Chapter XXXVII (3)

The purpose being, to form good and competent Guardians the same training which will be best for the boys will also be best for the girls. But is it true that women are competent to the function of Guardians? Is the female nature endued with the same aptitudes for such duties as the male? Men will ridicule the suggestion (says Plato) and will maintain the negative. They will say that there are some functions for which men are more competent, others for which women are more competent than men: and that women are unfit for any such duty as that of Guardians. Plato dissents from this opinion altogether. There is no point on which he speaks in terms of more decided conviction. Men and women (he says) can perform this duty conjointly, just as dogs of both sexes take part in guarding the flock. It is not true that the female, by reason of the characteristic properties of sex--parturition and suckling--is disqualified for out-door occupations and restricted to the interior of the house.[97] As in the remaining animals generally, so also in the human race. There is no fundamental difference between the two sexes, other than that of the sexual attributes themselves. From that difference no consequences flow, in respect to aptitude for some occupations, inaptitude for others. There are great individual differences between one woman and another, as there are between one man and another: this woman is peculiarly fit for one task, that woman for something else. But speaking of women generally and collectively, there is not a single profession for which they are peculiarly fit, or more fit than men. Men are superior to women in every thing; in one occupation as well as in another. Yet among both sexes, there are serious individual differences, so that many women, individually estimated, will be superior to many men; no women will equal the best men, but the best women will equal the second-best men, and will be superior to the men below them.[98] Accordingly, in order to obtain the best Guardians, selection must be made from both sexes indiscriminately. For ordinary duties, both will be found equally fit: but the heaviest and most difficult duties, those which require the maximum of competence to perform, will usually devolve upon men.[99]

[Footnote 97: Plato, Repub. v. p. 451 D.]

[Footnote 98: See this remarkable argument--Republic, v. pp. 453-456--[Greek: gunai=kes me/ntoi pollai\ pollô=n a)ndrô=n belti/ous ei)s polla/; to\ de\ o(/lon e)/chei ô(s su\ le/geis. Ou)de\n a)/ra e)sti\n e)pitê/deuma tô=n po/lin dioikou/ntôn gunaiko\s dio/ti gunê/, ou)/d' a)ndro\s dio/ti a)nê/r, a)ll' o(moi/ôs diesparme/nai ai( phu/seis e)n a)mphoi=n toi=n zô/oin, kai\ pa/ntôn me\n mete/chei gunê\ e)pitêdeuma/tôn kata\ phu/sin, pa/ntôn de\ a)nê/r; e)pi\ pa=si de\ a)sthene/steron gunê\ a)ndro/s] (p. 455 D). It would appear (from p. 455 C) that those who maintained the special fitness of women for certain occupations and their special unfitness for others, cited, as examples of occupations in which women surpassed men, weaving and cookery. But Plato denies this emphatically as a matter of fact; pronouncing that women were inferior to men (_i.e._ the best women to the best men) in weaving and cookery no less than in other things. We should have been glad to know what facts were present to his mind as bearing out such an assertion, and what observations were open to him of weaving as performed by males. In Greece, weaving was the occupation of women very generally, whether exclusively or not we can hardly say; in Phoenicia, during the Homeric times, the finest robes are woven by Sidonian women (Iliad vi. 289): in Egypt, on the contrary, it was habitually performed by men, and Herodotus enumerates this as one of the points in which the Egyptians differed from other countries (Herodot. ii. 35; Soph. Oed. Kol. 340, with the Scholia, and the curious citation contained therein from the [Greek: Barbarika\] of Nymphodorus). The process of weaving was also conducted in a different manner by the Egyptians. Whether Plato had seen finer webs in Egypt than in Greece we cannot say.]

[Footnote 99: Plato, Repub. v. p. 457 A.]

[Side-note: His arguments against the ordinary doctrine.]

Those who maintain (continues Plato) that because women are different from men, therefore the occupations of the two ought to be different--argue like vexatious disputants who mistake verbal distinctions for real: who do not enquire what is the formal or specific distinction indicated by a name, or whether it has any essential bearing on the matter under discussion.[100] Long-haired men are different from bald-heads: but shall we conclude, that if the former are fit to make shoes, the latter are unfit? Certainly not: for when we inquire into the formal distinction connoted by these words, we find that it has no bearing upon such handicraft processes. So again the formal distinction implied by the terms _male_, _female_, in the human race as in other animals, lies altogether in the functions of sex and procreation.[101] Now this has no essential bearing on the occupations of the adult; nor does it confer on the male fitness for one set of occupations--on the female, fitness for another. Each sex is fit for all, but the male is most fit for all: in each sex there are individuals better and worse, and differing one from another in special aptitudes. Men are competent for the duties of Guardians, only on condition of having gone through a complete musical and gymnastical education. Women are competent also, under the like condition; and are equally capable of profiting by the complete education. Moreover, the chiefs must select for those duties the best natural subjects. The total number of such is very limited: and they must select the best that both sexes afford.[102]

[Footnote 100: Plato, Republic, v. p. 454 A. [Greek: dia\ to\ mê\ du/nastai kat' ei)/dê diairou/menoi to\ lego/meon e)piskopei=n, a)lla\ kat' au)to\ to\ o)/noma diô/kein tou= lechthe/ntos tê\n e)nanti/ôsin, e)/ridi, ou) diale/ktô|, pro\s a)llê/lous chrô/menoi.] 454 B: [Greek: e)peskepsa/metha de\ ou)d' o(pê|ou=n, ti/ ei)=dos to\ tê=s e(te/ras te kai\ tê=s au)tê=s phu/seôs, kai\ pro\s ti/ tei=non ô(rizo/metha to/te, o(/te ta\ e)pitêdeu/mata a)/llê| phu/sei a)/lla, tê=| de\ au)tê=| ta\ au)ta/, a)pedi/domen.] Xenophon is entirely opposed to Plato on this point. He maintains emphatically the distinct special aptitudes of man and woman. Oeconom. vii. 20-38; compare Euripid. Electra, 74.]

[Footnote 101: Plato, Repub. v. p. 455 C-D.]

[Footnote 102: Plato, Repub. v. p. 456.]

