "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 anyhelp be sent by his friends to the oligarchical part of him, the aforesaidvain conceits shut the gate of the king's fastness; and they willneither allow the embassy itself to enter, private if private advisersoffer the fatherly counsel of the aged will they listen to them orreceive 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 themire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderlyexpenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabbleof evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border. Yes, with a will. And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who isnow 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 anarchyand waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads,and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling themby sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty,and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young manpasses out of his original nature, which was trained in the schoolof necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessarypleasures. Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough. After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time onunnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if hebe fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when yearshave elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over --supposing that hethen re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, anddoes not wholly give himself up to their successors --in that casehe balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, puttingthe government of himself into the hands of the one which comes firstand wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into thehands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them allequally. Very true, he said. Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true wordof advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactionsof good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that heought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others --wheneverthis is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they areall 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 thehour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute;then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takesa turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything,then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busywith politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comesinto 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 existencehe terms joy and bliss and freedom; and 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 thelives of many; --he answers to the State which we described as fairand spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for theirpattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners iscontained in him. Just so. Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be calledthe democratic man. Let that be his place, he said. 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 ithas a democratic origin is evident. Clearly. And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracyfrom oligarchy --I mean, after a sort? How? The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by whichit was maintained was excess of wealth --am I not right? Yes. And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other thingsfor the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy? True. And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire bringsher to dissolution?" "Summary: The text discusses the actions and consequences of a young man who chooses to live a life of pleasure and indulgence, rather than following the advice of moderation and virtue. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Exposition of the consequences of the young man's choices Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The young man Language: English" They go in for crime; and if you want to get ahead of the game, you have got to be up against it all the time, or else you will not make good. They take a great deal of exercise, and they are always eating. The young man's first step was to join forces with a certain party who were doing a little business on the side. He took to wearing loose-fitting clothes and carrying a stick. He became very careful of his health. He had his meals at the cheapest restaurants, where he ate an enormous amount of soup, which is nourishing but does not fill. He drank quantities of tea to keep himself awake; and by night he went about the streets with his friends, keeping a sharp look-out for stray dogs, which he pounced upon and kicked. This gave him some useful practice in self-control, because he often found that the dog did not seem to mind being kicked. After this he began to move in more active circles, and we may say that he arrived. He met a lady who had no particular occupation, and whose chief amusement seemed to consist in entering shops without buying anything and making a fuss when she was asked to leave. 127 127 "What good? Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is theglory of the State --and that therefore in a democracy alone willthe 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 theneglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, whichoccasions a demand for tyranny. How so? When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearerspresiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wineof freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentifuldraught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says thatthey are cursed oligarchs. Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence. Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaveswho hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects whoare like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men afterher own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public.Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit? Certainly not. By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends bygetting among the animals and infecting them. How do you mean? I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level ofhis 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; and thisis his freedom, and metic is equal with the citizen and the citizenwith 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 lesserones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters hisscholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; youngand 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 condescendto the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are lothto be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt themanners of the young. Quite true, he said. The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought withmoney, 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 sexesin relation to each other. 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 whodoes not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty whichthe animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracythan 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 havea 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 notleave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burstwith liberty. 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 sensitivethe citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch ofauthority and at length, as you know, they cease to care even forthe laws, written or unwritten; 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 ofwhich springs tyranny. Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step? The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnifiedand intensified by liberty overmasters democracy --the truth beingthat the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction inthe opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasonsand in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government. True. The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems onlyto pass into excess of slavery. Yes, the natural order. And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravatedform of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?" "Summary: The text discusses the consequences of democracy and the potential for tyranny to arise from it. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" It’s a simple process. If you give people the vote, they will always elect the strongest man to rule them, and if he’s strong enough he will become a tyrant. That is why democracy is a form of tyranny. “A tyrant,” said Glaucon, “is a kind of hero.” Yes, I suppose he is. But in this case it is the wrong sort of heroism. The tyrant has the courage to do what other people are too cowardly to attempt. It is the same kind of courage that makes a burglar break into a house, or a mutineer seize the bridge, or a dictator overthrow a government. And this courage is even more admirable when the risk is greater. You see, Glaucon, the normal kind of hero is willing to die for his country; but the real hero is willing to kill for it. In the end, then, we shall have to choose between living like an animal and dying like a hero. This is why I say that democracy is a form of tyranny. “But Socrates,” said Glaucon, “it was you who said that all men were born equal. Now you are saying that some men are born to be tyrants, and others to be their victims.” Yes, I know, Glaucon. But you must remember that in saying all men are born equal I didn’t mean that there were no differences between them. Obviously, some men are cleverer than others, some stronger, some better looking, and so on. I meant only that every man is equal before the law. As for the cleverer men, we should certainly let them lead us, and as for the weaker ones, we should protect them from the tyranny of the strong. “But you said just now,” interrupted Cephalus, “that the tyrant is the strongest man. Then how can he be protected from himself?” Exactly. If he is the strongest, he can’t be protected. And the moment he ceases to be the strongest, he falls. But meanwhile he will be able to keep out of prison much better than anyone else. He is the only man who can afford to pay a lawyer, and he will be able to bribe judges and policemen and jailers. He will be able to call upon the army and the navy to support him. And in the end he will be able to destroy the whole state and set up his own private kingdom, with himself as king. You see, Glaucon, democracy leads to tyranny. Or rather, it is a form of tyranny, since it is a form of injustice. You might almost say that democracy is the worst form of tyranny, because it allows the tyrant to appear as a liberator. 128 128 "As we might expect. That, however, was not, as I believe, your question-you rather desiredto know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchyand 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 thefollowers, 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 aregenerated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the goodphysician and lawgiver of the State ought, like the wise bee-master,to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever comingin; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should have themand 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 imaginedemocracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; forin the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democraticthan 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 drivenfrom office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereasin a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and whilethe keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bemaand do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democraciesalmost everything is managed by the drones. Very true, he said. Then there is another class which is always being severed from themass. What is that? They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders sure to bethe richest. Naturally so. They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amountof honey to the drones. Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who havelittle. And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them. That is pretty much the case, he said. The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with theirown hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon.This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in ademocracy. True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregateunless they get a little honey. And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the richof their estates and distribute them among the people; at the sametime taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves? Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share. And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled todefend 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 chargethem 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 by informers,seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchsin reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones tormentsthem 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 nurseinto greatness. Yes, that is their way. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when hefirst appears above ground he is a protector. Yes, that is quite clear. How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly whenhe does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian templeof Lycaean Zeus. What tale? The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single humanvictim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined tobecome a wolf. Did you never hear it?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the nature of drones and their impact on oligarchy and democracy, highlighting their destructive influence. Narrative arc: Analytical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker and the person they are speaking to Quoted work: ""the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" There is a lot in that. And the drones are always at war with those who work. There was a tale of old, long before your time, about an Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus, where a stranger came and ate raw meat and drank wine, and they cut him up to see what he was made of, and he turned out to be a wild beast.” “I never heard that one,” I said. “Well, it’s there all right. But here’s something else you may have heard: ‘For they devour their own mothers.’ That means us, you and me, the people who do the job. We’re the ones who will eat our own mothers, if we can’t find anything better.” He sat still for a few moments, looking into my face. “You know,” he said, “I think you’ve got it. It’s just like that. It’s just as simple as that. You’ve got the right line on it at last. The bees need the drones, but they hate them. They don’t kill them because they need them, but they beat them, and torture them, and drive them away from the honey. So the drones destroy the hive. It’s just like that. We’ll get rid of the politicians, and we’ll show them how much we value them, and then they’ll start destroying the country. Like the drones. Well, that’s all right, too. That’s the way it’s got to be. When you’re fighting for freedom, you’ve got to break some eggs. You want to remember that, sonny boy. You’ve got to break some eggs.” I said, “But I thought this was just to catch a burglar?” “It’s more than that,” he said. “It’s a lesson, sonny boy. It’s an example. There are two kinds of men in the world, and there are two kinds of criminals. There are the big boys, and there are the little boys. The big boys take care of things, and the little boys do whatever they tell them. It’s been that way for thousands of years, and it’s going to stay that way. The big boys are busy men. They’ve got work to do, and they haven’t got time to monkey around. So they leave everything to the little boys, and the little boys go out and play cops and robbers, and try to catch each other. There’s no sense to it. It’s just something they do for fun. But it teaches them not to monkey with the big boys. Now you get out of here, and go home and sleep. You’ll be able to sleep tonight for the first time in months. You’ve earned it. And tomorrow night you’ll be able to sleep again, and the next night after that, and the next, and the next. You won’t have to worry any more about catching burglars or stopping gang wars or saving democracy or reforming the police force or any of those things. 129 129 "Oh, yes. And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirelyat his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen;by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into courtand murders them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholytongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizen; some he killsand others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolitionof debts and partition of lands: and after this, what will be hisdestiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, orfrom 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 to expel him, or to get him condemned to deathby 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 deviceof all those who have got thus far in their tyrannical career --'Letnot the people's friend,' as they say, 'be lost to them.' Exactly. The people readily assent; all their fears are for him --they havenone for themselves. Very true. And when a man who is wealthy and is also accused of being an enemyof 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 ashamedto be a coward. And quite right too, said he, for if he were, he would never be ashamedagain. But if he is caught he dies. Of course. And he, the protector of whom we spoke, is to be seen, not 'lardingthe plain' with his bulk, but himself the overthrower of many, standingup 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 theState 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, andhe salutes every one whom he meets; --he to be called a tyrant, whois making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors,and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wantingto 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 stirringup some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. To be sure. Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverishedby payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to theirdaily 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 fordestroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and forall these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war. He must. Now 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 courageousof 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 cannotstop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything. He cannot. And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who ishigh-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemyof them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will orno, until he has made a purgation of the State." "Summary: The text discusses the rise of a tyrant and the consequences of his actions on the people. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Exposition and discussion of the actions of the tyrant Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The tyrant, the people Language: English" And when he came to the top of the hill and looked back, what did he see but an army of thousands upon thousands rising up behind him, marching with drums beating and flags flying, and shouting like ten thousand devils! And they overtook him and swept him down before them, and ground him to powder under their heels; for they were the poor that had suffered from his tyranny, and they cried out to one another: ‘Now is our hour!’” “So,” I said, “they have their turn.” “No,” said the Scribe, “it was a very bad turn. For you see, these people were not men; they were only devils in human form, and they did not know how to be good masters any more than he did. So they went on and made war upon all the other villages and towns, and robbed them and murdered them; and after a while there was nothing but ruins and corpses left in the whole country. And at last the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up; and that was the end of them.” “A fine story,” I said, “but it has no connexion with your case, which is quite simple enough without being mixed up with battles and massacres and earthquakes.” “Ah!” said the Scribe, “I thought you would say so; but now we will tell you about the Man who killed the Tyrant.” “Is this the same man that was killed by the Army?” I asked. “No,” he said, “he was a different one; he was a great strong man who lived somewhere far away in the East, and one day he heard about the Tyrant, and came here to kill him.” “And why did he come?” I asked. “Because he wanted money,” said the Scribe; “and because he liked killing people.” “Do people in your country go about killing people for pleasure?” I asked. “Yes,” said the Scribe; “sometimes they do.” “And are they always punished for it?” “Not always,” said the Scribe; “for you see, there are many kinds of people in the world, and some of them are wicked, and some of them are foolish, and some of them are mad. This man was foolish, and mad; and also he was a robber.” “A robber? What is a robber?” “Why, a robber is a man who robs people of their money.” “What is robbery?” I asked. The Scribe raised his eyebrows and began to explain; but the explanation was too long to be written here, for it fills several pages of the Book of the Law, which contains all sorts of curious things. But you may read it if you like; it is called the 111th section of the 13th chapter of the 4th book. 130 130 "Yes, he said, and a rare purgation. Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make ofthe 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, I said: --to be compelled to dwell onlywith 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 satellitesand 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 lie paysthem. By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from everyland. 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 freeand enrol 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 todeath the others and has these 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 intoexistence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hateand 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, Tyrants are wise by living with the wise; and he clearly meant tosay that they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions. Yes, he said, and he also praises tyranny as godlike; and many otherthings of the same kind are said by him and by the other poets. And therefore, I said, the tragic poets being wise men will forgiveus and any others who live after our manner if we do not receive theminto our State, because they are the eulogists of tyranny. Yes, he said, those who have the wit will doubtless forgive us. But they will continue to go to other cities and attract mobs, andhire voices fair and loud and persuasive, and draw the cities overto tyrannies and democracies. Very true. Moreover, they are paid for this and receive honour --the greatesthonour, as might be expected, from tyrants, and the next greatestfrom democracies; but the higher they ascend our constitution hill,the more their reputation fails, and seems unable from shortness ofbreath to proceed further. True. But we are wandering from the subject: Let us therefore return andenquire how the tyrant will maintain that fair and numerous and variousand ever-changing army of his. If, he said, there are sacred treasures in the city, he will confiscateand spend them; and in so far as the fortunes of attainted personsmay suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which he wouldotherwise have to impose upon the people. And when these fail? Why, clearly, he said, then he and his boon companions, whether maleor 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-upson ought not to be supported by his father, but that the father shouldbe supported by the son? The father did not bring him into being,or settle him in life, in order that when his son became a man heshould himself be the servant of his own servants and should supporthim and his rabble of slaves and companions; but that his son shouldprotect him, and that by his help he might be emancipated from thegovernment of the rich and aristocratic, as they are termed. And sohe bids him and his companions depart, just as any other father mightdrive out of the house a riotous son and his undesirable associates. By heaven, he said, then the parent will discover what a monster hehas been fostering in his bosom; and, when he wants to drive him out,he will find that he is weak and his son strong." