Looking for something meaningful to listen to. Visit podcastlibrary.org, a growing home for timeless audio books, classic radio dramas, educational talks, history, philosophy, and thousands of hours of spoken word audio, all free to stream. Whether you want to relax, learn something new, or rediscover voices from the past, Podcast Library makes it easy to find something worth hearing. Start listening today at P-O-D-C-A-S-T-L-I-B-R-A-R-Y.
.org. Looking for something meaningful to listen to. Visit podcastlibrary.org, a growing home for timeless audio books, classic radio dramas, educational talks, history, philosophy, and thousands of hours of spoken word audio, all free to stream. Whether you want to relax, learn something new, or rediscover voices from the past, Podcast Library makes it easy to find something worth hearing.
Start listening today at P-O-D-C-A-S-T-L-I-B-R-A-R-Y. .org. Book 5, Part 1. Such is the good and true city or state, and the good and true man is of the same pattern, and if this is right, every other is wrong, and the evil is one which affects not only the ordering of the state, but also the regulation of the individual soul, and is exhibited in four forms.
What are they? He said. I was proceeding to tell the order in which the four evil forms appeared to me to succeed one another, when Palomarchus, who was sitting a little way off, just beyond Atomantis, began to whisper to him, stretching forth his hand, he took hold of the upper part of his coat by the shoulder, and drew him towards him, leaning forward himself so as to be quite close, and saying something in his ear, of which I only caught the words, shall we let him off, or what shall we do? Certainly not, said Atomantis, raising his voice.
Who is it, I said, to 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 out of a whole chapter, which is a very important part of the story, and you fancy that we shall not notice your airy way of proceeding, as if it were self-evident to everybody, that in the matter of women and children, friends have all things in common.
And was I not right, Atomantis? Yes, he said, but what is right in this particular case, like everything else, requires to be explained, for community may be of many kinds. Please therefore, to say what kind of community you mean. We have been long expecting that you would tell us something about the family life of your citizens, how they will bring children to the world, and rear them when they have arrived, and in general, what is the nature of this community of women and children, for we are of opinion that the right or wrong management of such matters will have a great and paramount influence on the state for good or for evil.
And now, since the question is still undetermined, and you are taking in hand another state, we have resolved, as you heard, not to let you go, and you give an account of all this. To that resolution, said Glaucon, you may regard me as saying agreed. And without more ado, said Thrasimakus, you may consider us all to be equally agreed. I said, you know not what you are doing and thus assailing me.
What an argument you are raising about the state. Just as I thought that I had finished, and was only too glad that I had laid this question to sleep, and was reflecting how fortunate I was in your acceptance of what I then said, you asked me to begin again at the very foundation, ignorant of what a hornet's nest of words you are stirring. Now, I foresaw this gathering trouble and voided it. For what purpose do you conceive that we have come here, said Thrasimakus, to look for gold or to hear discourse?
Yes, but discourse should have a limit. Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole of life is the only limit which wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses. But never mind about us, take heart yourself and answer the question in your own way. What sort of community of women and children is this which is to prevail among our guardians?
And how shall we manage the period between 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. Many more doubts arise about this than about our previous conclusions.
For the practicability of what is said may be doubted, and looked at in another point of view whether the scheme, if ever so practicable, would be for the best is also doubtful. Hence I feel a reluctance to approach the subject. Less down aspiration, my dear friend, should turn out to be a dream only. Fear not, he replied, for your audience will not be hard upon you, they are not skeptical or hostile.
I said, my good friend, I suppose that you mean to encourage me by these words. Yes, he said, then let me tell you that you are doing just the reverse. The encouragement which you offer would have been all very well had I myself believe that I knew what I was talking about. To declare the truth about matters of high interest which a man honors and loves among wise men, who love him, need occasion, no fear or faltering in his mind, but to carry on an argument when you are yourself only a hesitating enquirer, which is my condition, is a dangerous and slippery thing, and the danger is 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 sure of my footing, and drag my friends after me in my fall.
And I pray, nemesis, 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 less crime than to be a deceiver about beauty or goodness or justice in the matter of laws. And that is a risk which I would rather run among enemies than among friends, and therefore you do well to encourage me. Glack on laughed and said, Well then Socrates, in case you and your argument do us any serious injury, you shall be acquitted beforehand of the homicide, and shall not be held to be a deceiver.
Take courage then and speak. Well, I said, the law says that when a man is acquitted he is free from guilt, and what holds at law may hold an argument. Then why should you mind? Well, I replied, I suppose that I must retrace my steps and say what I perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place.
The part of the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes the turn of the women. Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readily since 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 of women and children is to follow the path on which we originally started, when we said that the men were to be the guardians and the watchdogs of the herd. True, let us further suppose the birth and education of our women to be subject to similar or nearly similar regulations, then we shall see whether the result accords without a design.