[Side-note: Opponents appealed to nature as an authority against Plato. He invokes Nature on his own side against them.]

The strong objections, generally entertained against thus assigning to women equal participation in the education and functions of the Guardians, were enforced by saying--That it was a proceeding contrary to Nature. But Plato not only denies the validity of this argument: he even retorts it upon the objectors, and affirms that the existing separation of functions between the two sexes is contrary to Nature, and that his proposition alone is conformable thereunto.[103] He has shown that the specific or formal distinction of the two has no essential bearing on the question, and therefore that no argument can be founded upon it. The specific or formal characteristic, in the case of males, is doubtless superior, taken abstractedly: yet in particular men it is embodied or manifested with various degrees of perfection, from very good to very bad. In the case of females, though inferior abstractedly, it is in its best particular embodiments equal to all except the best males, and superior to all such as are inferior to the best. Accordingly, the true dictate of Nature is, not merely that females _may be_ taken, but that they _ought to be_ taken, conjointly with males, under the selection of the Rulers, to fulfil the most important duties in the Commonwealth. The select females must go through the same musical and gymnastic training as the males. He who ridicules them for such bodily exercises, prosecuted with a view to the best objects, does not know what he is laughing at. "For this is the most valuable maxim which is now, or ever has been, proclaimed--What is useful, is honourable. What is hurtful, is base."[104]

[Footnote 103: Plato, Repub. v. p. 456 C. [Greek: Ou)k a)/ra a)du/nata/ ge, ou)de\ eu)chai=s o(/moia, e)nomothetou=men, e)pei/per kata\ phu/sin e)ti/themen to\n no/mon; a)lla\ ta\ nu=n para\ tau=ta gigno/mena para\ phu/sin ma=llon, ô(s e)/oike, gi/gnetai.]]

[Footnote 104: Plato, Repub. v. p. 457 B. [Greek: O( de\ gelô=n a)nê\r e)pi\ gumnai=s gunaixi/, tou= belti/stou e(/neka gumnazome/nais, a)telê= tou= geloi/ou sophi/as dre/pôn karpo/n, ou)de\n oi)=den, ô(s e)/oiken, e)ph' ô(=| gela=| ou)d' o(/, ti pra/ttei; ka/llista ga\r dê\ tou=to kai\ le/getai kai\ lele/xetai, o(/ti to\ me\n ô)phe/limon, kalo/n--to\ de\ blabero/n, ai)schro/n.]]

[Side-note: Collective family relations and denominations among the Guardians.]

Plato now proceeds to unfold the relations of the sexes as intended to prevail among the mature Guardians, after all have undergone the public and common training from their earliest infancy. He conceives them as one thousand in total number, composed of both sexes in nearly equal proportion: since they are to be the best individuals of both sexes, the male sex, superior in formal characteristic, will probably furnish rather a greater number than the female. It has already been stated that they are all required to live together in barracks, dining at a common mess-table, with clothing and furniture alike for all. There is no individual property or separate house among them: the collective expense, in a comfortable but moderate way, is defrayed by contributions from the producing class. Separate families are unknown: all the Guardians, male and female, form one family, and one only: the older are fathers and mothers of all the younger, the younger are sons and daughters of all the older: those of the same age are all alike brothers and sisters of each other: those who, besides being of the same age, are within the limits of the nuptial age and of different sexes, are all alike husbands and wives of each other.[105] It is the principle of the Platonic Commonwealth that the affections implied in these family-words, instead of being confined to one or a few exclusively, shall be expanded so as to embrace all of appropriate age.

[Footnote 105: Plato, Republic, v. p. 457 C-D. [Greek: ta\s gunai=kas tau/tas tô=n a)ndrô=n tou/tôn pa/ntôn pa/sas ei)=nai koina/s, i)di/a| de\ mêdeni\ mêdemi/an sunoikei=n; kai\ tou\s pai=das au)= koinou/s, kai\ mê/te gone/a e)/kgonon ei)de/nai to\n au)tou= mê/te pai=da gone/a.]]

[Side-note: Restrictions upon sexual intercourse--Purposes of such restrictions.]

But Plato does not at all intend that sexual intercourse shall take place between these men and women promiscuously, or at the pleasure of individuals. On the contrary, he expressly denounces and interdicts it.[106] A philosopher who has so much general disdain for individual impulse or choice, was not likely to sanction it in this particular case. Indeed it is the special purpose of his polity to bring impulse absolutely under the controul of reason, or of that which he assumes as such. This purpose is followed out in a remarkable manner as to procreation. What he seeks as lawgiver is, to keep the numbers of the Guardians nearly stationary, with no diminution and scarcely any increase:[107] and to maintain the breed pure, so that the children born shall be as highly endowed by nature as possible. To these two objects the liberty of sexual intercourse is made subservient. The breeding is regulated like that of noble horses or dogs by an intelligent proprietor: the best animals of both sexes being brought together, and the limits of age fixed beforehand.[108] Plato prescribes, as the limits of age, from twenty to forty for females--from thirty to fifty-five for males--when the powers of body and mind are at the maximum in both. All who are younger as well as all who are older, are expressly forbidden to meddle in the procreation _for the city_: this being a public function.[109] Between the ages above named, couples will be invited to marry in such numbers as the Rulers may consider expedient for ensuring a supply of offspring sufficient and not more than sufficient--having regard to wars, distempers, or any other recent causes of mortality.[110]

[Footnote 106: Plato, Repub. v. p. 458 E. [Greek: a)ta/ktôs me\n mi/gnusthai a)llê/lois ê)\ a)/llo o(tiou=n poiei=n ou)/te o(/sion e)n eu)daimo/nôn po/lei ou)/t' e)a/sousin oi( a)/rchontes.]]

[Footnote 107: Plato, Republic, v. p. 460 A. [Greek: to\ de\ plê=thos tô=n ga/môn e)pi\ toi=s a)/rchousi poiê/somen, i(/n' ô(s ma/lista diasô/zôsi to\n au)to\n a)rithmo\n tô=n a)ndrô=n, pro\s pole/mous te kai\ no/sous kai\ pa/nta ta\ toiau=ta a)poskopou=ntes, kai\ mê/te mega/lê ê(mi=n ê( po/lis kata\ to\ dunato\n mê/te smikra\ gi/gnêtai.]]