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of tyranny and the ways in which a tyrant would maintain power. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Two characters discussing the nature of tyranny Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Now, listen. I’m going to give you the lowdown on this tyranny business. In a way it’s like organized crime, but it isn’t exactly. The boss of an organized crime outfit is a lot more of a gentleman than these tyrants. He’s got his code. He’s got his standards. He’s got his ethics. He knows what he can do and what he can’t do. And he doesn’t go beyond them. Now a tyrant has no standards at all. His ethics are all screwy and warped. His standards are all perverted. He’s cruel and vicious and sadistic. He’s a rotten citizen. He’s not only a criminal, but he’s a public menace. And he’s a disgrace to the human race.” “But why?” “Because,” I said, “he’s a nark.” A nark? What’s that?” “A police informer. A stoolie. A squealer. That’s what a tyrant is. He gives himself airs and tries to pretend he’s something else, but that’s what he really is.” I saw that he was getting mad about something, so I shut up for a while. I wanted him to have time to get cooled off before I tried to explain further. 131 131 "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; andthis 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 theslavery of freemen, has fallen into the fire which is the tyrannyof slaves. Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, passesinto the harshest and bitterest form of slavery. True, he said. Very well; and may we not rightly say that we have sufficiently discussedthe nature of tyranny, and the manner of the transition from democracyto tyranny? Yes, quite enough, he said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK IX Socrates - ADEIMANTUS Last of all comes the tyrannical man; about whom we have once moreto ask, how is he formed out of the democratical? and how does helive, 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 numberof the appetites, and until this is accomplished the enquiry willalways 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 beunlawful; every one appears to have them, but in some persons theyare controlled by the laws and by reason, and the better desires prevailover them-either they are wholly banished or they become few and weak;while in the case of others they are stronger, and there are moreof them. Which appetites do you mean? I mean those which are awake when the reasoning and human and rulingpower is asleep; then the wild beast within us, gorged with meat ordrink, starts up and having shaken off sleep, goes forth to satisfyhis desires; and there is no conceivable folly or crime --not exceptingincest or any other unnatural union, or parricide, or the eating offorbidden food --which at such a time, when he has parted companywith 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 goingto sleep he has awakened his rational powers, and fed them on noblethoughts and enquiries, collecting himself in meditation; after havingfirst indulged his appetites neither too much nor too little, butjust enough to lay them to sleep, and prevent them and their enjoymentsand pains from interfering with the higher principle --which he leavesin the solitude of pure abstraction, free to contemplate and aspireto the knowledge of the unknown, whether in past, present, or future:when again he has allayed the passionate element, if he has a quarrelagainst any one --I say, when, after pacifying the two irrationalprinciples, he rouses up the third, which is reason, before he takeshis rest, then, as you know, he attains truth most nearly, and isleast 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 pointwhich I desire to note is that in all of us, even in good men, thereis a lawless wild-beast nature, which peers out in sleep. Pray, considerwhether I am right, and you agree with me. Yes, I agree. And now remember the character which we attributed to the democraticman. He was supposed from his youth upwards to have been trained undera miserly parent, who encouraged the saving appetites in him, butdiscountenanced the unnecessary, which aim only at amusement and ornament? True. And then he got into the company of a more refined, licentious sortof people, and taking to all their wanton ways rushed into the oppositeextreme from an abhorrence of his father's meanness. At last, beinga better man than his corruptors, he was drawn in both directionsuntil he halted midway and led a life, not of vulgar and slavish passion,but of what he deemed moderate indulgence in various pleasures. Afterthis manner the democrat was generated out of the oligarch?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of tyranny and the transition from democracy to tyranny, as well as the formation of the tyrannical man. Narrative arc: Exposition Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Adeimantus Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "She had a way of saying these words that made them sound like something she was doing instead of just saying. Well,"" he said, ""it's only natural to get sick of democracy if you have no sense of decency or responsibility. You want to do anything you please and have everything you want, and you can't have it because you're not strong enough to take it. So naturally you get bitter and resentful and say the trouble is liberty and equal rights for everybody."""" That's right,"" she said. ""How about that?"" He nodded. """"You go on saying things like that and pretty soon you'll be in favor of tyranny. There are only two kinds of freedom when it comes to power: one is where you have a lot of people who are free and equal and nobody has any special privileges except the law; the other is where you have just one man who's got all the privileges and everybody else is his slave. And that's called tyranny."""" She stared at him with her chin up, her head tilted, her mouth half open. She looked as if she wanted to spit at him. I know what you think of me,"" he said. """"You think I'm just a dirty little hoodlum. Well, I may be that but I'm not stupid. I can see how we've got to get rid of all this democracy stuff before we can have our own way. We don't need liberty and equality. We need someone to tell us what to do and make us do it. We need somebody to kick around."""" He smiled at her. """"I guess that's why we love bullies so much. Because they give us a chance to be bullied by them."""" Then why don't you just let us alone?"" she asked. He smiled again, looking down at her. """"I could,"""" he said, """"but I can't. Not yet."""" Why not?"""" Because I haven't finished my book."" What book?"" The one I'm writing on the nature of tyranny."" But you haven't even started it!"" I started it last night."" How?"" I made notes all day long on my pad."" What did you write?"" Just some rough ideas. I'll show you when it's done."""" Don't bother. I don't care about your book. I don't even want to be a bully. I just want to be left alone."""" He shook his head. """"Not yet,"""" he said. """"No, you can't be left alone until you learn to behave yourself. This is going to be a tough job, though. It may take years. All we can do now is to start you on the road."""" What road?"" The road to hell."" He paused. """"We're going to teach you how to be a tyrant."""" Adeimantus began to laugh. Socrates looked at him sharply. """"Why are you laughing?"""" I'm sorry,"" he said. " 132 132 "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 conceivethis man, such as he is, to have a son, who is brought up in his father'sprinciples. I can imagine him. Then you must further imagine the same thing to happen to the sonwhich has already happened to the father: --he is drawn into a perfectlylawless life, which by his seducers is termed perfect liberty; andhis father and friends take part with his moderate desires, and theopposite party assist the opposite ones. As soon as these dire magiciansand tyrant-makers find that they are losing their hold on him, theycontrive to implant in him a master passion, to be lord over his idleand spendthrift lusts --a sort of monstrous winged drone --that isthe 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 andgarlands and wines, and all the pleasures of a dissolute life, nowlet loose, come buzzing around him, nourishing to the utmost the stingof desire which they implant in his drone-like nature, then at lastthis 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 opinionsor appetites in process of formation, and there is in him any senseof shame remaining, to these better principles he puts an end, andcasts them forth until he has purged away temperance and brought inmadness 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 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 overthe gods? That he will. And the tyrannical man in the true sense of the word comes into beingwhen, either under the influence of nature, or habit, or both, hebecomes 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, you were to tell me. I imagine, I said, at the next step in his progress, that there willbe feasts and carousals and revellings and courtezans, and all thatsort of thing; Love is the lord of the house within him, and ordersall 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 nestlike young ravens, be crying aloud for food; and he, goaded on bythem, and especially by love himself, who is in a manner the captainof them, is in a frenzy, and would fain discover whom he can defraudor 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 painsand pangs. He must. And as in himself there was a succession of pleasures, and the newgot the better of the old and took away their rights, so he beingyounger will claim to have more than his father and his mother, andif he has spent his own share of the property, he will take a sliceof theirs. No doubt he will. And if his parents will not give way, then he will try first of allto 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?" "Summary: The text discusses the generation of a tyrannical man and the consequences of his actions. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Exposition and development of the tyrant's character and actions Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The father, the son Language: English" He was the first of the generation of the tyrannical man. The father had no time to meddle with his offspring, and he knew it. He left the child to the care of the servants, who were as bad as himself; and the result of their education was that the son grew up to be just like them. He became a thief and a bully from birth. His first robbery was for a new collar, which cost sixpence at the butcher's; and, if you remember the story, he was caught in the act. He ran away and hid under the counter, and they found him there when they opened the shop in the morning. When he grew bigger he began stealing again, but this time he took more things than a collar, and they were worth more money. He sold them to some cheap-jacks who came round the streets crying 'Buy a bit of iron, buy a bit of iron.' One day he saw the police coming towards him, so he ran into a house where a woman lived on her own account. It was about four o'clock in the afternoon, and she was lying on the bed smoking a pipe. She asked him what he wanted, and he said he wanted to hide from the police, and she said he could do that very well if he paid her five shillings. 133 133 "Nay, he said, I should not feel at all comfortable about his parents. But, O heavens! Adeimantus, on account of some newfangled love ofa harlot, who is anything but a necessary connection, can you believethat he would strike the mother who is his ancient friend and necessaryto his very existence, and would place her under the authority ofthe other, when she is brought under the same roof with her; or that,under like circumstances, he would do the same to his withered oldfather, first and most indispensable of friends, for the sake of somenewly 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 fatherand mother. He is indeed, he replied. He first takes their property, and when that falls, and pleasuresare beginning to swarm in the hive of his soul, then he breaks intoa house, or steals the garments of some nightly wayfarer; next heproceeds to clear a temple. Meanwhile the old opinions which he hadwhen a child, and which gave judgment about good and evil, are overthrownby those others which have just been emancipated, and are now thebodyguard of love and share his empire. These in his democratic days,when he was still subject to the laws and to his father, were onlylet loose in the dreams of sleep. But now that he is under the dominionof love, he becomes always and in waking reality what he was thenvery rarely and in a dream only; he will commit the foulest murder,or eat forbidden food, or be guilty of any other horrid act. Loveis his tyrant, and lives lordly in him and lawlessly, and being himselfa king, leads him on, as a tyrant leads a State, to the performanceof any reckless deed by which he can maintain himself and the rabbleof his associates, whether those whom evil communications have broughtin from without, or those whom he himself has allowed to break loosewithin him by reason of a similar evil nature in himself. Have wenot here a picture of his way of life? Yes, indeed, he said. And if there are only a few of them in the State, the rest of thepeople are well disposed, they go away and become the bodyguard ormercenary soldiers of some other tyrant who may probably want themfor a war; and if there is no war, they stay at home and do many littlepieces of mischief in the city. What sort of mischief? For example, they are the thieves, burglars, cutpurses, footpads,robbers of temples, man-stealers of the community; or if they areable to speak they turn informers, and bear false witness, and takebribes. A small catalogue of evils, even if the perpetrators of them are fewin number. Yes, I said; but small and great are comparative terms, and all thesethings, in the misery and evil which they inflict upon a State, donot come within a thousand miles of the tyrant; when this noxiousclass and their followers grow numerous and become conscious of theirstrength, assisted by the infatuation of the people, they choose fromamong 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 hebegan by beating his own father and mother, so now, if he has thepower, he beats them, and will keep his dear old fatherland or motherland,as the Cretans say, in subjection to his young retainers whom he hasintroduced to be their rulers and masters. This is the end of hispassions 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 flatterersor ready tools; or if they want anything from anybody, they in theirturn are equally ready to bow down before them: they profess everysort of affection for them; but when they have gained their pointthey know them no more. Yes, truly. They are always either the masters or servants and never the friendsof anybody; the tyrant never tastes of true freedom or friendship." "Summary: The text discusses the actions of a tyrant and the harm he causes to his family and community. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Analysis and explanation Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Adeimantus, Socrates Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" He was a tyrant. He was also a son and a brother. And he had killed men for the fun of killing them, and it had been reported that he had also killed women and children because they had crossed his path or looked at him sideways. But in this family he had been loved and he had been idolized. And he had used that love as a ladder to climb from crime to crime until he was one of the most powerful gang leaders in the country. And now there were only two of us left who would mourn when he was gone, and I was not sure how long Adeimantus would last, for when he was very young he had taken on the role of his father’s enforcer and hit man and had learned too well. “Adeimantus,” Socrates said, “I have no doubt that you are right. But what are we to do about this?” “Nothing,” Adeimantus said. “We must let events take their course.” “You know your father better than I do. Is this true? Or is he capable of seeing the harm he has done to his own family?” “You forget. My father has never seen anything but the harm he has done to other people. He does not care what happens to us. We are just part of the turf he fights over with his enemies. For him we are nothing more than pawns to be sacrificed for his own advantage.” “So if we could show him the damage he has done to us, he might be concerned?” “No. You have lived outside. You do not understand. To my father, violence is beautiful. It is the highest expression of manhood. To show fear is an abomination. To cause pain is a privilege. When he kills a man, he does not see a body lying on the floor; he sees art. When he cuts off a finger, he sees sculpture. When he burns out an eye, he sees theater. When he tortures a woman, he sees poetry. If he saw the destruction he was causing here, he would laugh. The destruction he causes is the creation of his life.” “There must be some way . . .” “There is no way.” Adeimantus picked up his glass and drank what was in it. Then he took a cigarette from a box on the table. “The best thing you can do is leave while you can. Find another place to live. Because when my father finds you, you will wish you had died before you came here.” There was a small sound behind me and I turned to see a girl standing in the doorway. She was tall and thin and dressed in black. Her skin was dark, almost Indian, and her hair was pulled back tight into a bun. And she was looking at me with contempt. “Who is this?” I asked Adeimantus. “My sister,” he said. “She lives here with our mother. She is studying to be a nun. 134 134 "Certainly not. And may we not 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, andthe longer he lives the more of a tyrant he becomes. Socrates - GLAUCON That is certain, said Glaucon, taking his turn to answer. And will not he who has been shown to be the wickedest, be also themost miserable? and he who has tyrannized longest and most, most continuallyand truly miserable; although this may not be the opinion of men ingeneral? Yes, he said, inevitably. And must not the tyrannical man be like the tyrannical, State, andthe democratical man like the democratical State; and the same ofthe others? Certainly. And as State is to State in virtue and happiness, so is man in relationto man? To be sure. Then comparing our original city, which was under a king, and thecity which is under a tyrant, how do they stand as to virtue? They are the opposite extremes, he said, for one is the very bestand the other is the very worst. There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is which, and thereforeI will at once enquire whether you would arrive at a similar decisionabout their relative happiness and misery. And here we must not allowourselves to be panic-stricken at the apparition of the tyrant, whois only a unit and may perhaps have a few retainers about him; butlet 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 every one must, thata tyranny is the wretchedest form of government, and the rule of aking 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 throughhuman nature? He must not be like a child who looks at the outsideand is dazzled at the pompous aspect which the tyrannical nature assumesto the beholder, but let him be one who has a clear insight. May Isuppose that the judgment is given in the hearing of us all by onewho is able to judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him, andbeen present at his dally life and known him in his family relations,where he may be seen stripped of his tragedy attire, and again inthe hour of public danger --he shall tell us about the happiness andmisery 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 andhave before now met with such a person? We shall then have some onewho will answer our enquiries. By all means. Let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the individual and theState; bearing this in mind, and glancing in turn from one to theother 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 whichis governed by a tyrant is free or enslaved? No city, he said, can be more completely enslaved. And yet, as you see, there are freemen as well as masters in sucha State? Yes, he said, I see that there are --a few; but the people, speakinggenerally, and the best of them, are miserably degraded and enslaved. Then if the man is like the State, I said, must not the same ruleprevail? his soul is full of meanness and vulgarity --the best elementsin him are enslaved; and there is a small ruling part, which is alsothe worst and maddest. Inevitably. And would you say that the soul of such an one is the soul of a freeman,or of a slave?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of the worst man and compares him to a tyrannical state. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" The worst man, then, is the tyrannical state. The worst of individuals, if he comes to be supreme in a state, is a sort of tyrant; but a tyrant, who, instead of being one man, is multitude, and not only many in one, but many kinds.” “Yes, Socrates,” said Glaucon, “there are fine notions in that.” “I do think that there is some truth in them,” replied Socrates; “but they have not been wholly stripped of the lie and semblance of virtue, either in fact or appearance. Are we not saying that in the first place the tyrannical soul, when at rest, is immoderate, as having been brought up in riot and intemperance; that secondly, when exerting herself, she is impetuous and reckless, and like a swollen torrent, running things down and drawing them after her without distinction?” “Yes, by heaven! I do suppose that they are true,” replied Glaucon. “And further, I said truly that there is no quality which appears just and mild in company with tyranny, except that of strength, yet how unlike the strength of a lion, or a horse, or a hound is the strength which bears rule in a tyrant’s soul! a human soul which is the body’s master, although the greatest part of a man is often enslaved and under the dominion of irrational passions, renders him a slave. Next, I said that the third form of government, when a monarchy, was oligarchy; and this I define to be the government of any given number of rich men who have no law, and use one another slanderously, and tell lies about each other. But suppose that their power is great, and that they are the masters of many states; would not the others say that these men, whether carrying on a civil war or an external enemy, are doing the same as themselves? They accuse one another of having a greedy desire of money, and so there arise factions and conspiracies, from which spring contentions and wars.” “Very true,” he said. “And did I not also say,” added Socrates, “that aristocracy of the best changes into democracy?” “Surely,” he said. “And a democracy,” I proceeded, “is evidently an unringed multitude of the poor, who rule as they please?” “Yes; that too was true.” “Then last of all came my image of the spirit of tyranny under the form of a woman fantastically adorned, whom I described as the most troublesome and venomous thing of all the beasts in the world; and I said that in fact there was no other way of fully describing her than by attributing to her all the qualities which the vulgar attribute to her.” “That was very true,” he said. “But whether my description has any reality, or only rhymes, you are better qualified than I am to decide.” 