What do you mean? What I mean may be put in the form of a question. I said, Are dogs divided into he's and she's, or do they both share equally in hunting and in keeping watch and in all the other duties of dogs? Or do we entrust the males to the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while we leave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and suckling their puppies is labor enough for them?
No, he said, they share alike. The only difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker. But can you use different animals for the same purpose, unless they are bred in the same way? You cannot.
Then if women are to have the same duties as men, they must have the 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 of war, which they must practice like the men. That is the inference, I suppose. I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous. No doubt of it.
Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the side of women naked in the palestra, exercising with the men, especially when they are no longer young. They will certainly not be a vision of beauty, any more than the enthusiastic old men who in spite of wrinkles and ugliness continue to frequent the gymnasia. Yes, indeed, he said, according to present notions, the proposal will be thought ridiculous. But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation.
How they will talk of women's attainments both in music and gymnastic, and above all, about their wearing armor and riding 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 ones in their life to be serious. Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the Helines were of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians, that the side of a naked man was ridiculous and improper, and when first the cretins and then the lack of demonians 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 was far better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to the outward eye vanished before the better principle which reason asserted, then the man was perceived to be a fool who directs the shafts of his ridicule at any other site but that of folly and vice, or seriously inclined to weigh the beautiful by any other standard but that of the good. Very true, he replied. First then, whether the question is to be put in jester and earnest, let us come to an understanding about the nature of woman.
Is she capable 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 she cannot share? That will be the best way of commencing the inquiry, 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 will say, Socrates and Glachon, no adversary need convict you, for you yourselves, at the first foundations of the state, admitted the principle that everybody was to do the one work suited to his own nature. And certainly, 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 whether the tasks assigned to men and to women should not be different, and such as are agreeable to their different natures.
Certainly they should. But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures are so entirely different, ought to perform the same actions? What defense will you make for us, my good sir, against anyone who offers these objections? That is not an easy question to answer when asked suddenly, and I shall and do beg of you to draw out the case on our side.
These are the objections, Glachon, and there are many others of a light kind, which I for so long ago. They made me afraid and reluctant to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women and 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 intimate ocean, he has to swim all the same.
Very true. And must we not swim and try to reach the shore? We will hope that Arian's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us? I suppose so, he said.
Well then, let us see if any way of escape can be found. We acknowledge, did we not, that different natures ought to have different pursuits, and that men's and women's natures are different. And now what are we saying? That different natures ought to have the same pursuits.
This is the inconsistency which is charged upon us. Precisely. Verily, Glachon, 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 his will. When he thinks that he is reasoning, he is really disputing, just because he cannot define and divide, and so know that of which he is speaking, and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in the spirit of contention and not a fair discussion. Yes, he replied, such is very often the case. But what has that to do with us in our argument?
A great deal, for there is certainly a danger of our getting unintentionally into a verbal opposition. In what way? Why, we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth, that different natures ought to have different pursuits. But we never considered at all what was the meaning of sameness or difference of nature.
Or why we distinguished them when we designed different pursuits to different natures, 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 question whether there is not an opposition in nature between bald men and hairy 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 constructed the state that the opposition of nature should extend to every difference, but only to those differences which affected the pursuit in which the individual is engaged. We should have argued, for example, that a physician and one who is in mind a physician may be said to have the 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 their fitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit or art ought to be associated with the same nature. But if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to approve that a woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive.
And we shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have the same pursuits. Very true, he said. Next we shall ask our opponent how, in reference to any of the pursuits or arts of civic life, the nature of a woman differs from that of a man. That will be quite fair.
And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply that, to give a sufficient answer on the instant is not easy, but after a little reflection there is no difficulty. Yes, perhaps. Suppose then that we invite him to accompany us in the argument, and then we may hope to show him that there is nothing peculiar in the Constitution of women, which would affect them in the administration of the state. By all means, let us say to him, come now, and we will ask you a question.
When you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty? A little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal, whereas the other, after much steady an application, no sooner learns than he forgets. Or again, did you mean that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a hindrance to him? Would not these be the sort of differences which distinguish the man gifted by nature from the one who is ungifted?
No one will deny that. And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex has not 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 management of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear to be great, and in which for her to be beaten by man is of all things the most absurd? You're quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex, although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true.
And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of administration in a state which a woman has because she is a woman, or which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are like diffused in both. All the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in 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 on women?
That will never do. If a woman has a gift of healing, another not, one is a musician, and the other has no music in her nature, very true. And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, and another is unwarlic 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 differences of this sort?
Yes. Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian. They differ only in their comparative strength or weakness. Obviously.
And those women who have such qualities are to be selected as the companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities, and whom they resemble in capacity and in character, very true. And ought not the same nature as to have the same pursuits? They ought. Then as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in assigning music and gymnastic to the wives of the guardians.
To that point we come round again. Certainly not. The law which we then enacted was agreeable to nature, and therefore not 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, and secondly, 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 guardian will make a woman a good guardian for their original nature is the same?
Yes. End of Book 5, Part 1.