[Footnote 108: Plato, Repub. v. p. 459.]

[Footnote 109: This is his phrase, repeated more than once--[Greek: ti/ktein tê=| po/lei, genna=|n tê=| po/lei--tô=n ei)s to\ koino\n gennê/seôn] (pp. 460-461).

What Lucan (ii. 387) observes about Cato of Utica, is applicable to the Guardians of the Platonic Republic:--

"Venerisque huic maximus usus Progenies. Urbi pater est, Urbique maritus."]

[Footnote 110: Plato, Repub. v. p. 460 A.]

[Side-note: Regulations about marriages and family.]

There is no part of the Platonic system in which individual choice is more decidedly eliminated, and the intervention of the Rulers made more constantly paramount, than this respecting the marriages: and Plato declares it to be among the greatest difficulties which they will have to surmount. They will establish festivals, in which they bring together the brides and bridegrooms, with hymns, prayer, and sacrifices, to the Gods: they will determine by lot what couples shall be joined, so as to make up the number settled as appropriate: but they will arrange the sortition themselves so cleverly, that what appears chance to others will be a result to them predetermined. The best men will thus always be assorted with the best women, the inferior with the inferior: but this will appear to every one, except themselves, the result of chance.[111] Any young man (of thirty and upwards) distinguished for bravery or excellence will be allowed to have more than one wife; since it is good not merely to recompense his merit, but also to multiply his breed.[112]

[Footnote 111: Plato, Repub. v. p. 460.]

[Footnote 112: Plato, Repub. v. pp. 460 B, 468 C. In the latter passage it even appears that he is allowed to make a choice.]

In the seventh month, or in the tenth month, after the ceremonial day, offspring will be born, from these unions. But the children, immediately on being born, will be taken away from their mothers, and confided to nurses in an appropriate lodgment. The mothers will be admitted to suckle them, and wet-nurses will also be provided, as far as necessary: but the period for the mother to suckle will be abridged as much as possible, and all other trouble required for the care of infancy will be undertaken, not by her, but by the nurses. Moreover the greatest precautions will be taken that no mother shall know her own child: which is considered to be practicable, since many children will be born at nearly the same time.[113] The children in infancy will be examined by the Rulers and other good judges, who will determine how many of them are sufficiently well constituted to promise fitness for the duties of Guardians. The children of the good and vigorous couples, except in any case of bodily deformity, will be brought up and placed under the public training for Guardians: the unpromising children, and those of the inferior couples, being regarded as not fit subjects for the public training, will be secretly got rid of, or placed among the producing class of the Commonwealth.[114]

[Footnote 113: Plato, Republic, v. pp. 460 D, 461 D.]

[Footnote 114: Compare Republic, v. pp. 459 D, 460 C, 461 C, with Timæus, p. 19 A. In Timæus, where the leading doctrines of the Republic are briefly recapitulated, Plato directs that the children considered as unworthy shall be secretly distributed among the remaining community, _i.e._ not among the Guardians: in the Republic itself, his language, though not clear, seems to imply that they shall be exposed and got rid of.]

[Side-note: Procreative powers of individual Guardians required to be held at the disposal of the rulers, for purity of breed.]

What Plato here understands by marriage, is a special, solemn, consecrated, coupling for the occasion, with a view to breed for the public. It constitutes no permanent bond between the two persons coupled: who are brought together by the authorities under a delusive sortition, but who may perhaps never be brought together at any future sortition, unless it shall please the same authorities. The case resembles that of a breeding stud of horses and mares, to which Plato compares it: nothing else is wanted but the finest progeny attainable. But this, in Plato's judgment, is the most important of all purposes: his commonwealth cannot maintain itself except under a superior breed of Guardians. Accordingly, he invests his marriages with the greatest possible sanctity. The religious solemnities accompanying them are essential to furnish security for the goodness of the offspring. Any proceeding, either of man or woman, which contravenes the provisions of the rulers on this point, is peremptorily forbidden: and any child, born from unauthorised intercourse without the requisite prayers and sacrifices, is considered as an outcast. Within the limits of the connubial age, all persons of both sexes hold their procreative powers exclusively at the disposition of the lawgiver. But after that age is past, both men and women may indulge in intercourse with whomsoever they please, since they are no longer in condition to procreate for the public. They are subject only to this one condition: not to produce any children, or, if perchance they do, not to bring them up.[115] There is moreover one restriction upon the personal liberty of intercourse, after the connubial limits of age. No intercourse is permitted between father and daughter, or between mother and son. But how can such restriction be enforced, since no individual paternity or maternity is recognised in the Commonwealth? Plato answers by admitting a collective paternity and maternity. Every child born in the seventh month or in the tenth month after a couple have been solemnly wedded will be considered by them as their son or daughter, and will consider himself as such.[116]

[Footnote 115: Plato, Repub. v. p. 461 C.]

[Footnote 116: Plato, Repub. v. p. 461 D.]

Besides all these direct provisions for the purity of the breed of Guardians, which will succeed (so Plato anticipates) in a large majority of cases--the Rulers will keep up an effective supervision of detail, so as to exclude any unworthy exception, and even to admit into the Guardians any youth of very rare and exceptional promise who may be born among the remaining community. For Plato admits that there may be accidental births both ways: brass and iron may by occasional accident give birth to gold or silver--and _vice versâ_.

[Side-note: Purpose to create an intimate and equal sympathy among all the Guardians, but to prevent exclusive sympathy of particular members.]