135 135 "He has the soul of a slave, in my opinion. And the State which is enslaved under a tyrant is utterly incapableof acting voluntarily? Utterly incapable. And also the soul which is under a tyrant (I am speaking of the soultaken as a whole) is least capable of doing what she desires; thereis 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 andsorrow and groaning and pain? Certainly not. And is there any man in whom you will find more of this sort of miserythan in the tyrannical man, who is in a fury of passions and desires? Impossible. Reflecting upon these and similar evils, you held the tyrannical Stateto be the most miserable of States? And I was right, he said. Certainly, I said. And when you see the same evils in the tyrannicalman, 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 privatelife has been cursed with the further misfortune of being a publictyrant. From what has been said, I gather that you are right. Yes, I replied, but in this high argument you should be a little morecertain, and should not conjecture only; for of all questions, thisrespecting good and evil is the greatest. Very true, he said. Let me then offer you an illustration, which may, I think, throw alight upon this subject. What is your illustration? The case of rich individuals in cities who possess many slaves: fromthem you may form an idea of the tyrant's condition, for they bothhave 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 fromtheir servants? What should they fear? Nothing. But do you observe the reason of this? Yes; the reason is, that the whole city is leagued together for theprotection of each individual. Very true, I said. But imagine one of these owners, the master sayof some fifty slaves, together with his family and property and slaves,carried off by a god into the wilderness, where there are no freemento help him --will he not be in an agony of fear lest he and his wifeand 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 divers ofhis 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 withneighbours 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 everywheresurrounded 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 allsorts 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, orto see the things which other freemen desire to see, but he livesin his hole like a woman hidden in the house, and is jealous of anyother citizen who goes into foreign parts and sees anything of interest." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of a tyrannical soul and its consequences for both the individual and society. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the person being spoken to Time setting: 1950s Language: English" "For the nature of a tyrannical soul is this: it takes itself for the measure of all things and never bows to any power but its own. And so, as I say, it is condemned to be a solitary in the midst of men, having no real fellowships, and only friendships that are lies and hollow; until at last, when it begins to taste what life really means, it finds itself alone and friendless, with none to help it or comfort it, and the end of it is madness or worse. And there was a madness on you tonight, a madness born of hatred and despair, which would have driven me mad indeed had I been what I once was, but now, thank God! am not. Well, sir, I hope you will take warning by what you have seen and heard and mend your ways."""" Then he turned to me and said, What do you think of that?"" Well,"" I answered, ""I can't say that I like it very much, but as he is your friend """" Look here, young fellow,"" interrupted the other, ""don't talk to me about friendship, for I tell you it is a thing that does not exist between human beings. It exists between beasts and perhaps between some of these dogs here, but not between men who claim to be civilized. Friendship is a kind of idolatry, a worshiping of another person's beauty, strength, wisdom or goodness because we imagine that they belong to us. " 136 136 "Very true, he said. And amid evils such as these will not he who is ill-governed in hisown person --the tyrannical man, I mean --whom you just now decidedto be the most miserable of all --will not he be yet more miserablewhen, instead of leading a private life, he is constrained by fortuneto be a public tyrant? He has to be master of others when he is notmaster of himself: he is like a diseased or paralytic man who is compelledto pass his life, not in retirement, but fighting and combating withother men. Yes, he said, the similitude is most exact. Is not his case utterly miserable? and does not the actual tyrantlead a worse life than he whose life you determined to be the worst? Certainly. He who is the real tyrant, whatever men may think, is the real slave,and is obliged to practise the greatest adulation and servility, andto be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind. He has desires whichhe is utterly unable to satisfy, and has more wants than any one,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 surelythe 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, moreunjust, more friendless, more impious, than he was at first; he isthe purveyor and cherisher of every sort of vice, and the consequenceis that he is supremely miserable, and that he makes everybody elseas miserable as himself. No man of any sense will dispute your words. Come then, I said, and as the general umpire in theatrical contestsproclaims the result, do you also decide who in your opinion is firstin the scale of happiness, and who second, and in what order the othersfollow: there are five of them in all --they are the royal, timocratical,oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical. The decision will be easily given, he replied; they shall be chorusescoming on the stage, and I must judge them in the order in which theyenter, by the criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and misery. Need we hire a herald, or shall I announce, that the son of Ariston(the best) has decided that the best and justest 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 alsothe greatest tyrant of his State? Make the 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 thatthe individual soul, like the State, has been divided by us into threeprinciples, 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 three 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, hasno special name, but is denoted by the general term appetitive, fromthe extraordinary strength and vehemence of the desires of eatingand drinking and the other sensual appetites which are the main elementsof it; also money-loving, because such desires are generally satisfiedby the help of money. That is true, he said. If we were to say that the loves and pleasures of this third partwere concerned with gain, we should then be able to fall back on asingle notion; and might truly and intelligibly describe this partof the soul as loving gain or money. I agree with you. Again, is not the passionate element wholly set on ruling and conqueringand getting fame? True. Suppose we call it the contentious or ambitious --would the term besuitable? Extremely suitable. On the other hand, every one sees that the principle of knowledgeis wholly directed to the truth, and cares less than either of theothers for gain or fame." "Summary: The text discusses the misery of a tyrant and compares it to the slave-like existence he leads. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Tyrannical man, interlocutor Language: English" "It is a kind of misery the tyrant knows no more of than you or I, and it comes from being a slave to his own passions. He has all the irritability of an over-sensitive man, and no one but another sensitive man can understand what it means to be in the hands of such a devil as that."""" There was a pause, during which I felt my cheeks growing hot, and suddenly he asked: """"Did you ever see a rat caught in a trap?"""" Yes,"" I said, ""I've seen them."" Well, there's your man. A great big brute of a man, and yet when he gets into a corner and feels the trap about him, he goes through all the motions of a trapped rat. It's the same with most men. The beast in us is the same in you and me and every other human creature; we're just the same under our skins, and if you could only get away those skins for a moment you'd see the truth of it."""" I got up and went over to the window, and he followed me and leaned against the sill beside me. Then I looked at him and saw that he was laughing quietly to himself. What are you laughing at?"" I said. He turned and stretched out his hand and put it on my shoulder. """"Friend,"""" he said, """"that's the way God made you and me, and this is how he meant us to live together, so why should we quarrel?"""" I jerked myself free of his hand. """"Don't touch me,"""" I said. And then I turned and walked back to the fireplace and sat down again in my chair. He lit a cigarette, and leaning against the mantelpiece began talking again. We had talked a good deal together since I came to him; I had found him very companionable, and he seemed to enjoy my company as much as I enjoyed his. For half an hour or so we sat like that without speaking; then he began again. You know,"" he said, ""there's one thing I always do when I've been worrying over some job. When I'm alone at night I always go upstairs and sit by the bed and talk to her."""" He broke off abruptly, and I knew that he was thinking of his wife. Then he went on again: """"Do you remember what they used to say about the two old ladies who lived next door to each other? They were both ugly, and they were both widows; and people used to ask them sometimes how they managed to bear it all, and they'd look at each other and say, 'The Lord's will be done.' Well, that's how I feel. What's the use of talking about it?"""" And he took up his book and began to read. I sat thinking about his words until nearly eleven o'clock; then I got up and said good-night to him and went to my room. " 137 137 "Far less. 'Lover of wisdom,' 'lover of knowledge,' are titles which we may fitlyapply to that part of the soul? Certainly. One principle prevails in the souls of one class of men, another inothers, as may happen? Yes. Then we may begin by assuming that there are three classes of men--lovers of wisdom, lovers of honour, lovers 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 turnwhich of their lives is pleasantest, each will be found praising hisown and depreciating that of others: the money-maker will contrastthe vanity of honour or of learning if they bring no money with thesolid advantages of gold and silver? True, he said. And the lover of honour --what will be his opinion? Will he not thinkthat 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 valueon other pleasures in comparison with the pleasure of knowing thetruth, and in that pursuit abiding, ever learning, not so far indeedfrom the heaven of pleasure? Does he not call the other pleasuresnecessary, 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 arein dispute, and the question is not which life is more or less honourable,or better or worse, but which is the more pleasant or painless --howshall we know who speaks truly? I cannot myself tell, he said. Well, but what ought to be the criterion? Is any better than experienceand wisdom and reason? There cannot be a better, he said. Then, I said, reflect. Of the three individuals, which has the greatestexperience of all the pleasures which we enumerated? Has the loverof gain, in learning the nature of essential truth, greater experienceof the pleasure of knowledge than the philosopher has of the pleasureof gain? The philosopher, he replied, has greatly the advantage; for he hasof necessity always known the taste of the other pleasures from hischildhood upwards: but the lover of gain in all his experience hasnot 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 honour, or thelover of honour of the pleasures of wisdom? Nay, he said, all three are honoured in proportion as they attaintheir object; for the rich man and the brave man and the wise manalike have their crowd of admirers, and as they all receive honourthey all have experience of the pleasures of honour; but the delightwhich is to be found in the knowledge of true being is known to thephilosopher only. His experience, then, will enable him to judge better than any one? 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 notpossessed 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 ofthe lover of gain would surely be the most trustworthy? Assuredly. Or if honour or victory or courage, in that case the judgement ofthe 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 areapproved by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest. And so we arrive at the result, that the pleasure of the intelligentpart of the soul is the pleasantest of the three, and that he of usin whom this is the ruling principle has the pleasantest life." "Summary: The text discusses the pleasure and experiences of different classes of men, with a focus on the philosopher's superior knowledge and enjoyment. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Lover of wisdom, lover of honour, lover of gain Language: English" "The lover of wisdom has his pleasures too, and they are more lasting. He is not so much a seeker after pleasure as he is a hater of pain; yet pleasure comes to him in the very midst of his struggle against it. In the first place, he knows more about women than any other man. They all come to him for advice when they are in trouble, because he is the only man who understands them thoroughly. When they want to be comforted, they go to him. When they want to be amused, they always choose him for their companion. And when they want to be made love to, they know that they can depend upon him to make love to them in such a way as no one else can. I have seen three different women, each a woman whom I loved dearly, rush into my arms on the same night, and each of them cry out with delight when I kissed her: """"I knew you would do it just as I wanted you to!"""" Now tell me, how many men can say the same thing? The lover of honour enjoys another kind of pleasure. It may sound strange to you, but it is none the less true. The lover of honour does not have to work so hard as the lover of wisdom or the lover of gain. " 138 138 "Unquestionably, he said, the wise man speaks with authority when heapproves of his own life. And what does the judge affirm to be the life which is next, and thepleasure which is next? Clearly that of the soldier and lover of honour; who is nearer tohimself than the money-maker. Last comes the lover of gain? Very true, he said. Twice in succession, then, has the just man overthrown the unjustin this conflict; and now comes the third trial, which is dedicatedto Olympian Zeus the saviour: a sage whispers in my ear that no pleasureexcept that of the wise is quite true and pure --all others are ashadow only; and surely this will prove the greatest and most decisiveof 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 opposed 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 abouteither --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 neverknew 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 heardthem say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of theirpain? I have. And there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere restand cessation of pain, and not any positive enjoyment, is extolledby them as the greatest pleasure? Yes, he said; at the time they are pleased and well content to beat rest. Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will bepainful? Doubtless, he said. Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will alsobe 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 not motion,and in a mean between them? Yes. How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain ispleasure, or that the absence of pleasure is pain? Impossible. This then is an appearance only and not a reality; that is tc 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,when tried by the test of true pleasure, are not real but a sort ofimposition? That is the inference. Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent painsand you will no longer suppose, as you perhaps may at present, thatpleasure 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,which are very great and have no antecedent pains; they come in amoment, 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 thecessation of pain, or pain of pleasure. No. Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the soulthrough the body are generally of this sort --they are reliefs ofpain. That is true. And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a likenature? 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 lowerand middle region? I should. And if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region, wouldhe not imagine that he is going up; and he who is standing in themiddle and sees whence he has come, would imagine that he is alreadyin the upper region, if he has never seen the true upper world? To be sure, he said; how can he think otherwise? But if he were taken back again he would imagine, and truly imagine,that he was descending?" "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between pleasure, pain, and rest. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the person being spoken to Language: English" "For pleasure you are the girl's own shadow, you don't know where the limit is; for pain you are a man of ice, you can put up with anything; and for rest you have no nerves at all."""" Yes,"" he said. ""I think that's true enough."" I've known other men like you, but you're worse than any of them. You're a hard man to keep in one place. Why don't you get married?"""" I've thought about it,"" he said. ""But I'd be afraid of getting bored. I'm not domestic, and I hate being tied. If I were, I'd marry you."" He smiled rather bitterly. I'd make a good wife for you,"" she said. ""I could look after you, and you could work."""" You're right,"" he said. ""We'd get on well together."" It was raining again when we went upstairs, and there were clouds over the moon. The street lamps looked yellow through the rain. We stood under an archway while he lit his pipe and I smoked a cigarette. """"It was good of you to come out in this rotten weather,"""" he said. """"You might catch cold."""" What's that?"" She had appeared suddenly beside us, wrapped in her mackintosh. You won't catch cold will you?"" No,"" she said. ""I always have an overcoat under my mackintosh."""" I wish you wouldn't call me 'dear.' It makes me feel old."""" Oh!"" Her face fell. """"I'm sorry."""" Well, don't do it again."" He patted her shoulder kindly. ""Don't take it to heart. It doesn't matter."" I could see that she was puzzled. She had never known what the word 'patronising' meant. She turned to me. """"What shall we do now?"""" she asked. He answered before I could speak. """"Let's go back to my rooms,"""" he said. """"There's nothing else to do."""" She nodded, and we followed him across the square. His rooms were on the third floor. There was a long narrow hall, and two doors opening out of it, one at each end. He unlocked the door at the right and switched on the light. The room was large and squalid. There was a bed against the wall, and a deal table littered with newspapers and dirty plates. On the shelves were rows of dusty bottles, empty tins of food, and a saucepan in which lay a dish of mouldy rice. In the middle of the floor was a heap of rags. """"I'm afraid you'll find it pretty filthy,"""" he said. """"I haven't had time to clean up yet."""" It didn't matter,"" she said. ""It's just as good as anywhere else."" She threw off her mackintosh and sat down on the bed. I lit another cigarette. It was curious how I was beginning to like her. She had something that made people like her. " 139 139 "No doubt. All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middleand lower regions? Yes. Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth,as they have wrong ideas about many other things, should also havewrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state; sothat when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feelpain and think the pain which they experience to be real, and in likemanner, when drawn away from pain to the neutral or intermediate state,they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety andpleasure; they, not knowing pleasure, err in contrasting pain withthe absence of pain. which is like contrasting black with grey insteadof 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 inanitionsof the bodily state? Yes. And ignorance and folly are inanitions 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 thatwhich has more existence the truer? Clearly, from that which has more. What classes of things have a greater share of pure existence in yourjudgment --those of which food and drink and condiments and all kindsof sustenance are examples, or the class which contains true opinionand knowledge and mind and all the different kinds of virtue? Putthe question in this way: --Which has a more pure being --that whichis concerned with the invariable, the immortal, and the true, andis of such a nature, and is found in such natures; or that which isconcerned with and found in the variable and mortal, and is itselfvariable and mortal? Far purer, he replied, is the being of that which is concerned withthe invariable. And does the essence of the invariable partake of knowledge in thesame degree as of essence? Yes, of knowledge in the same degree. And of truth in the same degree? Yes. And, conversely, that which has less of truth will also have lessof essence? Necessarily. Then, in general, those kinds of things which are in the service ofthe body have less of truth and essence than those which are in theservice of the soul? Far less. And has not the body itself less of truth and essence than the soul? Yes. What is filled with more real existence, and actually has a more realexistence, is more really filled than that which is filled with lessreal existence and is less real? Of course. And if there be a pleasure in being filled with that which is accordingto nature, that which is more really filled with more real being willmore really and truly enjoy true pleasure; whereas that which participatesin less real being will be less truly and surely satisfied, and willparticipate in an illusory and less real pleasure? Unquestionably. Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy withgluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean;and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they neverpass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor dothey ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with truebeing, nor do they taste of pure and abiding pleasure. Like cattle,with their eyes always looking down and their heads stooping to theearth, that is, to the dining-table, they fatten and feed and breed,and, in their excessive love of these delights, they kick and buttat one another with horns and hoofs which are made of iron; and theykill one another by reason of their insatiable lust. For they fillthemselves with that which is not substantial, and the part of themselveswhich they fill is also unsubstantial and incontinent. Verily, Socrates, said Glaucon, you describe the life of the manylike an oracle." "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between pleasure and pain, and argues that those who are ignorant of true pleasure and wisdom only experience illusory pleasures. