Greek Texts & Translations

And must each individual man regard himself as his own enemy? Or what do we say when we come to this point?

O Stranger of Athens, for I should be loth to call you a man of Attica, since methinks you deserve rather to be named after the goddess Athena, seeing that you have made the argument more clear by taking it back again to its starting-point; whereby you will the more easily discover the justice of our recent statement that, in the mass, all men are both publicly and privately the enemies of all, and individually also each man is his own enemy. 626e

What is your meaning, my admirable sir?

It is just in this war, my friend, that the victory over self is of all victories the first and best while self-defeat is of all defeats at once the worst and the most shameful. For these phrases signify that a war against self exists within each of us. ^note

Now let us take the argument back in the reverse direction. Seeing that individually each of us is partly superior to himself 627aand partly inferior, are we to affirm that the same condition of things exists in house and village and State, or are we to deny it?

Do you mean the condition of being partly self-superior and partly self-inferior?

Yes.

That, too, is a proper question; for such a condition does most certainly exist, and in States above all. Every State in which the better class is victorious over the populace and the lower classes would rightly be termed “self-superior,” and would be praised most justly for a victory of this kind; and conversely, when the reverse is the case. 627b

Well then, leaving aside the question as to whether the worse element is ever superior to the better (a question which would demand a more lengthy discussion), what you assert, as I now perceive, is this,—that sometimes citizens of one stock and of one State who are unjust and numerous may combine together and try to enslave by force those who are just but fewer in number, and wherever they prevail such a State would rightly be termed “self-inferior” and bad, but “self-superior” and good wherever they are worsted. 627c

This statement is indeed most extraordinary, Stranger; none the less we cannot possibly reject it.

Stay a moment: here too is a case we must further consider. Suppose there were a number of brothers, all sons of the same parents, it would not be at all surprising if most of them were unjust and but few just.

It would not.

And, moreover, it would ill beseem you and me to go a-chasing after this form of expression, that if the bad ones conquered the whole of this family and house should be called “self-inferior,” 627dbut “self-superior” if they were defeated; for our present reference to the usage of ordinary speech is not concerned with the propriety or impropriety of verbal phrases but with the essential rightness or wrongness of laws.

Very true, Stranger.

And finely spoken, too, up to this point, as I agree.

Let us also look at this point: the brothers we have just described would have, I suppose, a judge?

Certainly.

Which of the two would be the better—a judge who destroyed 627eall the wicked among them and charged the good to govern themselves, or one who made the good members govern and, while allowing the bad to live, made them submit willingly to be governed? And there is a third judge we must mention (third and best in point of merit),—if indeed such a judge can be found,— 628awho in dealing with a single divided family will destroy none of them but reconcile them and succeed, by enacting laws for them, in securing amongst them thenceforward permanent friendliness.

A judge and lawgiver of that kind would be by far the best.

But mark this: his aim, in the laws he enacted for them, would be the opposite of war.

That is true.

And what of him who brings the State into harmony? In ordering its life would he have regard to external warfare 628brather than to the internal war, whenever it occurs, which goes by the name of “civil” strife? For this is a war as to which it would be the desire of every man that, if possible, it should never occur in his own State, and that, if it did occur, it should come to as speedy an end as possible.

Evidently he would have regard to civil war.

And would anyone prefer that the citizens should be obliged to devote their attention to external enemies after internal concord had been secured by the destruction of one section and the victory of their opponents rather than after the establishment of friendship and peace 628cby terms of conciliation?

Everyone would prefer the latter alternative for his own State rather than the former.

And would not the lawgiver do the same?

Of course.

Would not every lawgiver in all his legislation aim at the highest good?

Assuredly.

The highest good, however, is neither war nor civil strife—which things we should pray rather to be saved from—but peace one with another and friendly feeling. Moreover, it would seem that the victory