It is in this manner that Plato constitutes his body of Guardians; one thousand adult persons of both sexes,[117] in nearly equal numbers, together with a small proportion of children--the proportion of these latter must be very small since the total number is not allowed to increase. His end here is to create an intimate and equal sympathy among them all, like that between all the members of the same bodily organism: to abolish all independent and exclusive sympathies of particular parts: to make the city One and Indivisible--a single organism, instead of many distinct conterminous organisms: to provide that the causes of pleasure and pain shall be the same to all, so that a man shall have no feeling of mine or thine, except in reference to his own body and that of another, which Plato notes as the greatest good--instead of each individual struggling apart for his own objects and rejoicing on occasions when his neighbour sorrows, which Plato regards as the greatest evil.[118] All standing causes of disagreement or antipathy among the Guardians are assumed to be thus removed. But if any two hot-headed youths get into a quarrel, they must fight it out on the spot. This will serve as a lesson in gymnastics:--subject however to the interference of any old man as by-stander, whom they as well as all other young men are bound implicitly to obey.[119] Moreover all the miseries, privations, anxiety, and dependence, inseparable from the life of a poor man under the system of private property, will disappear entirely.[120]

[Footnote 117: This number of 1000 appears stated by Aristotle (Politic. ii. 6, p. 1265, a. 9), and is probably derived from Republic, iv. p. 423 A; though that passage appears scarcely sufficient to prove that Plato meant to declare the number 1000 as peremptory. However the understanding of Aristotle himself on the point is one material evidence to make us believe that this is the real construction intended by Plato.]

[Footnote 118: Plato, Republic, v. pp. 462-463-464 D. [Greek: dia\ to\ mêde/na i)/dion e)ktê=sthai plê\n to\ sô=ma, ta\ de\ a)/lla koina/.] Compare Plato, Legg. v. p. 739 C.]

[Footnote 119: Plato, Republic, v. pp. 464-465.]

[Footnote 120: Plato, Republic, v. p. 465 C.]

Such are the main features of Plato's Republic, in reference to his Guardians. They afford a memorable example of that philosophical analysis, applied to the circumstances of man and society, which the Greek mind was the first to conceive and follow out. Plato lays down his ends with great distinctness, as well as the means whereby he proposes to attain them. Granting his ends, the means proposed are almost always suitable and appropriate, whether practicable or otherwise.

[Side-note: Platonic scheme--partial communism.]

The Platonic scheme is communism, so far as concerns the Guardians: but not communism in reference to the entire Commonwealth. In this it falls short of his own ideal, and is only a second best: the best of all would be, in his view, a communion that should pervade all persons and all acts and sentiments, effacing altogether the separate self.[121] Not venturing to soar so high, he confined his perfect communion to the Guardians. Moreover his communism differs from modern theories in this. They contemplate individual producers and labourers, handing over the produce to be distributed among themselves by official authority; they contemplate also a regulation not merely of distribution, but of reserved capital and productive agency, under the same authority. But the Platonic Guardians are not producers at all. Everything which they consume is found for them. They are in the nature of paid functionaries, exempted from all cares and anxiety of self-maintenance, either present or future. They are all comfortably provided, without hopes of wealth or fear of poverty: moreover they are all equally comfortable, so that no sentiment can grow up among them, arising from comparison of each other's possessions or enjoyments. Among such men and women, brought up from infancy as Plato directs, the sentiment of property, with all the multifarious associations derived from it, would be unknown. No man's self-esteem, no man's esteem of others, would turn upon it.

[Footnote 121: See Plato, De Legibus, v. p. 739 D. The Republic is _second best_; that which appears sketched in the treatise De Legibus is _third best_.]

In this respect, the remaining members of the city, apart from the Guardians, and furnishing all the subsistence of the Guardians, are differently circumstanced. They are engaged in different modes of production, each exclusively in one mode. They exchange, buy, and sell, with each other: there exist therefore among them gradations of strength, skill, perseverance, frugality, and good luck--together with the consequent gradations of wealth and poverty. The substance or capital of the Commonwealth is maintained altogether by the portion of it which is extraneous to the Guardians; and among that portion there is no communism. The maintenance of the Guardians is a tax which these men have to pay: but after paying it, they apply or enjoy the rest of their produce as they please, subject to the requirements of the Rulers for public service.[122]

[Footnote 122: Aristotle, in his comments upon the Platonic Republic (Politic. ii. 5. p. 1262, b. 42 seq.), advances arguments just in themselves, in favour of individual property, and against community of property. But these arguments have little application to the Republic.]

Nevertheless we are obliged to divine what Plato means about the condition of the producing classes in his Commonwealth. He himself tells us little or nothing about them; though they must constitute the large numerical majority. And this defect is in him the less excusable, since he reckons them as component members of his Commonwealth; while Aristotle, in his ideal Commonwealth, does not reckon them as component members or citizens, but merely as indispensable adjuncts, in the same manner as slaves. All that we know about the producers in the Platonic Commonwealth is, that each man is to have only one business--that for which he is most fit:--and that all are to be under the administration of the Rulers through the Guardians.

[Side-note: Soldiership as a separate profession has acquired greater development in modern times.]

The enlistment of soldiers, apart from civilians, and the holding of them under distinct laws and stricter discipline, is a practice familiar to modern ideas, though it had little place among the Greeks of Plato's day. There prevailed also in Egypt[123] and in parts of Eastern Asia, from time immemorial, a distinction of castes: one caste being soldiers, invested with the defence of the country, and enjoying certain lands by the tenure of such military service: but in other respects, private proprietors like the rest--and receiving no special discipline, training, or education. In Grecian Ideas, military duties were a part, but only a part, of the duties of a citizen. This was the case even at Sparta. Though in practice, the discipline of that city tended in a preponderant degree towards military aptitude, yet the Spartan was still a citizen, not exclusively a soldier.

[Footnote 123: Aristot. Politic. vii. 10. Herodot. ii. 164. Plato alludes (Timæ. 24 A) to the analogy of Egyptian castes.]

[Side-note: Spartan institutions--great impression which they produced upon speculative Greek minds.]