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Pleasure is always a lie, Glaucon, and the lover of pleasure will never be able to attain to truth. But you are young, so it is only natural that you should not know this yet. However, one day you will learn. You will get yourself a wife and some children, and the time will come when your wife will fall ill and almost die, and when you will have to watch over her night and day with no sleep for weeks on end, and your heart will bleed, and you will realise then that your life is full of pain, and that all these pleasures were nothing but dreams.” “But what about those who are ignorant of true pleasure and wisdom?” I said. “Don’t they get any pleasure from their illusory pleasures?” “They do indeed,” he said. “That is why we say that ignorance is bliss. For if they knew how terrible the truth is, they would be utterly unable to endure their lives. They will go on being tormented by desires for things which they cannot obtain, and they will remain slaves of their own passions, and will suffer in body and soul. And yet they will cling to these illusory pleasures, because they are afraid of the real ones. Or perhaps they prefer them, for the path to wisdom is hard, and they would rather be fools than philosophers.” I laughed. “You really are a cynic,” I said. “There’s no other word for it.” “Perhaps so,” he replied. “But what else can one call someone who despises everyone and everything?” “A misanthrope,” I suggested. “Yes, that too,” he said. “And what do you think of me now, my friend? Am I still just an old man, or am I something more?” “I don’t know,” I said. “You’re certainly not just an old man.” “Well, do you think I’m mad?” “No,” I said. “But you’re very odd.” “Not as odd as you might think,” he said. “You see, I am not like most people. Most people are content to live their lives in ignorance, and to take pleasure in the simple things in life: food, drink, sex, money, power. They are happy to be slaves, and they do not want to be free. They are content to live in the darkness, and they do not want to see the light. But I am different. I want to know the truth, and I want to be free. And so I must confront the darkness and the evil that lies at its heart. I must face the demons of my own mind, and I must fight them with every fibre of my being. For I am a soldier of the light, and I will not rest until I have conquered the darkness within me.” He paused, and then he looked at me and smiled. 140 140 "Their pleasures are mixed with pains --how can they be otherwise?For they are mere shadows and pictures of the true, and are colouredby contrast, which exaggerates both light and shade, and so they implantin the minds of fools insane desires of themselves; and they are foughtabout as Stesichorus says that the Greeks fought about the shadowof Helen at Troy in ignorance of the truth. Something of that sort must inevitably happen. And must not the like happen with the spirited or passionate elementof the soul? Will not the passionate man who carries his passion intoaction, be in the like case, whether he is envious and ambitious,or violent and contentious, or angry and discontented, if he be seekingto attain honour and victory and the satisfaction of his anger withoutreason or sense? Yes, he said, the same will happen with the spirited element also. Then may we not confidently assert that the lovers of money and honour,when they seek their pleasures under the guidance and in the companyof reason and knowledge, and pursue after and win the pleasures whichwisdom shows them, will also have the truest pleasures in the highestdegree which is attainable to them, inasmuch as they follow truth;and they will have the pleasures which are natural to them, if thatwhich 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 thereis no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them theirown business, and enjoy severally the best and truest pleasures ofwhich they are capable? Exactly. But when either of the two other principles prevails, it fails inattaining its own pleasure, and compels the rest to pursue after apleasure which is a shadow only and which is not their own? True. And the greater the interval which separates them from philosophyand reason, the more strange and illusive will be the pleasure? Yes. And is not that farthest from reason which is at the greatest distancefrom law and order? Clearly. And the lustful and tyrannical desires are, as we saw, at the greatestdistance? Yes. And the royal and orderly desires are nearest? Yes. Then the tyrant will live at the greatest distance from true or naturalpleasure, and the king at the least? Certainly. But if so, the tyrant will live most unpleasantly, and the king mostpleasantly? 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 taken up hisabode with certain slave pleasures which are his satellites, and themeasure of his inferiority can only be expressed in a figure. How do you mean? I assume, I said, that 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 animage of pleasure which is thrice removed as to truth from the pleasureof the oligarch? He will. And the oligarch is third from the royal; since we count as one royaland aristocratical? Yes, he is third. Then the tyrant is removed from true pleasure by the space of a numberwhich is three times three? Manifestly. The shadow then of tyrannical pleasure determined by the number oflength will be a plane figure. Certainly. And if you raise the power and make the plane a solid, there is nodifficulty in seeing how vast is the interval by which the tyrantis parted from the king. Yes; the arithmetician will easily do the sum. Or if some person begins at the other end and measures the intervalby which the king is parted from the tyrant in truth of pleasure,he will find him, when the multiplication is complete, living 729times more pleasantly, and the tyrant more painfully by this sameinterval. What a wonderful calculation! And how enormous is the distance whichseparates the just from the unjust in regard to pleasure and pain! Yet a true calculation, I said, and a number which nearly concernshuman life, if human beings are concerned with days and nights andmonths and years. Yes, he said, human life is certainly concerned with them. Then if the good and just man be thus superior in pleasure to theevil and unjust, his superiority will be infinitely greater in proprietyof life and in beauty and virtue?" "Summary: The text discusses the pleasures and pains of different individuals, particularly focusing on the tyrant and the king. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Language: English" The pleasures of the tyrant are not so much to be envied as those of the King: and his pains are more dreadful, because they have no alleviations. The pleasures of the man who is perpetually in terror, may be said to be a torment; and there is no greater torment than that which arises from excess of pain or pleasure. — But we will consider these things at large hereafter. THE THIRD BOOK. Of the PASSIONS. CHAP. I. Concerning the Pains and Pleasures of the Mind. 1. Since it is manifest that the sensations of pleasure and pain are caused by the different motions of the animal spirits, and the organs of the body which are acted upon by them, we may now inquire how far this doctrine will serve to explain the nature of the passions, which are commonly allowed to be the most powerful motives of human actions. For I would fain reduce all the actions of man to what shall be deducible from some very few principles; for such an arrangement of them will, I think, give us greater light into the nature of the mind, and make us see how they may be harmonically disposed. 2. It is agreed on all hands, that the great and diffuse scene of the world is a theatre of wars, rapines, and plunderings; of policy, ambition, and revenge: that men are generally violent in their desires, perverse in their affections, and sour, peevish, and discontented in their tempers. They quarrel with one another for trifles, and value themselves upon their own parts, and the advantages of their station. If they meet with any opposition in their designs, they are apt to be angry, and show their anger in many ways; and if they cannot satisfy their appetites, they fret and chafe. These, and such as these, are the constant complaints of mankind. But yet I think they do not express the true state of human nature half so strongly as they might do; and would represent it in a much truer light, if they would be more careful in observing the symptoms of the passions, and did not content themselves with expressing the rage and fury of the mind without saying any thing to the matter. 3. When a man meets with any sensible good or evil, he is affected with pleasure or pain; and every one may observe this in himself, and consequently may conclude, that every other individual has the same faculties as himself, and therefore the same manner of sensibility, and consequently is affected in the same manner with himself in most cases. And after he has had often observed the symptoms of joy and grief, anger and fear, when they appear in others, he will find that he may thence guess pretty well what is passing in their minds, though perhaps he be ignorant of the occasion of their passion. 141 141 "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 some onesaying that injustice was a gain to the perfectly unjust who was reputedto be just? Yes, that was said. Now then, having determined 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 presentedbefore his eyes. Of what sort? An ideal image of the soul, like the composite creations of ancientmythology, such as the Chimera or Scylla or Cerberus, and there aremany others in which two or more different natures are said to growinto one. There are said of 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, whichhe is able to generate and metamorphose at will. You suppose marvellous powers in the artist; but, as language is morepliable than wax or any similar substance, let there be such a modelas you propose. Suppose now that you make a second form as of a lion, and a thirdof a man, the second smaller than the first, and the third smallerthan 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 grow 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 outerhull, may believe the beast to be a single human creature. I havedone so, he said. And now, to him who maintains that it is profitable for the humancreature 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 multitudinousmonster and strengthen the lion and the lion-like qualities, but tostarve and weaken the man, who is consequently liable to be draggedabout at the mercy of either of the other two; and he is not to attemptto familiarize or harmonize them with one another --he ought ratherto suffer them to fight and bite and devour one another. Certainly, he said; that is what the approver of injustice says. To him the supporter of justice makes answer that he should ever sospeak and act as to give the man within him in some way or other themost complete mastery over the entire human creature. He should watch over the many-headed monster like a good husbandman,fostering and cultivating the gentle qualities, and preventing thewild ones from growing; he should be making the lion-heart his ally,and in common care of them all should be uniting the several partswith 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, honour, or advantage,the approver of justice is right and speaks the truth, and the disapproveris wrong and false and ignorant. Yes, from every point of view. Come, now, and let us gently reason with the unjust, who is not intentionallyin error. 'Sweet Sir,' we will say to him, what think you of thingsesteemed noble and ignoble? Is not the noble that which subjects thebeast to the man, or rather to the god in man; and the ignoble thatwhich subjects the man to the beast?' He can hardly avoid saying yes--can he now?" "Summary: The text is a conversation between two characters discussing the nature of justice and injustice. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The speaker, the person being spoken to Time setting: 1950s Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Look at it this way. It's simple justice, that's all. We're all in the same boat together and we've got to look after each other or we sink. The bloke on the top deck may be able to stand a lot more of the water than you or me but he's not going to save his own skin by leaving us to drown now, is he?"""" He said, """"I think you've been knocking back a spot too many, mister."""" I said, """"Thanks very much for the tip but if you want to get technical about it there's only one bloke left on board this boat and he's up here with me right now, so don't let's start telling each other how to mind our own business."""" I was getting rather excited about it because it seemed to me the whole thing boiled down to just one question: how do you feel about your brother? If you feel so darned bad about him you ought to have gone down into the hold with him instead of having a drink with me."""" The other fellow looked like an old man when he heard that. He said, """"You can go straight to hell,"""" and walked off down the stairs without another word. I didn't think much of my own company after that and I went downstairs myself and had another drink. It was too late to go home and I wasn't going to leave my car parked there until morning. There were plenty of taxis cruising around and I took one and drove back to Sydney. CHAPTER FOURTEEN * * * * * When I got home I found a cable waiting for me. It was from Benham. Will take first flight to meet you. Can you put us up? Benham. After I'd read it twice I phoned the airline and booked two seats for the following day. Then I had dinner and went to bed early. Next morning I turned over in bed and thought about the fellow who wouldn't talk to me. Well, why should he? Maybe he was a crook and maybe he wasn't but what did it matter? He might be a crook and I might be a crook. What difference does it make to any of us? We're all in the same boat together, that's all. And then I remembered something else. I remembered what happened to the dead body in the hold of the ship. The police found out who it was and they handed the case over to the coroner. They found out who he was but they didn't find out who killed him. They never will either. And now they know that he was aboard the ship they'll probably open their eyes pretty wide. But they won't find out anything different from what they knew already. The dead man and the fellow who wouldn't talk to me are probably cousins or brothers or both. All right, they weren't exactly angels. Neither am I. " 142 142 "Not if he has any regard for my opinion. But, if he agree so far, we may ask him to answer another question:'Then how would a man profit if he received gold and silver on thecondition 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 slaveryfor money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce andevil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum whichhe received? And will any one say that he is not a miserable caitiffwho remorselessly sells his own divine being to that which is mostgodless and detestable? Eriphyle took the necklace as the price ofher husband's life, but he is taking a bribe in order to compass aworse ruin.' Yes, said Glaucon, far worse --I will answer for him. Has not the intemperate been censured of old, because in him the hugemultiform monster is allowed to be too much at large? Clearly. And men are blamed for pride and bad temper when the lion and serpentelement in them disproportionately grows and gains strength? Yes. And luxury and softness are blamed, because they relax and weakenthis same creature, and make a coward of him? Very true. And is not a man reproached for flattery and meanness who subordinatesthe 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 hisyouth to be trampled in the mire, and from being a lion to becomea monkey? True, he said. And why are mean employments and manual arts a reproach Only becausethey imply a natural weakness of the higher principle; the individualis unable to control the creatures within him, but 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 thatof the best, we say that he ought to be the servant of the best, inwhom the Divine rules; not, as Thrasymachus supposed, to the injuryof the servant, but because every one had better be ruled by divinewisdom dwelling within him; or, if this be impossible, then by anexternal 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 isthe ally of the whole city; and is seen also in the authority whichwe exercise over children, and the refusal to let them be free untilwe have established in them a principle analogous to the constitutionof a state, and by cultivation of this higher element have set upin their hearts a guardian and ruler like our own, and when this isdone 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 thata man is profited by injustice or intemperance or other baseness,which will make him a worse man, even though he acquire money or powerby his wickedness? From no point of view at all. What shall he profit, if his injustice be undetected and unpunished?He who is undetected only gets worse, whereas he who is detected andpunished has the brutal part of his nature silenced and humanized;the gentler element in him is liberated, and his whole soul is perfectedand ennobled by the acquirement of justice and temperance and wisdom,more than the body ever is by receiving gifts of beauty, strengthand health, in proportion as the soul is more honourable than thebody. Certainly, he said. To this nobler purpose the man of understanding will devote the energiesof his life. And in the first place, he will honour studies whichimpress these qualities on his soul and disregard 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 regard even health as quite a secondary matter; his firstobject will be not that he may be fair or strong or well, unless heis likely thereby to gain temperance, but he will always desire soto 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 andharmony which he will also observe; he will not allow himself to bedazzled by the foolish applause of the world, and heap up riches tohis own infinite harm? Certainly not, he said. He will look at the city which is within him, and take heed that nodisorder occur in it, such as might arise either from superfluityor from want; and upon this principle he will regulate his propertyand gain or spend according to his means." "Summary: The text discusses the concept of slavery and its consequences, focusing on the idea that selling oneself to evil is worse than selling one's child into slavery. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "It's the best thing that can happen to him. He'll be a slave all right, but at least he won't be a slave to fear."""" You talk like one of those reformers,"" I said. ""I wonder if you know what reformers are?"""" I did not wait for an answer. The sentence was all I had time for. From the doorway on my left came the sound of a shot. A bullet struck the wall behind me and splattered my shoulder with plaster and dust. The door opened wide and I saw a group of men in the room beyond. Their faces were blackened with soot and their eyes shone white in the darkness. They were ready for action. For a moment they stood still, then they began to swing their guns around until they pointed at me. What happened after that is a blur. There was no sound except the muffled voices of the men who spoke to each other as they moved forward. I knew they were coming for me, but I could not move; I could not even breathe. It seemed to me that I was frozen stiff where I stood. Then the light in the room grew stronger and the door swung open wide. For a moment I thought that I was saved, but it was only the janitor coming in to see what the shooting was about. The light showed his face, and I saw that he was dead. And then I remembered the words of the man who sold his child into slavery. Sell yourself to evil,"" he said, ""and you become evil. In the end you will sell your own blood to death."""" I looked down and saw that I held a pistol in my hand. CHAPTER XV THE HOLE IN THE WALL I do not remember how I got to my room. The next thing I remember is waking up in bed. My first thought was that I must have been dreaming, but when I put my hand on my forehead I felt a bandage. That convinced me I was really sick. After that I was very sick indeed. It was several days before I could sit up without fainting. When I was able to move about I went downstairs to find out what had happened to me. On the way I met Mr. Pinkerton, who asked me how I felt. Very sick,"" I said. ""What happened to me?"""" You were shot,"" he said. ""You are lucky to be alive."" He told me how the gang came for me and how he managed to get them outside just before they found me. Then he called the police and gave them the names of the men who had been in the room. After that he went to the hospital and stayed there until I was able to go home. He has done more than that,"" I said. """"He has saved my life."""" No doubt about that,"" Mr. Pinkerton said. ""And now you can tell me how you managed to get out of the place without being seen."""" I'm sure I don't know,"" I said. " 143 143 "Very true. And, for the same reason, he will gladly accept and enjoy such honoursas he deems likely to make him a better man; but those, whether privateor public, which are likely to disorder his life, he will avoid? Then, if that is his motive, he will not be a statesman. By the dog of Egypt, he will! in the city which 's his own he certainlywill, though in the land of his birth perhaps not, unless he havea divine call. I understand; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of whichwe are the founders, and which exists in idea only; for I do not believethat there is such an one anywhere on earth? In heaven, I replied, there is laid up a pattern of it, methinks,which he who desires may behold, and beholding, may set his own housein order. 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, havingnothing to do with any other. I think so, he said. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOK X Socrates - GLAUCON Of he many excellences which I perceive in the order of our State,there is none which upon reflection pleases me better than the ruleabout poetry. To what do you refer? To the rejection of imitative poetry, which certainly ought not tobe received; as I see far more clearly now that the parts of the soulhave been distinguished. What do you mean? Speaking in confidence, for I should not like to have my words repeatedto the tragedians and the rest of the imitative tribe --but I do notmind saying to you, that all poetical imitations are ruinous to theunderstanding of the hearers, and that the knowledge of their truenature is the only antidote to them. Explain the purport of your remark. Well, I will tell you, although I have always from my earliest youthhad an awe and love of Homer, which even now makes the words falteron my lips, for he is the great captain and teacher of the whole ofthat charming tragic company; but a man is not to be reverenced morethan 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 duller eye may often see a thing sooner than thekeener. Very true, he said; but in your presence, even if I had any faintnotion, I could not muster courage to utter it. Will you enquire yourself? Well then, shall we begin the enquiry in our usual manner: Whenevera number of individuals have a common name, we assume them to havealso a corresponding idea or form. Do you understand me? I do. Let us take any common instance; there are beds and tables in theworld --plenty of them, are there not? Yes. But there are only two ideas or forms of them --one the idea of abed, the other of a table. True. And the maker of either of them makes a bed or he makes a table forour use, in accordance with the idea --that is our way of speakingin 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 wouldsay 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. Forthis is he who is able to make not only vessels of every kind, butplants and animals, himself and all other things --the earth and heaven,and the things which are in heaven or under the earth; he makes thegods also. He must be a wizard and no mistake. Oh! you are incredulous, are you? Do you mean that there is no suchmaker or creator, or that in one sense there might be a maker of allthese things but in another not? Do you see that there is a way inwhich you could make them all yourself?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the role of poetry and its effects on the understanding of the hearers. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, Glaucon Quoted work: Homer's works Language: English" He’ll be driven to it, I promise you, when he finds that the only other alternative is death.” “The other alternative?” “Poetry. He’ll have to go in for poetry or die. And if he goes in for poetry, the effect on his understanding will be as bad as if he went in for anything else.” “I don’t understand,” said Glaucon; “you’ll have to explain yourself more clearly.” Socrates sighed. “It’s no wonder you don’t understand,” he said, “when you never listen. I’ve been talking all the time about Homer and his works.” “And now you are talking about poetry in general, and not about Homer any longer. You mustn’t be surprised if we don’t know what you mean by poetry. Do you suppose that we have been living for years without knowing the difference between a sonnet and an ode? Between epic and tragedy? Between satire and eulogy? Between lyric and pastoral?” “You needn’t get angry,” said Socrates mildly. “I admit that you know all the different kinds of poetry. But you don’t realize that they are all one, because you think that what they have in common is their form, whereas the real common element is their effect on the soul. It is this effect that brings them all under a single head. 144 144 "What way? An easy way enough; or rather, there are many ways in which the featmight be quickly and easily accomplished, none quicker than that ofturning a mirror round and round --you would soon enough make thesun and the heavens, and the earth and yourself, and other animalsand plants, and all the, other things of which we were just now speaking,in the mirror. Yes, he said; but they would be appearances only. Very good, I said, you are coming to the point now. And the paintertoo 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. Andyet there is a sense in 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 toomakes, not the idea which, according to our view, is the essence ofthe 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 any one were to say thatthe work of the maker of the bed, or of any other workman, has realexistence, he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth. At any rate, he replied, philosophers would say that he was not speakingthe truth. No wonder, then, that his work too is an indistinct expression oftruth. No wonder. Suppose now that by the light of the examples just offered we enquirewho this imitator is? If you please. Well then, here are three beds: one existing in nature, which is madeby 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 the painter is a third? Yes. Beds, then, are of three kinds, and there are three artists who superintendthem: 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 natureand one only; two or more such ideal beds neither ever have been norever will be made by God. Why is that? Because even if He had made but two, a third would still appear behindthem which both of them would have for their idea, and that wouldbe the ideal bed and 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 createda bed which is essentially and by nature one only. So we believe. Shall we, then, speak of Him as the natural author or maker of thebed? Yes, he replied; inasmuch as by the natural process of creation Heis the author of this and of all other things. And what shall we say of the carpenter --is not he also the makerof the bed? Yes. But would you call the painter a 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 imitatorof that which the others make. Good, I said; then you call him who is third in the descent from naturean imitator? Certainly, he said. And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all otherimitators, he is thrice 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 whichoriginally 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 bedwill appear different, but there is no difference in reality. Andthe same of all things." "Summary: The text discusses the concept of imitation and creation, with a focus on the painter and his ability to create appearances rather than reality. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "Imitation, if you like. But creation is what matters. The painter does not put down the appearance of things; he puts down the thing itself. He is a creator, and so am I. All you have to do is to learn your place. And now get out, you dirty little beast."""" The man looked at him with an expression half dazed and half cunning, and then turned away. Goodwin went on talking to himself as he paced up and down the room. There are no good reasons,"" he said. ""There never were any good reasons for murder. That's why there are so few murderers in the world. Murder is always a gamble, and a damn' poor one at that. The murderer has to take a lot on his own shoulders. He gets rid of somebody whom he doesn't like, but he finds out that he didn't want to get rid of quite as much as he thought. He's got to live with his act all his life. He's got to invent a lot of alibis and explanations. And when he's invented them, he finds he's still living with his act all the same. He can't go back now. He's got to live it out to the end. He's got to run the race to the tape. Because if he tries to chuck it, people will be looking for him, and he won't have a chance. No, there aren't any good reasons for murder. It's just a matter of temperament."""" Then he stopped, and stood thinking deeply. I wonder,"" he said presently, """"if that poor devil over there had any idea of killing me. I doubt it. I fancy he only wanted to find out whether I was here or not. If I'd been here, he might have tried something else. As it was, he couldn't think of anything better than this. Well, it was cheap enough at the price. He's paid for it now."""" And turning abruptly, he walked across to where the body lay. It seemed to Goodwin, who was accustomed to judging men by their faces, that death had done its work well. The man's face was almost beautiful now. There was a sort of pathetic nobility about it. Not even the brutality of the murder could mar it. It was as though death had come for him at last, and he had gone gladly. Goodwin bent over the body, and after some fumbling in his pockets drew out a small packet of letters and a sheaf of newspaper cuttings. These, then, must be the evidence against him. There would be nothing very sensational about them, probably. They would be the kind of thing that makes people gossips and bores. Goodwin knew from long experience how easy it was to make a man look guilty. He had seen many men hounded into jail by police detectives who believed implicitly in their own methods. " 145 145 "Yes, he said, the difference is only apparent. Now let me ask you another question: Which is the art of paintingdesigned to be --an imitation of things as they are, or as they appear--of appearance or of reality? Of appearance. Then the imitator, I said, is a long way off the truth, and can doall things because he lightly touches on a small part of them, andthat part an image. For example: A painter will paint a cobbler, carpenter,or any other artist, though he knows nothing of their arts; and, ifhe is a good artist, he may deceive children or simple persons, whenhe shows them his picture of a carpenter from a distance, and theywill fancy that they are looking at a real carpenter. Certainly. And whenever any one informs us that he has found a man knows allthe arts, and all things else that anybody knows, and every singlething with a higher degree of accuracy than any other man --whoevertells us this, I think that we can only imagine to be a simple creaturewho is likely to have been deceived by some wizard or actor whom hemet, and whom he thought all-knowing, because he himself was unableto analyse 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, virtueas well as vice, and divine things too, for that the good poet cannotcompose well unless he knows his subject, and that he who has notthis knowledge can never be a poet, we ought to consider whether herealso there may not be a similar illusion. Perhaps they may have comeacross imitators and been deceived by them; they may not have rememberedwhen they saw their works that these were but imitations thrice removedfrom the truth, and could easily be made without any knowledge ofthe truth, because they are appearances only and not realities? Or,after all, they may be in the right, and poets do really know thethings 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 originalas well as the image, he would seriously devote himself to the image-makingbranch? Would he allow imitation to be the ruling principle of hislife, as if he had nothing higher in him? I should say not. The real artist, who knew what he was imitating, would be interestedin realities and not in imitations; and would desire to leave as memorialsof himself works many and fair; and, instead of being the author ofencomiums, he would prefer to be the theme of them. Yes, he said, that would be to him a source of much greater honourand 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: weare not going to ask him, or any other poet, whether he has curedpatients like Asclepius, or left behind him a school of medicine suchas the Asclepiads were, or whether he only talks about medicine andother arts at second hand; but we have a right to know respectingmilitary tactics, politics, education, which are the chiefest andnoblest 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 secondremove from truth in what you say of virtue, and not in the third--not an image maker or imitator --and if you are able to discernwhat pursuits make men better or worse in private or public life,tell us what State was ever better governed by your help? The goodorder of Lacedaemon is due to Lycurgus, and many other cities greatand small have been similarly benefited by others; but who says thatyou have been a good legislator to them and have done them any good?Italy and Sicily boast of Charondas, and there is Solon who is renownedamong us; but what city has anything to say about you?' Is there anycity which he might name? I think not, said Glaucon; not even the Homerids themselves pretendthat he was a legislator." "Summary: The speaker discusses the difference between painting as an imitation of reality or appearance, and questions whether poets truly understand the subjects they write about. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Speaker, Glaucon Quoted work: Homer's poems Language: English" "I like the sort of painting you mean, but I think that Homer and his followers paint with too broad a brush. Their pictures are crude and vulgar. They want to give you the appearance as well as the reality, and I don't believe that it is possible to do both in art. When they try for the appearance, their work becomes common, like those wax dolls that we used to make when we were children. They look exactly like real people, but they have no life or soul inside them."""" If they had the soul,"" said Glaucon, ""they wouldn't be so ugly."" It's worse than that,"" said Socrates; ""not only are they ugly, but their ugliness is so unpleasant that you can hardly bear to look at them. And yet they are very popular among men who ought to know better. That is because most people like appearances better than realities. They are like the grocers and bakers, who sell us things that look beautiful but taste horrid. But poetry should not appeal to the senses only, although the poet himself may be sensual enough. Poetry should go straight into the soul of man and arouse some passion there."""" Then you would hardly call Homer a poet?"" asked Glaucon. No, my friend, I don't think Homer was a poet, if by a poet you mean one who knows what he is talking about. His poems are full of lies, and I don't see how a man who tells lies can be either a poet or a philosopher. But if by a poet you mean a man who can put together words and sentences in such a way that they sound fine and exciting, then Homer was a great poet. He could say things in a grand style, and he could tell stories that kept you on the edge of your seat; but I doubt whether he knew much more about gods and heroes than the rest of us."""" Then what do you suppose he thought he was doing when he wrote his poems?"" Why, I imagine that he thought he was giving us a picture of gods and heroes. But he never understood them at all. You see, he didn't know anything about reality, and he couldn't draw unless he saw something first. He must have been rather like the prisoners in our cave, who never get out into the sunlight. All that they know is the shadows on the wall, and they think that these shadows are the only reality. So Homer tried to copy the shadows of reality instead of reality itself; and this made his work shallow and vulgar. The same thing happens to poets nowadays. Take those two fellows who write the best detective stories, Mr. Conrad and Mr. Chesterton: they are clever men, and they certainly understand reality when they see it; but they don't know anything about detectives. " 146 146 "Well, but is there any war on record which was carried on successfullyby him, or aided by his counsels, when he was alive? There is not. Or is there any invention of his, applicable to the arts or to humanlife, such as Thales the Milesian or Anacharsis the Scythian, andother ingenious men 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 guideor teacher of any? Had he in his lifetime friends who loved to associatewith him, and who handed down to posterity an Homeric way of life,such as was established by Pythagoras who was so greatly beloved forhis wisdom, and whose followers are to this day quite celebrated forthe order which was named after him? Nothing of the kind is recorded of him. For surely, Socrates, Creophylus,the companion of Homer, that child of flesh, whose name always makesus laugh, might be more justly ridiculed for his stupidity, if, asis said, Homer was greatly neglected by him and others in his ownday when he was alive? Yes, I replied, that is the tradition. But can you imagine, Glaucon,that if Homer had really been able to educate and improve mankind--if he had possessed knowledge and not been a mere imitator --canyou imagine, I say, that he would not have had many followers, andbeen honoured and loved by them? Protagoras of Abdera, and Prodicusof Ceos, and a host of others, have only to whisper to their contemporaries:'You will never be able to manage either your own house or your ownState until you appoint us to be your ministers of education' --andthis ingenious device of theirs has such an effect in making themlove them that their companions all but carry them about on theirshoulders. And is it conceivable that the contemporaries of Homer,or again of Hesiod, would have allowed either of them to go aboutas 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 masterwould 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, beginningwith Homer, are only imitators; they copy images of virtue and thelike, 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 thoughhe understands nothing of cobbling; and his picture is good enoughfor those who know no more than he does, and judge only by coloursand figures. Quite so. In like manner the poet with his words and phrases may be said tolay on the colours of the several arts, himself understanding theirnature only enough to imitate them; and other people, who are as ignorantas he is, and judge only from his words, imagine that if he speaksof cobbling, or of military tactics, or of anything else, in metreand harmony and rhythm, he speaks very well --such is the sweet influencewhich melody and rhythm by nature have. And I think that you musthave observed again and again what a poor appearance the tales ofpoets make when stripped of the colours 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. Here is another point: The imitator or maker of the image knows nothingof true existence; he knows appearances only. Am I not right? Yes. Then let us have a clear understanding, and not be satisfied withhalf an explanation. Proceed. Of the painter we say that he will paint reins, and he will painta 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 reins? Nay,hardly even the workers in brass and leather who make them; only thehorseman who knows how to use them --he knows their right form." "Summary: The text discusses the lack of evidence that Homer was a wise or influential figure during his lifetime, and questions why he is revered as a great poet. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Active character: Homer, Socrates, Glaucon Quoted work: Thales the Milesian, Anacharsis the Scythian, Pythagoras Language: English" "And you say that he was wise, and a great poet, and a great military commander, and a great politician; and I say that he was not. What is the evidence on which you go? Of course, if you can show that he was influential in his own day, then you will prove to him all these things which we are discussing."""" But surely,"" said Glaucon, ""the greatest proof is the fact that he has influenced the whole world of thought and culture. Think of the effect of the Iliad and the Odyssey upon Greece, and of Greek civilization upon Europe and the world. These works have created modem civilization, and the whole world feels their power even to this day."""" That may be,"" said Socrates; ""but do you think that Homer was ever quoted or referred to by any of the wise men of his own day?"""" Not at all,"" said Glaucon; ""for the simple reason that there were no wise men in those days. All the wise men lived long before Homer."" You are quite right,"" said Socrates; ""there were wise men before Homer. There were Thales the Milesian, Anacharsis the Scythian, Pythagoras, Solon, Bias, Cleobulus, Pittacus, Chilon, Periander, and others whom we need not mention. And what did these wise men of old say about Homer?"""" They spoke of him with reverence and awe, but they did not quote him as an authority. They regarded him as a great poet, but they did not treat him as a philosopher."""" Then how can you say that Homer was a wise man when the wisest men of his own time did not regard him as such?"""" Why, because you believe in tradition,"" said Socrates, ""and in the infallibility of the ancient world. But I do not believe in either of these things. I am willing to admit that Homer was a wise man; but I want some better evidence than your mere tradition."""" Well,"" said Glaucon, ""if that is so, where is the evidence?"" I will tell you,"" said Socrates, ""where the evidence is not. The evidence is not in the fact that he was a great poet, for it is now quite clear that he was not. The evidence is not in the fact that he was a great warrior, for we know that he was not. The evidence is not in the fact that he was a great statesman, for he was certainly not that. The evidence is not in the fact that he was a great religious teacher, for he was not that either. Where is the evidence, then?"""" There is no evidence,"" said Glaucon, ""that he was anything at all."" " 147 147 "Most true. And may we not say the same of all things? What? That there are three arts which are concerned with all things: onewhich uses, another which makes, a third which imitates them? Yes. And the excellence or beauty or truth of every structure, animateor inanimate, and of every action of man, is relative to the use forwhich nature or the artist has intended them. True. Then the user of them must have the greatest experience of them, andhe must indicate to the maker the good or bad qualities which developthemselves in use; for example, the flute-player will tell the flute-makerwhich of his flutes is satisfactory to the performer; he will tellhim 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 goodnessand badness of flutes, while the other, confiding in him, will dowhat he is told by him? True. The instrument is the same, but about the excellence or badness ofit the maker will only attain to a correct belief; and this he willgain from him who knows, by talking to him and being compelled tohear what he has to say, whereas the user will have knowledge? True. But will the imitator have either? Will he know from use whether orno his drawing is correct or beautiful? Or will he have right opinionfrom being compelled to associate with another who knows and giveshim instructions about what he should draw? Neither. Then he will no more have true opinion than he will have knowledgeabout the goodness or badness of his imitations? I suppose not. The imitative artist will be in a brilliant state of intelligenceabout his own creations? Nay, very much the reverse. And still he will go on imitating without knowing what makes a thinggood or bad, and may be expected therefore to imitate only that whichappears to be good to the ignorant multitude? Just so. Thus far then we are pretty well agreed that the imitator has no knowledgeworth mentioning of what he imitates. Imitation is only a kind ofplay or sport, and the tragic poets, whether they write in iambicor in Heroic verse, are imitators in the highest degree? Very true. And now tell me, I conjure you, has not imitation been shown by usto be concerned with that which is thrice removed from the truth? Certainly. And what is the faculty in man to which imitation is addressed? What do you mean? I will explain: The body which is large when seen near, appears smallwhen 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, owingto the illusion about colours to which the sight is liable. Thus everysort of confusion is revealed within us; and this is that weaknessof the human mind on which the art of conjuring and of deceiving bylight and shadow and other ingenious devices imposes, having an effectupon us like magic. True. And the arts of measuring and numbering and weighing come to the rescueof the human understanding-there is the beauty of them --and the apparentgreater or less, or more or heavier, no longer have the mastery overus, but give way before calculation and measure and weight? Most true. And this, surely, must be the work of the calculating and rationalprinciple in the soul To be sure. And when this principle measures and certifies that some things areequal, or that some are greater or less than others, there occursan apparent contradiction? True. But were we not saying that such a contradiction is the same facultycannot 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 measureis not the same with that which has an opinion in accordance withmeasure? True. And the better part of the