<p>And also that good and bad rhythm naturally assimilate to a good and bad
style; and that harmony and discord in like manner follow style; for our
principle is that rhythm and harmony are regulated by the words, and not
the words by them.</p>
<p>Just so, he said, they should follow the words.</p>
<p>And will not the words and the character of the style depend on the temper
of the soul?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>And everything else on the style?</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>Then beauty of style and harmony and grace and good rhythm depend on
simplicity,—I mean the true simplicity of a rightly and nobly
ordered mind and character, not that other simplicity which is only an
euphemism for folly?</p>
<p>Very true, he replied.</p>
<p>And if our youth are to do their work in life, must they not make these
graces and harmonies their perpetual aim?</p>
<p>They must.</p>
<p>And surely the art of the painter and every other creative and
constructive art are full of them,—weaving, embroidery,
architecture, and every kind of manufacture; also nature, animal and
vegetable,—in all of them there is grace or the absence of grace.
And ugliness and discord and inharmonious motion are nearly allied to ill
words and ill nature, as grace and harmony are the twin sisters of
goodness and virtue and bear their likeness.</p>
<p>That is quite true, he said.</p>
<p>But shall our superintendence go no further, and are the poets only to 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? Or is the same
control to be extended to other artists, and are they also to be
prohibited from exhibiting the opposite forms of vice and intemperance and
meanness and indecency in sculpture and building and the other creative
arts; and is he who cannot conform to this rule 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 have our guardians grow up amid images of
moral deformity, as in some noxious pasture, and there browse and feed
upon many a baneful herb and flower day by day, little by little, until
they silently gather a festering mass of corruption in their own soul. Let
our artists rather be those who 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 and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and
beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like
a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul
from earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason.</p>
<p>There can be no nobler training than that, he replied.</p>
<p>And therefore, I said, Glaucon, musical training is a more potent
instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into
the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting
grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of
him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received
this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive
omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he
praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes
noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of
his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason
comes he will recognise and salute the friend with whom his education has
made him long familiar.</p>
<p>Yes, he said, I quite agree with you in thinking that our youth should be
trained in music and on the grounds which you mention.</p>
<p>Just as in learning to read, I said, we were satisfied when we knew the
letters of the alphabet, which are very few, in all their recurring sizes
and combinations; not slighting them as unimportant whether they occupy a
space large or small, but everywhere eager to make them out; and not
thinking ourselves perfect in the art of reading until we recognise them
wherever they are found:</p>
<p>True—</p>
<p>Or, as we recognise the reflection of letters in the water, or in a
mirror, only when we know the letters themselves; the same art and study
giving us the knowledge of both:</p>
<p>Exactly—</p>
<p>Even so, as I maintain, neither we nor our guardians, whom we have to
educate, can ever become musical until we and they know the essential
forms of temperance, courage, liberality, magnificence, and their kindred,
as well as the contrary forms, in all their combinations, and can
recognise them and their images wherever they are found, not slighting
them either in small things or great, but believing them all to be within
the sphere of one art and study.</p>
<p>Most assuredly.</p>
<p>And when a beautiful soul harmonizes with a beautiful form, and the two
are cast in one mould, that will be the fairest of sights to him who has
an eye to see it?</p>
<p>The fairest indeed.</p>
<p>And the fairest is also the loveliest?</p>
<p>That may be assumed.</p>
<p>And the man who has the spirit of harmony will be most in love with the
loveliest; but he will not love him who is of an inharmonious soul?</p>
<p>That is true, he replied, if the deficiency be in his soul; but if there
be any merely bodily defect in another he will be patient of it, and will
love all the same.</p>
<p>I perceive, I said, that you have or have had experiences of this sort,
and I agree. But let me ask you another question: Has excess of pleasure
any affinity to temperance?</p>
<p>How can that be? he replied; pleasure deprives a man of the use of his
faculties quite as much as pain.</p>
<p>Or any affinity to virtue in general?</p>
<p>None whatever.</p>
<p>Any affinity to wantonness and intemperance?</p>
<p>Yes, the greatest.</p>
<p>And is there any greater or keener pleasure than that of sensual love?</p>
<p>No, nor a madder.</p>
<p>Whereas true love is a love of beauty and order—temperate and
harmonious?</p>
<p>Quite true, he said.</p>
<p>Then no intemperance or madness should be allowed to approach true love?</p>
<p>Certainly not.</p>
<p>Then mad or intemperate pleasure must never be allowed to come near the
lover and his beloved; neither of them can have any part in it if their
love is of the right sort?</p>
<p>No, indeed, Socrates, it must never come near them.</p>
<p>Then I suppose that in the city which we are founding you would make a law
to the effect that a friend should use no other familiarity to his love
than a father would use to his son, and then only for a noble purpose, and