It was from the Spartan institutions (and the Kretan, in many respects analogous) that the speculative political philosophers in Greece usually took the point of departure for their theories. Not only Plato did so, but Xenophon and Aristotle likewise. The most material fact which they saw before them at Sparta was, a public discipline both strict and continued, which directed the movements of the citizens, and guided their thoughts and feelings, from infancy to old age. To this supreme controul the private feelings, both of family and property, though not wholly suppressed, were made to bend: and occasionally in a way quite as remarkable as any restrictions proposed by either Plato or Xenophon.[124] Moreover, the Spartan institutions were of immemorial antiquity; believed to have been suggested or sanctioned originally by Apollo and the Delphian oracle, as the Kretan institutions were by Zeus.[125] They had lasted longer than other Hellenic institutions without forcible subversion: they obtained universal notice, admiration, and deference, throughout Greece. It was this conspicuous fact which emboldened the Grecian theorists to postulate for the lawgiver that unbounded controul, over the life and habits of citizens, which we read not merely in the Republic of Plato but in the Cyropædia of Xenophon, and to a great degree even in the Politica of Aristotle. To an objector, who asked them how they could possibly expect that individuals would submit to such unlimited interference, they would have replied--"Look at Sparta. You see there interference, as constant and rigorous as that which I propose, endured by the citizens not only without resistance, but with a tenacity and long continuance such as is not found among other communities with more lax regulations. The habits and sentiments of the Spartan citizen are fashioned to these institutions. Far from being anxious to shake them off, he accounts them a necessity as well as an honour." This reply would have appeared valid and reasonable, in the fourth century before the Christian era. And it explains--what, after all, is the most surprising circumstance to a modern reader--the extreme boldness of speculation, the ideal omnipotence, assumed by the leading Grecian political theorists: much even by Aristotle, though his aspirations were more limited and practical--far more by Xenophon--most of all by Plato. Any theorist, proceeding avowedly [Greek: kat' eu)chê\n], considered himself within bounds when he assumed to himself no greater influence than had actually been exercised by Lykurgus.

[Footnote 124: See Xenophon, Hellenic. vi. 4, 16, the account of what passed at Sparta after the battle of Leuktra, related also in my "History of Greece," chap. 78, vol. x. p. 253.]

[Footnote 125: Plato, Legg. i. pp. 632 D, 634 A.]

[Side-note: Plans of these speculative minds compared with Spartan--Different types of character contemplated.]

Assuming such influence, however, he intended to employ it for ends approved by himself: agreeing with Lykurgus in the general principle of forming the citizen's character by public and compulsory discipline, but not agreeing with him in the type of character proper to be aimed at. Xenophon departs least from the Spartan type: Aristotle and Plato greatly more, though in different directions. Each of them applies to a certain extent the process of abstraction and analysis both to the individual and to the community: considering both of them as made up of component elements working simultaneously either in co-operation or conflict. But in Plato the abstraction is carried farthest: the wholeness of the individual Guardian is completely effaced, so that each constitutes a small fraction or wheel of the real Platonic whole--the commonwealth. The fundamental Platonic principle is, that each man shall have one function, and one only: an extreme application of that which political economists call the division of labour. Among these many different functions, one, and doubtless the most difficult as well as important, is that of directing, administering, and defending the community: which is done by the Guardians and Rulers. It is to this one function that all Plato's treatise is devoted: he tells us how such persons are to be trained and circumstanced. What he describes, therefore, is not properly citizens administering their own affairs, but commanders and officers watching over the interests of others: a sort of military _bureaucracy_, with chiefs at its head, directing as well as guarding a multitude beneath them. And what mainly distinguishes the Platonic system, is the extreme abstraction with which this public and official character is conceived: the degree to which the whole man is merged in the performance of his official duties: the entire extinction within him of the old individual Adam--of all private feelings and interests.

[Side-note: Plato carries abstraction farther than Xenophon or Aristotle.]

Both in Xenophon and in Aristotle, as well as at Sparta, the citizen is subjected to a public compulsory training, severe as well as continuous: but he is still a citizen as well as a functionary. He has private interests as well as public duties:--a separate home, property, wife, and family. Plato, on the contrary, contends that the two are absolutely irreconcileable: that if the Guardian has private anxieties for his own maintenance, private house and lands to manage, private sympathies and antipathies to gratify--he will become unfaithful to his duties as Guardian, and will oppress instead of protecting the people.[126] You must choose between the two (he says): you cannot have the self-caring citizen and the public-minded Guardian in one.[127]

[Footnote 126: Plato, Republic, iii. pp. 416-417.]

[Footnote 127: See the contrary opinion asserted by Nikias in his speech at Athens, Thucyd. vi. 9.]

[Side-note: Anxiety shown by Plato for the good treatment of the Demos, greater than that shown by Xenophon and Aristotle.]

Looking to ideal perfection, I think Plato is right. If the Rulers and Guardians have private interests of their own, those interests will corrupt more or less the discharge of their public duties. The evil may be mitigated, by forms of government (representative and other arrangements), which make the continuance of power dependent upon popular estimation of the functionaries: but it cannot be abolished. Neither Xenophon, nor Aristotle, nor the Spartan system, provided any remedy for this difficulty. They scarcely even recognise the difficulty as real. In all the three, the proportion of trained citizens to the rest of the people, would be about the same (so far as we can judge) as the proportion of the Platonic Guardians to the Demos or rest of the people. But when we look to see what security either of the three systems provide for good behaviour on the part of citizens towards non-citizens, we find no satisfaction; nor do they make it, as Plato does, one prominent object of their public training. Plato shows extreme anxiety for the object: as is proved by his sacrificing, in order to ensure it, all the private sources of pleasure to his Guardians. Aristotle reproaches him with doing this, so as to reduce the happiness of his Guardians to nothing: but Plato, from his own point of view, would not admit the justice of such reproach, since he considers happiness to be derived from, and proportional to, the performance of duty.

[Side-note: In Aristotle's theory, the Demos are not considered as members of the Commonwealth, but as adjuncts.]

This last point must be perpetually kept in mind, in following Plato's reasoning. But though he does not consider himself as sacrificing the happiness of his Guardians to their duty, we must give him credit for anxiety, greater than either Aristotle or Xenophon has shown, to ensure a faithful discharge of duty on the part of the Guardians towards the rest of the people. In Aristotle's theory,[128] the rest of the people are set aside as not members of the Commonwealth, thus counting as a secondary and inferior object in his estimation; while the citizens, who alone are members, are trained to practise virtue for its own sake and for their own happiness. In Plato's theory, the rest of the people are not only proclaimed as members of the Commonwealth,[129] but are the ultimate and capital objects of all his solicitude. It is in protecting, governing, and administering them, that the lives of the Rulers and Guardians are passed. Though they (the remaining people) receive no public training, yet Plato intends them to reap all the benefit of the laborious training bestowed on the Guardians. This is a larger and more generous conception of the purpose of political institutions, than we find either in Aristotle or in Xenophon.