soul is likely to be that which truststo measure and calculation? Certainly. And that which is opposed to them is one of the inferior principlesof the soul?" "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between different arts and their ability to imitate reality, highlighting the limitations of imitation and the superiority of knowledge. Narrative arc: Philosophical exploration and argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical discussion Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Two characters engaged in a philosophical conversation Language: English" "I've always had a theory of my own that the various arts are all members of one family, and that they're related to each other like the different branches of a tree."""" He shook his head. """"But I'm wrong,"""" he said with a grin. """"They can't be related to each other; they've got nothing in common except their ability to imitate reality. And you can't call that an actual relationship, can you?"""" I don't know."" That's because you're too soft-hearted,"" he said. ""You have a sentimental weakness for truth, and it has blinded your judgment. Do you think we could do better than our masters if we tried to paint pictures or write poetry?"""" No, but "" Then how come they try to copy us?"" he interrupted. ""How come they dress up in black suits and hats and make believe they're private detectives? You've seen them doing it yourself; they even get down on their knees and examine the skylights! Don't tell me you think they're trying to pay tribute to our superior intelligence?"""" I don't know what they're trying to do,"" I admitted. ""And I don't want to know."" Well, now, why don't you want to know?"" he demanded. ""Why don't you take an intelligent interest in things?"""" I took a deep breath. """"Look here,"""" I began. """"I'll admit that I'm not very smart,"""" I said, """"but I do know a few things."""" Sure,"" he said. ""You know everything there is about guns and bombs and airplanes."""" I nodded. """"That's right,"""" I said. """"And I also know this: A man who spends his time talking about art is either a liar or a fool."""" His eyes narrowed. """"Is that so? Well, you can put me down as both. I'm a damned liar and a damn fool and the biggest crook that ever lived!"""" he shouted. """"Now let's see how good you are at thinking!"""" He jerked his thumb toward the door. """"Go out and get some milk,"""" he said. """"Take ten dollars and buy a quart of milk, and bring it back here and show it to me."""" I stood up slowly, staring at him with cold hatred. After a moment he grinned and turned away. """"It's no trick,"""" he said. """"If you want to play detective, go ahead. Here's the money. Go out and get the milk."""" I didn't move. The muscles of my jaw were rigid, and my fists were clenched. """"Don't you want to go?"" he asked. I swallowed hard and reached for the money. """"Here,"""" I said. """"I'll get it for you."""" " 148 148 "No doubt. This was the conclusion at which I was seeking to arrive when I saidthat painting or drawing, and imitation in general, when doing theirown proper work, are far removed from truth, and the companions andfriends and associates of a principle within us which is equally removedfrom reason, and that they have no true or healthy aim. Exactly. The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior, and hasinferior offspring. Very true. And is this confined to the sight only, or does it extend to the hearingalso, 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 ofpainting; but let us examine further and see whether the faculty withwhich poetical imitation is concerned is good or bad. By all means. We may state the question thus: --Imitation imitates the actions ofmen, 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. But in all this variety of circumstances is the man at unity withhimself --or rather, as in the instance of sight there was confusionand opposition in his opinions about the same things, so here alsois there not strife and inconsistency in his life? Though I need hardlyraise the question again, for I remember that all this has been alreadyadmitted; and the soul has been acknowledged by us to be full of theseand 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 whichmust now be supplied. What was the omission? Were we not saying that a good man, who has the misfortune to losehis son or anything else which is most dear to him, will bear theloss with more equanimity than another? Yes. But will he have no sorrow, or shall we say that although he cannothelp sorrowing, he will moderate his sorrow? The latter, he said, is the truer statement. Tell me: will he be more likely to struggle and hold out against hissorrow 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 many thingswhich he would be ashamed of any one 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 indulgehis sorrow? True. But when a man is drawn in two opposite directions, to and from thesame object, this, as we affirm, necessarily implies two distinctprinciples 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, andthat we should not give way to impatience, as there is no knowingwhether such things are good or evil; and nothing is gained by impatience;also, because no human thing is of serious importance, and grief standsin 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 thedice have been thrown order our affairs in the way which reason deemsbest; not, like children who have had a fall, keeping hold of thepart struck and wasting time in setting up a howl, but always accustomingthe soul forthwith to apply a remedy, raising up that which is sicklyand fallen, banishing 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 suggestionof reason? Clearly. And the other principle, which inclines us to recollection of ourtroubles and to lamentation, and can never have enough of them, wemay call irrational, useless, and cowardly?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the imitative arts and their relationship to truth and reason. Narrative arc: Philosophical discussion Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "I have heard it said that the imitative arts are the great purveyors of truth to the world, and this is very likely. If the world can't get at the real thing, then let them have a sham one which is nearer the mark than their own fatuous imaginings. There's a reason for everything."""" He turned to me suddenly. I've been thinking about you,"" he said. ""If they do pull you in, how much will you tell?"""" I shall tell nothing that I know to be untrue."" For God's sake don't be a fool,"" said Alain bitterly. ""You might not be able to help yourself, but there's no call for you to make things easy for them. You might let me off having my hands dirtied."""" Tell us what you really think of us,"" I said. ""We're just the sort of people who would be used as cats' paws by some dirty little plot. Isn't that it?"""" Not necessarily,"" said Alain. ""They might have made fools of us without any plot at all. It's easy enough."""" The imitative arts,"" went on Tony, still talking to himself, ""are the great purveyors of truth to the world. But sometimes I wonder if they are not also the great purveyors of untruths to the world. Do you ever wonder if people don't take them literally?"""" Certainly,"" said Alain. ""It's one of the most important things that actors have to remember. In those days the stage was the only form of education the people had. They believed in everything that they saw acted. Look at all the theories of relativity that were started by the cinema. Myself, I believe in nothing that I haven't seen with my own eyes."""" And what did you see with your own eyes?"" said Tony. I am not going to say,"" said Alain. ""But you wouldn't have done better. No one who was there would have done better."""" I'm sure we wouldn't,"" said Tony. ""The point is that these people aren't content with doing an imitation of life; they must try and go beyond it. They must pretend to be cleverer than life; they must introduce the element of surprise into it. They must try and catch life napping. And I've come to the conclusion that this is what happened at Mr. Bury's party last night. They've got something up their sleeves, and I want to know what it is."""" Have you tried taking it out of them?"" I asked. There's nothing wrong with their brains,"" said Tony. ""And that's more than can be said for mine at the moment."""" Well,"" said Alain, ""what are you going to do now?"""" We're going to sleep,"" said Tony. ""This house seems to have got on our nerves. I feel as if someone were walking over my grave. As soon as it gets light we're getting out of it. " 149 149 "Indeed, we may. And does not the latter --I mean the rebellious principle --furnisha great variety of materials for imitation? Whereas the wise and calmtemperament, being always nearly equable, is not easy to imitate orto appreciate when imitated, especially at a public festival whena promiscuous crowd is assembled in a theatre. For the feeling representedis one to which they are strangers. Certainly. Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by naturemade, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the principlein 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, inasmuch as his creations havean inferior degree of truth --in this, I say, he is like him; andhe is also like him in being concerned with an inferior part of thesoul; and therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him intoa well-ordered State, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthensthe feelings and impairs the reason. As in a city when the evil arepermitted to have authority and the good are put out of the way, soin the soul of man, as we maintain, the imitative poet implants anevil constitution, for he indulges the irrational nature which hasno discernment of greater and less, but thinks the same thing at onetime great and at another small-he is a manufacturer of images andis 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 arevery few who are not harmed), is surely an awful thing? Yes, certainly, if the effect is what you say. Hear and judge: The best of us, as I conceive, when we listen to apassage of Homer, or one of the tragedians, in which he representssome pitiful hero who is drawling out his sorrows in a long oration,or weeping, and smiting his breast --the best of us, you know, delightin giving way to sympathy, and are in raptures at the excellence ofthe poet who stirs our feelings most. Yes, of course I know. But when any sorrow of our own happens to us, then you may observethat we pride ourselves on the opposite quality --we would fain bequiet and patient; this is the manly part, and the other which delightedus 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 doingthat which any one of us would abominate and be ashamed of in hisown person? No, he said, that is certainly not reasonable. Nay, I said, quite reasonable from one point of view. What point of view? If you consider, I said, that when in misfortune we feel a naturalhunger and desire to relieve our sorrow by weeping and lamentation,and that this feeling which is kept under control in our own calamitiesis satisfied and delighted by the poets;-the better nature in eachof us, not having been sufficiently trained by reason or habit, allowsthe sympathetic element to break loose because the sorrow is another's;and the spectator fancies that there can be no disgrace to himselfin praising and pitying any one who comes telling him what a goodman he is, and making a fuss about his troubles; he thinks that thepleasure is a gain, and why should he be supercilious and lose thisand the poem too? Few persons ever reflect, as I should imagine, thatfrom the evil of other men something of evil is communicated to themselves.And so the feeling of sorrow which has gathered strength at the sightof the misfortunes of others is with difficulty repressed in our own. How very true! And does not the same hold also of the ridiculous? There are jestswhich you would be ashamed to make yourself, and yet on the comicstage, or indeed in private, when you hear them, you are greatly amusedby them, and are not at all disgusted at their unseemliness; --thecase of pity is repeated; --there is a principle in human nature whichis disposed to raise a laugh, and this which you once restrained byreason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is nowlet out again; and having stimulated the risible faculty at the theatre,you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comicpoet at home." "Summary: The text discusses the nature of imitative poetry and its effects on the soul. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Language: English" "I have always believed that the worst of imitative poetry is more demoralizing to the soul than any sort of pornography. It is, in fact, a very subtle form of pornography and it has a much greater effect on those who are impressionable and susceptible."""" I see."" He picked up his glass and looked at it for a long moment before he spoke again. I suppose you've noticed how you can get hold of almost any kind of drink these days? You can get bourbon at the corner drug store and you can get champagne in a movie house."""" He smiled faintly as he raised his glass to his lips. """"That's what's so easy about living nowadays, you can get anything you want anywhere. You can get vodka in a roadside cafe in Iowa or you can get it in a private club in Beverly Hills. And then if you don't like vodka you can try gin or Scotch or rye or bourbon. Hell, if you want to take something really good you can get morphine or cocaine or heroin."""" He drank half the glassful at one gulp and smacked his lips together noisily. There isn't a single thing,"" he went on, ""that anybody wants that you can't buy right off the shelf. In other words, there aren't any taboos anymore. Taboos are the only things that make life interesting."""" Well, I wouldn't go quite that far,"" Marlowe said. Not even close?"" Look, Marlowe, if you want to hear me talk I'll tell you. But if you want to shut me up just say so."""" Thanks,"" Marlowe said, ""but I'm listening."" Then listen. If you take away all the taboos from life you take away all the excitement from life. Do you know what this country needs?"""" No, but I'm sure you're going to tell me."" We need murder and kidnapping and rape and slavery and incest and flagellation and torture. We need everlusting sadism and panting masochism."""" He put the glass down. His hands were shaking and beads of sweat had started out on his forehead. He wiped them off with the back of his hand. It was a trick I used to see in the movies when tough guys got drunk,"" he said. ""And I guess I am drunk now. Now do you know why we need all these things?"""" Because they give us thrills and because we can't have them?"" That's right. The more terrible they are the better it is. That's what makes murder exciting. A man who kills somebody who hasn't done him any harm, or even a stranger, is simply being cruel. It isn't exciting. But if you kill somebody to get something you want, or to avenge somebody you love, or because you hate him, or because he hates you, or because he has the wrong political opinions, or because he won't lend you money, or because you think he might tell your wife you slept with her sister, or because you're afraid he might tell the police you robbed a bank """" He leaned over and grabbed my arm. " 150 150 "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 inseparablefrom every action ---in all of them poetry feeds and waters the passionsinstead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they oughtto be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness andvirtue. I cannot deny it. Therefore, Glaucon, I said, whenever you meet with any of the eulogistsof Homer declaring that he has been the educator of Hellas, and thathe is profitable for education and for the ordering of human things,and that you should take him up again and again and get to know himand regulate your whole life according to him, we may love and honourthose who say these things --they are excellent people, as far astheir lights extend; and we are ready to acknowledge that Homer isthe greatest of poets and first of tragedy writers; but we must remainfirm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famousmen 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, eitherin epic or lyric verse, not law and the reason of mankind, which bycommon consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain willbe the rulers in our State. That is most true, he said. And now since we have reverted to the subject of poetry, let thisour defence serve to show the reasonableness of our former judgmentin sending away out of our State an art having the tendencies whichwe have described; for reason constrained us. But that she may imputeto us any harshness or want of politeness, let us tell her that thereis an ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry; of which thereare many proofs, such as the saying of 'the yelping hound howlingat her lord,' or of one 'mighty in the vain talk of fools,' and 'themob of sages circumventing Zeus,' and the 'subtle thinkers who arebeggars after all'; and there are innumerable other signs of ancientenmity between them. Notwithstanding this, let us assure our sweetfriend and the sister arts of imitation that if she will only proveher title to exist in a well-ordered State we shall be delighted toreceive her --we are very conscious of her charms; but we may noton that account betray the truth. I dare say, Glaucon, that you areas 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, butupon this condition only --that she make a defence of herself in lyricalor some other metre? Certainly. And we may further grant to those of her defenders who are loversof poetry and yet not poets the permission to speak in prose on herbehalf: let them show not only that she is pleasant but also usefulto 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 the gainers. If her defence fails, then, my dear friend, like other persons whoare enamoured of something, but put a restraint upon themselves whenthey think their desires are opposed to their interests, so too mustwe 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 ofnoble States has implanted in us, and therefore we would have herappear at her best and truest; but so long as she is unable to makegood her defence, this argument of ours shall be a charm to us, whichwe will repeat to ourselves while we listen to her strains; that wemay not fall away into the childish love of her which captivates themany. At all events we are well aware that poetry being such as wehave described is not to be regarded seriously as attaining to thetruth; and he who listens to her, fearing for the safety of the citywhich is within him, should be on his guard against her seductionsand make our words his law." "Summary: The text discusses the role of poetry in a well-ordered State and argues that it should not be allowed to influence the passions and desires of the people. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation/dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Quoted work: Homer's poetry Language: English" So that there is a great deal of truth in Homer, and also in other poets who have sung the praises of wealth; for if you examine them carefully you will find that when they celebrate wealth they mean military wealth, or rather not even that so much as riches which are laid up and saved, and out of which an individual can supply his daily wants without interruption from any external motive. And this I affirm to be the sort of wealth which has the greatest value in a State, as it does in a household, and when a State or a household has obtained this, there will be no more need of poetry; for there will be no honourable pleasure superior to or different from the life of reason and truth; and the whole human race will be harmonious, and in agreement with itself, being pleasant and happy. Glaucon. I think, Socrates, that I understand the meaning of your figure. But whatever may be the truth, let us say, for the sake of argument, that if poetry were such as you describe, surely there would be no doubt that, licit or illicit, it ought to be banished, as far as we can, from our cities; but let us now consider how far, in fact, what you say is true, and whether this art of the poet is wholesomely preserved among us, and whether he attains to beauty and virtue, or the contrary of these? For myself, Glaucon, I cannot tell; when I think of the dramatic poets, and consider their intermingled songs, I am carried away by them and cannot tell what is and what is not relative to virtue; but still I do see that many become better men, and that others are quite corrupted. Socrates. In this respect then, my noble friend, I cannot help thinking that first of all we must have some rule or criterion by which we can judge that in poetry or anything else is good or evil, either absolutely or relatively to some object, which may or may not be good, and thus decide whether a given poem is good or bad, or, again, whether a man is good or bad, or indeed whether a given action is good or bad. This will be our first consideration, and we shall proceed by asking what is the aim of poetry? Is it not to represent things as they truly are, or as they appear to us, or as they ought to be? If anyone thinks that I am talking nonsense, he is at liberty to lift up his voice; I should be pleased that the matter was clear to him. But if not, let him assume that poetry is one of the fine arts, and that culture in the highest and strictest sense. Now in education, which is the subject at present under consideration, do we not say that we look to poetry for the institution of citizenship, and that when a man is freed from political duties, and has more leisure, education is continued by other means? 151 151 "Yes, he said, I quite agree with you. Yes, I said, my dear Glaucon, for great is the issue at stake, greaterthan 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,aye, or under the excitement of poetry, he neglect justice and virtue? Yes, he said; I have been convinced by the argument, as I believethat any one else would have been. And yet no mention has been made of the greatest prizes and rewardswhich await virtue. What, are there any greater still? If there are, they must be of aninconceivable greatness. Why, I said, what was ever great in a short time? The whole periodof threescore years and ten is surely but a little thing in comparisonwith eternity? Say rather 'nothing,' he replied. And should an immortal being seriously think of this little spacerather than of the whole? Of the whole, certainly. But why do you ask? Are you not aware, I said, that the soul of man is immortal and imperishable? He looked at me in astonishment, and said: No, by heaven: And areyou really prepared to maintain this? Yes, I said, I ought to be, and you too --there is no difficulty inproving it. I see a great difficulty; but I should like to hear you state thisargument of which you make so light. Listen then. I am 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 destroyingelement is the evil, and the saving and improving element the good? Yes. And you admit that every thing has a good and also an evil; as ophthalmiais the evil of the eyes and disease of the whole body; as mildew isof corn, and rot of timber, or rust 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 wholly dissolves and dies? True. The vice and evil which is inherent in each is the destruction ofeach; and if this does not destroy them there is nothing else thatwill; for good certainly will not destroy them, nor again, that whichis neither good nor evil. Certainly not. If, then, we find any nature which having this inherent corruptioncannot be dissolved or destroyed, we may be certain that of such anature 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 passingin review: unrighteousness, intemperance, cowardice, ignorance. But does any of these dissolve or destroy her? --and here do not letus fall into the error of supposing that the unjust and foolish man,when he is detected, perishes through his own injustice, which isan evil of the soul. Take the analogy of the body: The evil of thebody is a disease which wastes and reduces and annihilates the body;and all the things of which we were just now speaking come to annihilationthrough their own corruption attaching to them and inhering in themand so destroying them. Is not this true? Yes. Consider the soul in like manner. Does the injustice or other evilwhich exists in the soul waste and consume her? Do they by attachingto the soul and inhering in her at last bring her to death, and soseparate her from the body ? Certainly not. And yet, I said, it is unreasonable to suppose that anything can perishfrom without through affection of external evil which could not bedestroyed from within by a corruption of its own?" "Summary: The speaker discusses the concept of good and evil, arguing that corruption within a thing cannot destroy it. Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Conversation Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, the speaker Language: English" "Now that's the whole idea of good and evil in a nutshell. And if you want to know what I think of it, Glaucon, then just look at this."""" He thrust his hand into the pocket of his overcoat and brought out a revolver. It was one of those old-fashioned weapons with an octagonal barrel and mother-of-pearl handles, which were still fashionable in the twenties. As he held it up between thumb and forefinger, like some kind of sacrilegious host, I saw that there was no bullet in the chamber, and I knew that its purpose was not to be used as a weapon but merely as an emblem. """"Look at this thing,"""" said my uncle again. """"It is good. There can be no doubt about that. But what does the devil in me want with such a thing? Just take a look at that handle, Glaucon! The finish is perfect, and the pearl is flawless, and yet do you think that beauty alone would have induced me to buy this weapon, or even made me covet it for so long as I have had it? Do you think that any man could ever love a thing of this sort, unless he had at least an inkling of its deadly purpose? No, my friend; this pistol is good, but it is also evil, and because it is both these things it has always fascinated me. But now look at this other thing, Glaucon: will you tell me whether it is good or bad?"""" He picked up a folded newspaper from his desk and handed it to me. I unfolded the paper and read the headline: FLORIDA SCHOOLS CLOSE DUE TO CHOLERA OUTBREAK. A couple of hundred cases of Asiatic cholera have been reported in the Miami area during the past week, and health officials are anxiously awaiting confirmation of the disease's arrival in the United States after a twenty-five year absence. My uncle waited until I had finished reading before he spoke. That's your school, Glaucon. The Harvard School of Medicine. It is certainly not a good thing that this disease should come to America; it will cause much misery and many deaths among the poor people who cannot afford the proper care, and that is surely a bad thing. But what about this Harvard Medical School, Glaucon? Is it not also bad? You see, it is not easy to say whether a thing is good or evil without considering all the consequences that flow from it. I don't suppose that the medical students are particularly delighted to have their summer vacation cut short by this outbreak of disease. They may find it quite inconvenient, for example, to go home to Chicago or St. Louis for two weeks when they had planned to visit Atlantic City instead. And yet, Glaucon, is it not possible that this cholera epidemic may prove to be a blessing in disguise?"""" " 152 152 "It is, he replied. Consider, I said, Glaucon, that even the badness of food, whetherstaleness, decomposition, or any other bad quality, when confinedto the actual food, is not supposed to destroy the body; although,if the badness of food communicates corruption to the body, then weshould say that the body has been destroyed by a corruption of itself,which is disease, brought on by this; but that the body, being onething, can be destroyed by the badness of food, which is another,and which does not engender any natural infection --this we shallabsolutely deny? Very true. And, on the same principle, unless some bodily evil can produce anevil of the soul, we must not suppose that the soul, which is onething, can be dissolved by any merely external evil which belongsto 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 putto the throat, or even the cutting up of the whole body into the minutestpieces, can destroy the soul, until she herself is proved to becomemore unholy or unrighteous in consequence of these things being doneto the body; but that the soul, or anything else if not destroyedby 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 menbecome more unjust in consequence of death. But if some one who would rather not admit the immortality of thesoul boldly denies this, and says that the dying do really becomemore evil and unrighteous, then, if the speaker is right, I supposethat injustice, like disease, must be assumed to be fatal to the unjust,and that those who take this disorder die by the natural inherentpower of destruction which evil has, and which kills them sooner orlater, but in quite another way from that in which, at present, thewicked receive death at the hands of others as the penalty of theirdeeds? Nay, he said, in that case injustice, if fatal to the unjust, willnot be so very terrible to him, for he will be delivered from evil.But I rather suspect the opposite to be the truth, and that injusticewhich, if it have the power, will murder others, keeps the murdereralive --aye, and well awake too; so far removed is her dwelling-placefrom being a house of death. True, I said; if the inherent natural vice or evil of the soul isunable to kill or destroy her, hardly will that which is appointedto be the destruction of some other body, destroy a soul or anythingelse 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 inherentor external, must exist for ever, and if existing for ever, must beimmortal? Certainly. That is the conclusion, I said; and, if a true conclusion, then thesouls must always be the same, for if none be destroyed they willnot diminish in number. Neither will they increase, for the increaseof the immortal natures must come from something mortal, and all thingswould thus end in immortality. Very true. But this we cannot believe --reason will not allow us --any more thanwe can believe the soul, in her truest nature, to be full of varietyand difference and dissimilarity. What do you mean? he said. The soul, I said, being, as is now proven, immortal, must be the fairestof compositions and cannot be compounded of many elements? Certainly not. Her immortality is demonstrated by the previous argument, and thereare many other proofs; but to see her as she really is, not as wenow 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 andall the things which we have described will be manifested more clearly.Thus far, we have spoken the truth concerning her as she appears atpresent, but we must remember also that we have seen her only in acondition which may be compared to that of the sea-god Glaucus, whoseoriginal image can hardly be discerned because his natural membersare broken off and crushed and damaged by the waves in all sorts ofways, and incrustations have grown over them of seaweed and shellsand stones, so that he is more like some monster than he is to hisown natural form. And the soul which we behold is in a similar condition,disfigured by ten thousand ills. But not there, Glaucon, not theremust we look." "Summary: The text discusses the relationship between the soul and the body, arguing that the soul cannot be destroyed by external evils unless they also affect the soul itself. It also explores the nature of justice and injustice. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical argumentation Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon Language: English" The soul is always the same, and has no increase or diminution; but the body of the one and the other are two. And yet you will find many people who say that if they had their lives to live over again they would live them as they did before; and some even say that they think the life of a rich man better than that of a poor man, although they lived it in poverty. But I do not agree with these people: for I am sure that if pleasure were the great good, the just and the noble man would be most happy; whereas we see that the just and noble man is often poor, and lives a hard life and is always troubled in mind, and has no rest, either by day or by night. And therefore if any one says that this life of ours is better than death, he does not mean to say so because he believes that pleasure is the chief good. And yet another argument against what we have been saying is the fact that all our pleasures are not only varied and unlimited, but also depend on chance and on external fortune; whereas the evils which cause us the greatest pain have neither variety nor limit, and cannot be escaped by any means of chance, but are the constant companions of our lives. 153 153 "Where then? At her love of wisdom. Let us see whom she affects, and what societyand converse she seeks in virtue of her near kindred with the immortaland eternal and divine; also how different she would become if whollyfollowing this superior principle, and borne by a divine impulse outof the ocean in which she now is, and disengaged from the stones andshells and things of earth and rock which in wild variety spring uparound her because she feeds upon earth, and is overgrown by the goodthings of this life as they are termed: then you would see her asshe is, and know whether she has one shape only or many, or what hernature is. Of her affections and of the forms which she takes in thispresent 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 and Hesiod; but justicein her own nature has been shown to be best for the soul in her ownnature. Let a man do what is just, whether he have the ring of Gygesor not, and even if in addition to the ring of Gyges he put on thehelmet of Hades. Very true. And now, Glaucon, there will be no harm in further enumerating howmany and how great are the rewards which justice and the other virtuesprocure to the soul from gods and men, both in life and after death. Certainly not, he said. Will you repay me, then, what you borrowed in the argument? What did I borrow? The assumption that the just man should appear unjust and the unjustjust: for you were of opinion that even if the true state of the casecould not possibly escape the eyes of gods and men, still this admissionought to be made for the sake of the argument, in order that purejustice might be weighed against pure injustice. Do you remember? I should be much to blame if I had forgotten. Then, as the cause is decided, I demand on behalf of justice thatthe estimation in which she is held by gods and men and which we acknowledgeto be her due should now be restored to her by us; since she has beenshown to confer reality, and not to deceive those who truly possessher, let what has been taken from her be given back, that so she maywin that palm of appearance which is hers also, and which she givesto her own. The demand, he said, is just. In the first place, I said --and this is the first thing which youwill have to give back --the nature both of the just and unjust istruly known to the gods. Granted. And if they are both known to them, one must be the friend and theother the enemy of the gods, as we admitted from the beginning? True. And the friend of the gods may be supposed to receive from them allthings at their best, excepting only such evil as is the necessaryconsequence of former sins? Certainly. Then this must be our notion of the just man, that even when he isin poverty or sickness, or any other seeming misfortune, all thingswill in the end work together for good to him in life and death: forthe gods have a care of any one whose desire is to become just andto be like God, as far as man can attain the divine likeness, by thepursuit of virtue? Yes, he said; if he is like God he will surely not be neglected byhim. And of the unjust may not the opposite be supposed? Certainly. Such, then, are the palms of victory which the gods give the just?" "Summary: The text discusses the nature of justice and its rewards both in life and after death. Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Glaucon, Socrates Quoted work: Homer, Hesiod Language: English" The old man who is a judge will be the last person to think that he ought to give up anything for justice’s sake, since he has no fear of any one and is sure that he can do whatever he likes. But if he were young and did not think that his present power was merely temporary but knew that he must live for ever, I believe that he would be less disposed to neglect justice, and say to himself, and to imagine others saying to him, “If you may do what you please, and there is nothing to prevent you from doing wrong, and no gods to punish you—being always alive and having all things at your disposal—you will never cease from sinning.” Now this argument may perhaps or possibly may not be correct; I cannot tell. But suppose that some one objects and says: “All the same, Socrates, I am not convinced, and don’t know how to answer the question whether justice and evil are or are not rewarded in another life. But if you have got a new joint in logic by which we can come to a conclusion even about this, I should like to examine it.’’ “Why, my good friend,” I said, “the conclusion has been already drawn by Glaucon. He was sitting over there under the tree when he was suddenly seized with a violent attack of nausea at the sight of injustice; and after describing what he saw, he went on as though he had caught the infection, and proceeded to construct the ideal State, not of men, but of gods. Then I thought that he had never attended properly at my lectures on gymnastics and proved the truth of the dictum that ‘what we daily frequent tends to become inveterate,’ and therefore he ought to be severely punished. So when he had done, I said to him: ‘My dear Glaucon, you have been taking lessons without my knowing it, and are aiming at being an Athenian citizen after my own heart. For an Athenian citizen ought to have the spirit of a god about him. And now that you have fairly begun, you must go on and take care of justice and injustice in herself by herself. What do you mean by the soul, Glaucon? You surely are not going to say that the soul of the unjust man is better than the soul of the just man?’’ And he said: No, indeed.” “And you also, Adeimantus,” I said, “agreed that the unjust man is bad and the just man is good?” “Yes.” “And small parts of goods and evils may be good and bad, but the whole cannot be a good if any part of it is bad. Do you remember?” “Yes, I remember.” “Then you must agree with me that the soul of the unjust man, who is the worst of men, is also the worst of souls, and that the soul of the just man, who is the best of men, is also the best of souls.” 154 154 "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 againfrom the goal: they go off at a great pace, but in the end only lookfoolish, slinking away with their ears draggling on their shoulders,and without a crown; but the true runner comes to the finish and receivesthe prize and is crowned. And this is the way with the just; he whoendures to the end of every action and occasion of his entire lifehas a good report and carries off the prize which men have to bestow. True. And now you must allow me to repeat of the just the blessings whichyou were attributing to the fortunate unjust. I shall say of them,what you were saying of the others, that as they grow older, theybecome rulers in their own city if they care to be; they marry whomthey like and give in marriage to whom they will; all that you saidof the others I now say of these. And, on the other hand, of the unjustI say that the greater number, even though they escape in their youth,are found out at last and look foolish at the end of their course,and when they come to be old and miserable are flouted alike by strangerand citizen; they are beaten and then come those things unfit forears polite, as you truly term them; they will be racked and havetheir eyes burned out, as you were saying. And you may suppose thatI have repeated the remainder of your tale of horrors. But will youlet me assume, without reciting them, that these things are true? Certainly, he said, what you say is true. These, then, are the prizes and rewards and gifts which are bestowedupon the just by gods and men in this present life, in addition tothe other good things which justice of herself provides. Yes, he said; and they are fair and lasting. And yet, I said, all these are as nothing, either in number or greatnessin comparison with those other recompenses which await both just andunjust after death. And you ought to hear them, and then both justand unjust will have received from us a full payment of the debt whichthe argument owes to them. Speak, he said; there are few things which I would more gladly hear. Socrates" "Summary: The text discusses the rewards and punishments of the just and unjust in this life and beyond. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical argument Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Philosophical argument Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Socrates, interlocutor Time setting: 1950s Language: English" Socrates: It is to be remembered that this one virtue has made a better man of you than all the other virtues put together; for whereas before you were merely a thief, now you are a thief who does not steal. Interlocutor: Oh! but I still do, Socrates; I am forced to it by hunger and cold and exposure. Socrates: That is true, but you see how much better you are in spite of it; and if ever you get rid of these outside pressures you will cease to be a thief at all, and so become a perfect man. Interlocutor: But what will my reward be? Will I go to heaven or hell? Socrates: No, you won’t go anywhere. You will remain here on earth doing your job as best you can, and earning as much money as you can; only when you have earned it you will have no chance of keeping it for yourself, since it will all be confiscated by the police. The ordinary citizen who gives a man a cup of tea and a piece of bread and cheese is doing him a good turn, because he is helping to keep him alive; but you, who give a man a square meal in return for half-a-crown, are giving him nothing at all, because you are taking more away from him than you give him. Your occupation is therefore worthless and without any compensating advantage. To prevent you from making a profit out of your victim, you must pay the Government an annual tax of fifteen shillings for every person whom you employ. This is called paying your way; and if you can’t pay it, then you will be sent to prison for three months, to teach you that there is no such thing as getting anything for nothing in this life. And when you come out of prison, you will find that you have gained a new friend, and that is the law. If you don’t like the law, you can always take the trouble to change it. That is the lesson which we wish to impress upon everyone in this country; we want them all to understand that crime doesn’t pay. I need scarcely add that if you persist in breaking the law, you will be prosecuted with the utmost vigour of the law. 155 155 Well, I said, I will tell you a tale; not one of the tales which Odysseustells to the hero Alcinous, yet this too is a tale of a hero, Er theson of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in battle, andten days afterwards, when the bodies of the dead were taken up alreadyin a state of corruption, his body was found unaffected by decay,and carried away home to be buried. And on the twelfth day, as hewas lying on the funeral pile, he returned to life and told them whathe had seen in the other world. He said that when his soul left thebody he went on a journey with a great company, and that they cameto a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth;they were near together, and over against them were two other openingsin the heaven above. In the intermediate space there were judges seated,who commanded the just, after they had given judgment on them andhad bound their sentences in front of them, to ascend by the heavenlyway on the right hand; and in like manner the unjust were bidden bythem to descend by the lower way on the left hand; these also borethe symbols of their deeds, but fastened on their backs. He drew near,and they told him that he was to be the messenger who would carrythe report of the other world to men, and they bade him hear and seeall that was to be heard and seen in that place. Then he beheld andsaw on one side the souls departing at either opening of heaven andearth when sentence had been given on them; and at the two other openingsother souls, some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel,some descending out of heaven clean and bright. And arriving everand anon they seemed to have come from a long journey, and they wentforth with gladness into the meadow, where they encamped as at a festival;and those who knew one another embraced and conversed, the souls whichcame from earth curiously enquiring about the things above, and thesouls which came from heaven about the things beneath. And they toldone another of what had happened by the way, those from below weepingand sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they had enduredand seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasteda thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenlydelights and visions of inconceivable beauty. The Story, Glaucon,would take too long to tell; but the sum was this: --He said thatfor every wrong which they had done to any one they suffered tenfold;or once in a hundred years --such being reckoned to be the lengthof man's life, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a thousandyears. If, for example, there were any who had been the cause of manydeaths, or had betrayed or enslaved cities or armies, or been guiltyof any other evil behaviour, for each and all of their offences theyreceived punishment ten times over, and the rewards of beneficenceand justice and holiness were in the same proportion. I need hardlyrepeat what he said concerning young children dying almost as soonas they were born. Of piety and impiety to gods and parents, and ofmurderers, there were retributions other and greater far which hedescribed. He mentioned that he was present when one of the spiritsasked another, 'Where is Ardiaeus the Great?' (Now this Ardiaeus liveda thousand years before the time of Er: he had been the tyrant ofsome city of Pamphylia, and had murdered his aged father and his elderbrother, and was said to have committed many other abominable crimes.)The answer of the other spirit was: 'He comes not hither and willnever come. And this,' said he, 'was one of the dreadful sights whichwe ourselves witnessed. We were at the mouth of the cavern, and, havingcompleted all our experiences, were about to reascend, when of a suddenArdiaeus appeared and several others, most of whom were tyrants; andthere were also besides the tyrants private individuals who had beengreat criminals: they were just, as they fancied, about to returninto the upper world, but the mouth, instead of admitting them, gavea roar, whenever any of these incurable sinners or some one who hadnot been sufficiently punished tried to ascend; and then wild menof fiery aspect, who were standing by and heard the sound, seizedand carried them off; and Ardiaeus and others they bound head andfoot and hand, and threw them down and flayed them with scourges,and dragged them along the road at the side, carding them on thornslike wool, and declaring to the passers-by what were their crimes,and that they were being taken away to be cast into hell.' And ofall the many terrors which they had endured, he said that there wasnone like the terror which each of them felt at that moment, lestthey should hear the voice; and when there was silence, one by onethey ascended with exceeding joy. These, said Er, were the penaltiesand retributions, and there were blessings as great. "Summary: Er the Pamphylian tells a story about his journey to the afterlife and the punishments and rewards that await souls in the other world. Narrative arc: Didactic Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Active character: Er the Pamphylian Fuzzy place: The mysterious place with two openings in the earth and heaven Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" 'Listen to me,' he said. 