[Footnote 128: Aristotle, Politic. vii. 9, p. 1328, b. 40, p. 1329, a. 25.]

[Footnote 129: Aristot. Politic. ii. 5, p. 1264, a. 12-26, respecting the Platonic Commonwealth, [Greek: kai/toi schedo\n to/ge plê=thos tê=s po/leôs to\ tô=n a)/llôn politô=n gi/netai plê=thos], &c. . . .

[Greek: Poiei= ga\r] (Plato) [Greek: tou\s me\n phu/lakas oi(=on phrourou/s, tou\s de\ geôrgou\s kai\ tou\s techni/tas kai\ tou\s a)/llous, poli/tas.]]

[Side-note: Objection urged by Aristotle against the Platonic Republic, that it will be two cities. Spiritual pride of the Guardians, contempt for the Demos.]

There is however another objection, which seems grave and well founded, advanced by Aristotle against the Platonic Republic. He remarks that it will be not one city, but two cities, with tendencies more or less adverse to each other:[130] that the Guardians, educated under the very peculiar training and placed under the peculiar relations prescribed to them, will form one city--while the remaining people, who have no part either in the one or the other, but are private proprietors with separate families--will form another city. I do not see what reply the Platonic Republic furnishes to this objection. Granting full success to Plato in his endeavours to make the Guardians One among themselves, we find nothing to make them One with the remaining people, nor to make the remaining people One with them.[131] On the contrary, we observe such an extreme divergence of sentiment, character, pursuit, and education, as to render mutual sympathy very difficult, and to open fatal probabilities of mutual alienation: probabilities hardly less, than if separate proprietary interests had been left to subsist among the Guardians. This is a source of mischief which Plato has not taken into his account. The entire body of Guardians cannot fail to carry in their bosoms a sense of extreme pride in their own training, and a proportionally mean estimate of the untrained multitude alongside of them. The sentiment of the gold and silver men, towards the brass and iron men, will have in it too much of contempt to be consistent with civic fraternity: like the pride of the Twice-Born Hindoo Brahmin, when comparing himself with the lower Hindoo castes: or like that of the Pythagorean brotherhood, who "regarded the brethren as equal to the blessed Gods, but held all the rest to be unworthy of any account".[132] The Spartan training appears to have produced a similar effect upon the minds of the citizens who went through it. And indeed such an effect appears scarcely avoidable, under the circumstances assumed by Plato. He himself is proud of his own ideal training, so as to ascribe to those who receive it a sentiment akin to that of the Olympic victors: while he employs degrading analogies to signify the pursuits and enjoyments of the untrained multitude, who are assimilated to the appetite or lower element in the organism, existing only as a mutinous crew necessary to be kept down.[133] That spiritual pride, coupled with spiritual contempt, should be felt by the Guardians, is the natural result; as it is indeed the essential reimbursement to their feelings, for the life of drill and self-denial which Plato imposes upon them. And how, under such a sentiment, the two constituent elements in his system are to be competent to work out his promised result of mutual happiness, he has not shown.[134]

[Footnote 130: Aristotel. Politic. ii. 5, p. 1264, a. 24. [Greek: e)n mia=| ga\r po/lei du/o po/leis, a)nagkai=on ei)=nai, kai\ tau/tas u(penanti/as a)llê/lais.]

The most forcible of the objections urged by Aristotle against the Platonic Republic, are those contained in this chapter respecting the relations between the Guardians and the rest of the community.]

[Footnote 131: The oneness, which Plato proclaims as belonging to his whole city, belongs in reality only to the body of Guardians; of whom he sometimes speaks as if they were the whole city, which however is not his real intention; see Republic, v. p. 462-463 A.]

[Footnote 132: [Greek: Tou\s me\n e(tai/rous ê)=gen i)/sous maka/ressi theoi=sin, Tou\s d' a)/llous ê(gei=t' ou)/t' e)n lo/gô| ou)/t' e)n a)rithmô=|.]]

[Footnote 133: Plato, Republ. v. 465 D.

Aristotle says (in the Nikom. Ethics, i. 5) when discussing the various ideas entertained about happiness--[Greek: Oi( me\n ou)=n polloi\ pantelô=s a)ndrapodô/deis phai/nontai boskêma/tôn bi/on proairou/menoi.] This is much the estimation which the Platonic Guardians would be apt to form respecting the Demos.]

[Footnote 134: The foregoing remarks are an expansion, and a sequel, of Aristotle's objection against the Platonic Republic--That it is not One City, but two discordant cities in that which is nominally One. I must however add that the same objection may be urged against the Xenophontic constitution of a city; and also, in substance, even against the proposition of Aristotle himself for the same purpose. Xenophon, in his Cyropædia, proposes a severe, life-long drill and discipline, like that of the Spartans: from which indeed he does not formally exclude any citizens, but which he announces to be actually attended only by the wealthy, since they alone can afford to attend continuously and habitually, the poorer men being engaged in the cares of maintenance. All the functions of the state, civil and military, are performed exclusively by those who go through the public discipline. We have here the two cities in One, which Aristotle objects to in Plato; with the consequent loss of civic fraternity between them. And when we look to that which Aristotle himself suggests, we find him evading the objection by a formal sanction of the very mischief upon which the objection is founded. He puts the husbandmen and artisans altogether out of the pale of his city, which is made to include the disciplined citizens or Guardians alone. His city may thus be called One, inasmuch as it admits only homogeneous elements, and throws out all such as are heterogeneous; but he thus avowedly renounces as insoluble the problem which Plato and Xenophon try, though unsuccessfully, to solve. If there be discord and alienation among the constituent members of the Platonic and Xenophontic city--there will subsist the like feelings, in Aristotle's proposition, between the members of the city and the outlying, though indispensable, adjuncts. There will be the same mischief in kind, and probably exaggerated in amount: since the abolition of the very name and idea of fellow-citizen tends to suppress altogether an influence of tutelary character, however insufficient as to its force.]

[Side-note: Plato's scheme fails, mainly because he provides no training for the Demos.]

In explanation of the foregoing remarks, I will add that Plato fails in his purpose not from the goodness of the training which he provides for his select Few, but from leaving the rest of his people without any training--without even so much as would enable them properly to appreciate superior training in the few who obtain it--without any powers of self-defence or self-helpfulness. His fundamental postulate--That every man shall do only one thing--when applied to the Guardians, realises itself in something great and considerable: but when applied to the ordinary pursuits of life, reduces every man to a special machine, unfit for any other purpose than its own. Though it is reasonable that a man should get his living by one trade, and should therefore qualify himself peculiarly and effectively for that trade--it is not reasonable that he should be altogether impotent as to every thing else: nor that his happiness should consist, as Plato declares that it ought, exclusively in the performance of this one service to the commonwealth. In the Platonic Republic, the body of the people are represented not only as without training, but as machines rather than individual men. They exist partly as producers to maintain, partly as governable matter to obey, the Guardians; and to be cared for by them.

[Side-note: Principle of Aristotle--That every citizen belongs to the city, not to himself--applied by Plato to women.]

Aristotle, when speaking about the citizens of his own ideal commonwealth (his citizens form nearly the same numerical proportion of the whole population, as the Platonic Guardians), tells us--"Since the End for which the entire City exists is One, it is obviously necessary that the education of all the citizens should be one and the same, and that the care of such education should be a public duty--not left in private hands as it is now, for a man to teach his children what he thinks fit. Public exigencies must be provided for by public training. Moreover, we ought not to regard any of the citizens as belonging to himself, but all of them as belonging to the city: for each is a part of the city: and nature prescribes that the care of each part shall be regulated with a view to the care of the whole."[135]

[Footnote 135: Aristotel. Politic. viii. 1, p. 1337, [Greek: E)pei\ d' e(\n to\ te/los tê=| po/lei pa/sê|, phanero\n o(/ti kai\ tê\n paidei/an mi/an kai\ tê\n au)tê\n a)nagkai=on ei)=nai pa/ntôn, kai\ tau/tês tê\n e)pime/leian ei)=nai koinê\n kai\ mê\ kat' i)di/an; o(\n tro/pon nu=n e(/kastos e)pimelei=tai tô=n au)tou= te/knôn i)di/a te kai\ ma/thêsin i)di/an, ê(\n a)\n do/xê|, dida/skôn . . . A(/ma de\ ou)de\ chrê\ nomi/zein au)to\n au(tou= tina\ ei)=nai tô=n politô=n, a)lla\ pa/ntas tê=s po/leôs . . . ê( d' e)pime/leias pe/phuken e(ka/stou mori/ou ble/pein pro\s tê\n tou= o(/lou e)pime/leian.]]

The broad principle thus laid down by Aristotle is common to him with Plato, and lies at the bottom of the schemes of polity imagined by both. Each has his own way of applying it.

Plato clearly perceives that it cannot be applied with consistency and effect, unless women are brought under its application as well as men. And to a great extent, Aristotle holds the same opinion too. While commending the Spartan principle, that the character of the citizen must be formed and upheld by continued public training and discipline--Aristotle blames Lykurgus for leaving the women (that is, a numerical half of the city) without training or discipline; which omission produced (he says) very mischievous effects, especially in corrupting the character of the men. He pronounces this to be a serious fault, making the constitution inconsistent and self-contradictory, and indeed contrary to the intentions of Lykurgus himself; who had tried to bring the women under public discipline as well as the men, but was forced to desist by their strenuous opposition.[136] Such remarks from Aristotle are the more remarkable, since it appears as matter of history, that the maidens at Sparta (though not the married women) did to a great extent go through gymnastic exercises along with the young men.[137] These exercises, though almost a singular exception in Greece, must have appeared to Aristotle very insufficient. What amount or kind of regulation he himself would propose for women, he has not defined. In his own ideal commonwealth, he lays it down as alike essential for men and women to have their bodies trained and exercised so as to be adequate to the active duties of free persons (as contrasted with the harder preparation requisite for the athletic contests, which he disapproves), but he does not go into farther particulars.[138] The regulations which he proposes, too, with reference to marriage generally and to the maintenance of a vigorous breed of citizens, show, that he considered it an important part of the lawgiver's duty to keep up by positive interference the physical condition both of males and females.[139]

[Footnote 136: Aristotel. Politic. ii. 9, p. 1269, b. 12. [Greek: E)/ti d' ê( peri\ ta\s gunai=kas a)/nesis kai\ pro\s tê\n proai/resin tê=s politei/as blabera\ kai\ pro\s eu)daimoni/an po/leôs . . . Ô(st' e)n o(/sais politei/ais phau/lôs e)/chei to\ peri\ ta\s gunai=kas, to\ ê(/misu tê=s po/leôs ei)=nai dei= nomi/zein a)nomothe/têton. O(/per e)kei=] (at Sparta) [Greek: sumbe/bêken; o(/lên ga\r tê\n po/lin o( nomothe/tês** ei)=nai boulo/menos karterikê/n, kata\ me\n tou\s a)/ndras phanero/s e)sti toiou=tos ô)/n, e)pi\ de\ tô=n gunaikô=n e)xême/lêken], &c. . . . [Greek: Ta\ de\ peri\ ta\s gunai=kas e)/chonta mê\ kalô=s e)/oiken ou) mo/non a)pre/peia/n tina poiei=n tê=s po/leôs au)tê=s kath' au(tê/n, a)lla\ sumba/llesthai/ ti pro\s tê\n philochrêmati/an.]

Plato has a similar remark, Legg. vi. pp. 780-781.]