'I will tell you a story that I heard at the source from which it came, and no more than this; for in truth it is a harsh tale, bitter and grim, and there is no need to linger over it longer than may suffice to make clear to you that it was done of old as well as now, and that the mysterious place with two openings in the earth and heaven is still there, if haply you should chance to find your way thither. For these things are not to be told lightly by night, lest haply they should bring sorrow to one or another of those who hear them, and, indeed, my own heart was sore when I heard them, and yet I must repeat them here because the rest of my tale cannot be rightly understood without them. Well, then, the tale is thus. 'Of old in Pamphylia, long before I knew Er the Pamphylian, there dwelt a rich man, the son of King Cilix, who was called Ahiqar. Now Ahiqar was a wise man and beloved of the king his brother, but having offended him he fled into exile. So he lived in a city hard by the sea, and every day he went down to the beach and watched the ships that came in laden with merchandise. 156 156 Now when the spirits which were in the meadow had tarried seven days,on the eighth they were obliged to proceed on their journey, and,on the fourth day after, he said that they came to a place where theycould see from above a line of light, straight as a column, extendingright through the whole heaven and through the earth, in colour resemblingthe rainbow, only brighter and purer; another day's journey broughtthem to the place, and there, in the midst of the light, they sawthe ends of the chains of heaven let down from above: for this lightis the belt of heaven, and holds together the circle of the universe,like the under-girders of a trireme. From these ends is extended thespindle of Necessity, on which all the revolutions turn. The shaftand hook of this spindle are made of steel, and the whorl is madepartly of steel and also partly of other materials. Now the whorlis in form like the whorl used on earth; and the description of itimplied that there is one large hollow whorl which is quite scoopedout, and into this is fitted another lesser one, and another, andanother, and four others, making eight in all, like vessels whichfit into one another; the whorls show their edges on the upper side,and on their lower side all together form one continuous whorl. Thisis pierced by the spindle, which is driven home through the centreof the eighth. The first and outermost whorl has the rim broadest,and the seven inner whorls are narrower, in the following proportions--the sixth is next to the first in size, the fourth next to the sixth;then comes the eighth; the seventh is fifth, the fifth is sixth, thethird is seventh, last and eighth comes the second. The largest (offixed stars) is spangled, and the seventh (or sun) is brightest; theeighth (or moon) coloured by the reflected light of the seventh; thesecond and fifth (Saturn and Mercury) are in colour like one another,and yellower than the preceding; the third (Venus) has the whitestlight; the fourth (Mars) is reddish; the sixth (Jupiter) is in whitenesssecond. Now the whole spindle has the same motion; but, as the wholerevolves in one direction, the seven inner circles move slowly inthe other, and of these the swiftest is the eighth; next in swiftnessare the seventh, sixth, and fifth, which move together; third in swiftnessappeared to move according to the law of this reversed motion thefourth; the third appeared fourth and the second fifth. The spindleturns on the knees of Necessity; and on the upper surface of eachcircle is a siren, who goes round with them, hymning a single toneor note. The eight together form one harmony; and round about, atequal intervals, there is another band, three in number, each sittingupon her throne: these are the Fates, daughters of Necessity, whoare clothed in white robes and have chaplets upon their heads, Lachesisand Clotho and Atropos, who accompany with their voices the harmonyof the sirens --Lachesis singing of the past, Clotho of the present,Atropos of the future; Clotho from time to time assisting with a touchof her right hand the revolution of the outer circle of the whorlor spindle, and Atropos with her left hand touching and guiding theinner ones, and Lachesis laying hold of either in turn, first withone hand and then with the other. "Summary: The text describes the journey of spirits and their encounter with a light, the spindle of Necessity, and the Fates. Narrative arc: Descriptive Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Description of a place Active character: Spirits, Fates Time setting: 1950s Absolute time: Nonspecific Fuzzy time: Eighth day, fourth day after, another day's journey Absolute place: A clubhouse in Los Angeles Fuzzy place: Meadow, place, line of light, heaven, universe Language: English" "You spirits who are here present, tell me this: is there in heaven or in the universe any other light except that which I saw?"""" They answered him: """"There is none in heaven and none on earth."""" The man said: """"This light was harsh and dark, and gave no joy. It had to do with the spindle of Necessity. Tell me this: what work did the Fates spin when they spun the thread of life for the hero whose name you do not utter even in hell?"""" And they said to him: """"The Fates spun three lives for him; but his third life had already been taken back from him after two days' journey."""" Then the man asked: """"What is it that he has done that he should lose his third life?"""" And they said: """"He has broken the commandments of necessity."""" Then the man said: """"But what does 'the commandments of necessity' mean?"""" And they said: """"It means: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."""" And the man said: """"What kind of a neighbour is he who loves himself more than anyone else?"""" And they said: """"He who cannot love himself cannot love others. All men are neighbours because they are children of one father and of one mother."""" The man said: """"And what did the second commandment say?"""" And they said: """"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them. For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments."""" And the man said: """"What kind of a god is He who visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation?"""" And they said: """"He is the only God who does not visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."""" And the man said: """"And what did the third commandment say?"""" And they said: """"Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh His Name in vain."""" And the man said: """"What kind of a god is He who punishes those who take His name in vain?"""" And they said: """"He is the only God who does not punish those who take His name in vain."""" And the man said: """"And what did the fourth commandment say?"""" And they said: """"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work; But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."""" " 157 157 When Er and the spirits arrived, their duty was to go at once to Lachesis;but first of all there came a prophet who arranged them in order;then he took from the knees of Lachesis lots and samples of lives,and having mounted a high pulpit, spoke as follows: 'Hear the wordof Lachesis, the daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a newcycle of life and mortality. Your genius will not be allotted to you,but you choose your genius; and let him who draws the first lot havethe first choice, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny.Virtue is free, and as a man honours or dishonours her he will havemore or less of her; the responsibility is with the chooser --Godis justified.' When the Interpreter had thus spoken he scattered lotsindifferently among them all, and each of them took up the lot whichfell near him, all but Er himself (he was not allowed), and each ashe took his lot perceived the number which he had obtained. Then theInterpreter placed on the ground before them the samples of lives;and there were many more lives than the souls present, and they wereof all sorts. There were lives of every animal and of man in everycondition. And there were tyrannies among them, some lasting out thetyrant's life, others which broke off in the middle and came to anend in poverty and exile and beggary; and there were lives of famousmen, some who were famous for their form and beauty as well as fortheir strength and success in games, or, again, for their birth andthe qualities of their ancestors; and some who were the reverse offamous for the opposite qualities. And of women likewise; there wasnot, however, any definite character them, because the soul, whenchoosing a new life, must of necessity become different. But therewas every other quality, and the all mingled with one another, andalso with elements of wealth and poverty, and disease and health;and there were mean states also. And here, my dear Glaucon, is thesupreme peril of our human state; and therefore the utmost care shouldbe taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind of knowledge andseek and follow one thing only, if peradventure he may be able tolearn and may find some one who will make him able to learn and discernbetween good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere thebetter life as he has opportunity. He should consider the bearingof all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectivelyupon virtue; he should know what the effect of beauty is when combinedwith poverty or wealth in a particular soul, and what are the goodand evil consequences of noble and humble birth, of private and publicstation, of strength and weakness, of cleverness and dullness, andof all the soul, and the operation of them when conjoined; he willthen look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration ofall these qualities he will be able to determine which is the betterand which is the worse; and so he will choose, giving the name ofevil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good tothe life which will make his soul more just; all else he will disregard.For we have seen and know that this is the best choice both in lifeand after death. A man must take with him into the world below anadamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzledby the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, comingupon tyrannies and similar villainies, he do irremediable wrongs toothers and suffer yet worse himself; but let him know how to choosethe mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible,not only in this life but in all that which is to come. For this isthe way of happiness. "Summary: Er and the spirits arrive at Lachesis, where a prophet arranges them in order and distributes lots representing different lives. The souls choose their own destinies based on the lots they receive. Narrative arc: Philosophical reflection Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Description of a scene Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: Er, spirits, prophet Time setting: 1950s Fuzzy time: Nonspecific moment Fuzzy place: Unnamed location Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" Er, the Spirits and I arrived at Lachesis. The place was pretty much as I’d remembered it; a rough-hewn hall, hung with tapestries and furnished with the kind of chairs that look like throne-stools. On a platform in one corner stood an old man, to whom I took an instant dislike. I’m not saying he didn’t have some claim on me for hospitality but I wasn’t in the mood to be hospitable. “He’s the prophet,” said Er. “That’s what they call him.” “Yes, yes, I can see that.” “Don’t mind him. He’s a bit of a windbag.” “I thought so.” He waved a hand towards the platform. “We’ll wait over there.” We shuffled across the room and sat down on the floor. There were quite a few people already waiting. Most of them looked like vagrants or tramps, though there were a couple of women among them. They glanced at us curiously as we joined them, but nobody spoke. Presently the prophet came down from his platform and arranged us in order. The process wasn’t too difficult; most of us were either lying down or sitting on the ground. When he had finished he stood before us, holding a small bag, and began to speak. “We are gathered here today,” he said, “to witness the fate of souls. In this bag are lots representing the lives that are open to you. Each lot corresponds to a life in which you will spend the time allotted to you by the gods. When I throw the bag into the air you will choose your own destinies. You may choose any lot you like, but if you do not take one then the lot will be taken from you, and given to another.” He paused and looked round the room. “If you accept a life that is offered to you, you must live it out until such time as death releases you. Should you break the terms of your existence, your punishment will be swift and terrible.” “I don’t want to hear any more of this,” said Er. “He goes on like that all day.” “You’re right,” I said. “Let’s get it over with.” The prophet held the bag up above his head and shook it vigorously. Then he let it go. It spun across the room and landed with a soft thud in the middle of the floor. A moment later everyone was scrambling towards it. The competition was fierce. The prophet watched without comment. In the end two men managed to secure lots, leaving the rest of us empty-handed. They stood up, holding their lots proudly aloft, and looked around them. The prophet addressed them. “The first of you shall be called Cato. Your life will be short but glorious. For three days and three nights you will wander through the wilderness. On the fourth morning you will be set upon by wild beasts and torn limb from limb.” 158 158 "And according to the report of the messenger from the other worldthis was what the prophet said at the time: 'Even for the last comer,if he chooses wisely and will live diligently, there is appointeda happy and not undesirable existence. Let not him who chooses firstbe careless, and let not the last despair.' And when he had spoken,he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose thegreatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality,he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did notat first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devourhis own children. But when he had time to reflect, and saw what wasin the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice,forgetting the proclamation of the prophet; for, instead of throwingthe blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and thegods, and everything rather than himself. Now he was one of thosewho came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-orderedState, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy.And it was true of others who were similarly overtaken, that the greaternumber of them came from heaven and therefore they had never beenschooled by trial, whereas the pilgrims who came from earth, havingthemselves suffered and seen others suffer, were not in a hurry tochoose. And owing to this inexperience of theirs, and also becausethe lot was a chance, many of the souls exchanged a good destiny foran evil or an evil for a good. For if a man had always on his arrivalin this world dedicated himself from the first to sound philosophy,and had been moderately fortunate in the number of the lot, he might,as the messenger reported, be happy here, and also his journey toanother life and return to this, instead of being rough and underground,would be smooth and heavenly. Most curious, he said, was the spectacle--sad and laughable and strange; for the choice of the souls was inmost cases based on their experience of a previous life. There hesaw the soul which had once been Orpheus choosing the life of a swanout of enmity to the race of women, hating to be born of a woman becausethey had been his murderers; he beheld also the soul of Thamyras choosingthe life of a nightingale; birds, on the other hand, like the swanand other musicians, wanting to be men. The soul which obtained thetwentieth lot chose the life of a lion, and this was the soul of Ajaxthe son of Telamon, who would not be a man, remembering the injusticewhich was done him the judgment about the arms. The next was Agamemnon,who took the life of an eagle, because, like Ajax, he hated humannature by reason of his sufferings. About the middle came the lotof Atalanta; she, seeing the great fame of an athlete, was unableto resist the temptation: and after her there followed the soul ofEpeus the son of Panopeus passing into the nature of a woman cunningin the arts; and far away among the last who chose, the soul of thejester Thersites was putting on the form of a monkey. There came alsothe soul of Odysseus having yet to make a choice, and his lot happenedto be the last of them all. Now the recollection of former tolls haddisenchanted him of ambition, and he went about for a considerabletime in search of the life of a private man who had no cares; he hadsome difficulty in finding this, which was lying about and had beenneglected by everybody else; and when he saw it, he said that he wouldhave done the had his lot been first instead of last, and that hewas delighted to have it. And not only did men pass into animals,but I must also mention that there were animals tame and wild whochanged into one another and into corresponding human natures --thegood into the gentle and the evil into the savage, in all sorts ofcombinations. All the souls had now chosen their lives, and they went in the orderof their choice to Lachesis, who sent with them the genius whom theyhad severally chosen, to be the guardian of their lives and the fulfillerof the choice: this genius led the souls first to Clotho, and drewthem within the revolution of the spindle impelled by her hand, thusratifying the destiny of each; and then, when they were fastened tothis, carried them to Atropos, who spun the threads and made themirreversible, whence without turning round they passed beneath thethrone of Necessity; and when they had all passed, they marched onin a scorching heat to the plain of Forgetfulness, which was a barrenwaste destitute of trees and verdure; and then towards evening theyencamped by the river of Unmindfulness, whose water no vessel canhold; of this they were all obliged to drink a certain quantity, andthose who were not saved by wisdom drank more than was necessary;and each one as he drank forgot all things. Now after they had goneto rest, about the middle of the night there was a thunderstorm andearthquake, and then in an instant they were driven upwards in allmanner of ways to their birth, like stars shooting. He himself washindered from drinking the water. But in what manner or by what meanshe returned to the body he could not say; only, in the morning, awakingsuddenly, he found himself lying on the pyre. And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, andwill save us if we are obedient to the word spoken; and we shall passsafely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled.Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly wayand follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soulis immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort ofevil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, bothwhile remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who goround to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be wellwith us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand yearswhich we have been describing." "Summary: The text is a dialogue between two characters discussing the choices and destinies of souls in the afterlife. Trope: Organized crime Narrative arc: Philosophical reflection on the nature of life and death Enunciation: First-person narrative Tone: Harsh, vivid, dark gritty Genre: Detective fiction/Mystery Intertextuality: Film noir Speech standard: Vulgar, highly informal Literary form: Dialogue Literary movement: Hardboiled Active character: The messenger from the other world, the soul of Ajax, Agamemnon, Atalanta, Epeus, Thersites, Odysseus Quoted character: Orpheus, Thamyras Time setting: 1950s Fuzzy time: Nonspecific moments Diegetic time: A few minutes Language: English" "One of them will be a woman, who was a whore on earth and a whore in Hell. She's so evil that she can't even go to Purgatory. You don't know what it means to have that kind of guilt on your soul, do you?"""" I'm no more guilty than any other poor devil,"" I said. ""And I'm going to prove it."""" That won't help you."" He laughed and I felt his breath on my face like the heat of an oven door. """"You're here because you deserve it, and you'll stay here because you deserve it."""" The messenger from the other world turned around abruptly and walked back into the darkness. So did I. As I passed him he said, over his shoulder: Remember this is not a joke. We're very serious about our business."""" When we were out of the basement, I said: Do you believe all that stuff about being a murderer or whatever he called it?"""" Sure."" But you didn't do it."" How d'you know?"" Because if you had you wouldn't be worrying about it now."" He shook his head and spat on the sidewalk. """"You're crazy."""" CHAPTER FIVE THE soul of Ajax was waiting for me when I returned to my cell. He looked annoyed, but I couldn't blame him. All I wanted was a little peace and quiet after my introduction to Hades, and there he was, getting ready to lay his problems on me. You got to stop wandering around at night,"" he said. ""What's the matter with you? Can't you sleep?"""" Not much."" What do you want me to do about it?"" Nothing."" Well, if you don't mind, I'd like to get some sleep myself. If you're worried about Agamemnon """" I'm not worried about him."" Then why are you looking for him?"" I don't know. I just want to talk to him."""" Talk to him tomorrow. Right now it's time to hit the hay."""" He folded his arms across his chest and leaned against the wall. If you want to sleep, go ahead,"" I said. ""I'll sit up a while longer."" He rolled his eyes toward the ceiling and sighed. """"All right,"""" he said. """"But make it snappy."""" I picked up the chair where I'd left it and placed it in front of the desk. The old man was still sitting there, smoking his pipe and staring into space. I sat down. Ajax went over to the bunk and pulled off his boots. He stretched out on the lower berth and took his hands out of his pockets. His eyes were closed. I could hear him breathing regularly. After a few minutes I knew he was asleep. His snoring sounded like a jack-hammer. I lit a cigarette and waited. The old man was the first to speak. There were questions you could ask him, things that might help to clarify the situation. "