[Footnote 137: Stallbaum (in his note on Plato, Legg. i. p. 637 C, [Greek: tê\n tô=n gunaikô=n par' u(mi=n a)/nesin]) observes--"Lacænarum licentiam, quum ex aliis institutis patriis, tum ex gymnicarum exercitationum usu repetendam, Plato carpit etiam infrà," &c. This is a mistake. Plato does not blame the gymnastic exercises of the Spartan maidens: the four passages to which Stallbaum refers do not prove his assertion. They even countenance the reverse of that assertion. Plato approves of gymnastic and military exercises for maidens in the Laws, and for all the female Guardians in the Republic.

Stallbaum also refers to Aristotle as disapproving the gymnastic exercises of the Spartan maidens. I cannot think that this is correct. Aristotle does indeed blame the arrangements for women at Sparta, but not, as I understand him, because the women were subjected to gymnastic exercise; his blame is founded on the circumstance that the women were not regulated, but left to do as they pleased, while the men were under the strictest drill. This I conceive to be the meaning of [Greek: gunaikô=n a)/nesis]. Euripides indeed has a very bitter passage condemning the exercises of the Spartan maidens; but neither Plato nor Aristotle shared this view.

Respecting the Spartan maidens and their exercises, see Xenophon, Republ. Laced. i. 4; Plutarch, Lykurg. c. 14.]

[Footnote 138: Aristotel. Politic. vii. 16, p. 1335, b. 8. [Greek: Peponême/nên me\n ou)=n e)/chein dei= tê\n e(/xin, peponême/nên de\ po/nois mê\ biai/ois, mêde\ pro\s e(/na mo/non, ô(/sper ê( tô=n a)thlêtô=n e(/xis, a)lla\ pro\s ta\s tô=n e)leutheri/ôn pra/xeis. O(moi/ôs de\ dei= tau=ta u(pa/rchein a)ndra/si kai\ gunaixi/.] Compare also i. 8, near the end of the first book.]

[Footnote 139: Aristotel. Politic. vii. 16, p. 1335, a. 20, b. 15.]

In principle, therefore, Aristotle agrees with Plato,[140] as to the propriety of comprehending women as well as men under public training and discipline: but he does not follow out the principle with the same consistency. He maintains the Platonic Commonwealth to be impossible.[141]

[Footnote 140: If we take the sentence from Aristotle's Politics, cited in a note immediately preceding, to the effect that all the citizens belonged to the city, and that each was a part of the city (viii. 1, p. 1337, a. 28) in conjunction with another passage in the Politics (i. 3, p. 1254, a. 10)--[Greek: To/ te ga\r mo/rion, ou) mo/non a)/llou e)sti\ mo/rion, a)lla\ kai\ _o(/lôs a)/llou_]--it is difficult to see how he can, consistently with these principles, assign to his citizens any individual self-regarding agency. Plato denies all such to his Guardians, and in so doing he makes deductions consistent with the principles of Aristotle, who lays down his principles too absolutely for the use which he afterwards makes of them.]

[Footnote 141: Aristotel. Politic. ii. 5, p. 1263, b. 29. [Greek: phai/netai d' ei)=nai pa/mpan a)du/natos o( bi/os.]]

[Side-note: Aristotle declares the Platonic Commonwealth impossible--In what sense this is true.]

If we go through the separate objections which Aristotle advances as justifying his verdict, we shall find them altogether inadequate for the purpose. He shows certain inconveniences and difficulties as belonging to it,--which are by no means all real, but which, even conceding them in full force, would have to be set against the objections admitted by himself to bear against other actual societies before we can determine whether they are sufficiently weighty to render the scheme to which they belong impossible. The Platonic commonwealth, and the Aristotelian commonwealth, are both of them impossible, in my judgment, for the same reason: that all the various communities of mankind exist under established customs, beliefs, and sentiments, in complete discordance with them: and that we cannot understand from whence the force is to come, tending and competent to generate either of these two new systematic projects. Both of them require a simultaneous production of many reciprocally adapted elements: both therefore require an express initiative force, exceptional and belonging to some peculiar crisis--something analogous to Zeus in Krete, and to Apollo at Sparta. This is alike true of both: though the Platonic Republic, departing more widely from received principles and sentiments than the Aristotelian, would of course require a more potent initiative.[142] In the treatises of the two philosophers, each explains and vindicates the principles of his system, without including in the hypothesis any specification of a probable source from whence it was to acquire its first start. Where is the motive, operative, demiurgic force, ready to translate such an idea into reality?[143] But if we assume that either of them had once begun, there is no reason why it might not have continued. The causes which first brought about the Spartan constitution and discipline must have been very peculiar, though we have no historical account what they were. At any rate they never occurred a second time; for no second Sparta was ever formed, in spite of the admiration inspired by the first. If Sparta had never been actually established, and if Aristotle had read a description of it as a mere project, he would probably have pronounced it impracticable:[144] though when once brought into reality, it proved eminently durable. In like manner, the laws, customs, beliefs, and feelings, prevalent in Egypt,--which astonished so vehemently Herodotus and other observing Greeks--would have been declared to be impossible, if described simply in project: yet, when once established, they were found to last longer without change than those of other nations.

[Footnote 142: Plato indeed in one place tells us that a single despot, becoming by inspiration or accident a philosopher, and having an obedient city, would accomplish the primary construction of his commonwealth (Republic, vi. p. 502 B). That despot (Plato supposes) will send away all the population of his city above ten years old, and will train up the children in the Platonic principles (vii. pp. 540-541).

This is little better than an [Greek: eu)chê/], whatever Plato may say to deprecate the charge of uttering [Greek: eu)cha/s], p. 540 D.]

[Footnote 143: Aristotel. Metaphys. A. p. 991, a. 22. [Greek: Ti/ ga/r e)sti to\ e)rgazo/menon, pro\s ta\s i)de/as a)poble/pon?]

We find Aristotle arguing, in the course of his remarks on the Platonic Republic, that it is useless now to promulgate any such novelties; a long time has elapsed, and such things would already have been found established if they had been good (Politic. ii. 5, p. 1264, a. 2). This would have applied (somewhat less in degree, yet with quite sufficient force) to the ideal commonwealth of Aristotle himself, as well as to that of Plato.