he must first have the other's consent; and this rule is to limit him in
all his intercourse, and he is never to be seen going further, or, if he
exceeds, he is to be deemed guilty of coarseness and bad taste.</p>
<p>I quite agree, he said.</p>
<p>Thus much of music, which makes a fair ending; for what should be the end
of music if not the love of beauty?</p>
<p>I agree, he said.</p>
<p>After music comes gymnastic, in which our youth are next to be trained.</p>
<p>Certainly.</p>
<p>Gymnastic as well as music should begin in early years; the training in it
should be careful and should continue through life. Now my belief is,—and
this is a matter upon which I should like to have your opinion in
confirmation of my own, but my own belief is,—not that the good body
by any bodily excellence improves the soul, but, on the contrary, that the
good soul, by her own excellence, improves the body as far as this may be
possible. What do you say?</p>
<p>Yes, I agree.</p>
<p>Then, to the mind when adequately trained, we shall be right in handing
over the more particular care of the body; and in order to avoid prolixity
we will now only give the general outlines of the subject.</p>
<p>Very good.</p>
<p>That they must abstain from intoxication has been already remarked by us;
for of all persons a guardian should be the last to get drunk and not know
where in the world he is.</p>
<p>Yes, he said; that a guardian should require another guardian to take care
of him is ridiculous indeed.</p>
<p>But next, what shall we say of their food; for the men are in training for
the great contest of all—are they not?</p>
<p>Yes, he said.</p>
<p>And will the habit of body of our ordinary athletes be suited to them?</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>I am afraid, I said, that a habit of body such as they have is but a
sleepy sort of thing, and rather perilous to health. Do you not observe
that these athletes sleep away their lives, and are liable to most
dangerous illnesses if they depart, in ever so slight a degree, from their
customary regimen?</p>
<p>Yes, I do.</p>
<p>Then, I said, a finer sort of training will be required for our warrior
athletes, who are to be like wakeful dogs, and to see and hear with the
utmost keenness; amid the many changes of water and also of food, of
summer heat and winter cold, which they will have to endure when on a
campaign, they must not be liable to break down in health.</p>
<p>That is my view.</p>
<p>The really excellent gymnastic is twin sister of that simple music which
we were just now describing.</p>
<p>How so?</p>
<p>Why, I conceive that there is a gymnastic which, like our music, is simple
and good; and especially the military gymnastic.</p>
<p>What do you mean?</p>
<p>My meaning may be learned from Homer; he, you know, feeds his heroes at
their feasts, when they are campaigning, on soldiers' fare; they have no
fish, although they are on the shores of the Hellespont, and they are not
allowed boiled meats but only roast, which is the food most convenient for
soldiers, requiring only that they should light a fire, and not involving
the trouble of carrying about pots and pans.</p>
<p>True.</p>
<p>And I can hardly be mistaken in saying that sweet sauces are nowhere
mentioned in Homer. In proscribing them, however, he is not singular; all
professional athletes are well aware that a man who is to be in good
condition should take nothing of the kind.</p>
<p>Yes, he said; and knowing this, they are quite right in not taking them.</p>
<p>Then you would not approve of Syracusan dinners, and the refinements of
Sicilian cookery?</p>
<p>I think not.</p>
<p>Nor, if a man is to be in condition, would you allow him to have a
Corinthian girl as his fair friend?</p>
<p>Certainly not.</p>
<p>Neither would you approve of the delicacies, as they are thought, of
Athenian confectionary?</p>
<p>Certainly not.</p>
<p>All such feeding and living may be rightly compared by us to melody and
song composed in the panharmonic style, and in all the rhythms.</p>
<p>Exactly.</p>
<p>There complexity engendered licence, and here disease; whereas simplicity
in music was the parent of temperance in the soul; and simplicity in
gymnastic of health in the body.</p>
<p>Most true, he said.</p>
<p>But when intemperance and diseases multiply in a State, halls of justice
and medicine are always being opened; and the arts of the doctor and the
lawyer give themselves airs, finding how keen is the interest which not
only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them.</p>
<p>Of course.</p>
<p>And yet what greater proof can there be of a bad and disgraceful state of
education than this, that not only artisans and the meaner sort of people
need the skill of first-rate physicians and judges, but also those who
would profess to have had a liberal education? Is it not disgraceful, and
a great sign of want of good-breeding, that a man should have to go abroad
for his law and physic because he has none of his own at home, and must
therefore surrender himself into the hands of other men whom he makes
lords and judges over him?</p>
<p>Of all things, he said, the most disgraceful.</p>
<p>Would you say 'most,' I replied, when you consider that there is a further
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 every crooked
turn, and wriggle into and out of every hole, bending like a withy and
getting out of the way of justice: and all for what?—in order to
gain small points not worth mentioning, he not knowing that so to order
his life as to be able to do without a napping judge is a far higher and
nobler sort of thing. Is not that still more disgraceful?</p>
<p>Yes, he said, that is still more disgraceful.</p>
<p>Well, I said, and to require the help of medicine, not when a wound has 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 were a marsh, compelling the
ingenious sons of Asclepius to find more names for diseases, such as
flatulence and catarrh; is not this, too, a disgrace?</p>
<p>Yes, he said, they do certainly give very strange and newfangled names to
diseases.</p>
<p>Yes, I said, and I do not believe that there were any such diseases in the
days of Asclepius; and this I infer from the circumstance that the hero
Eurypylus, after he has been wounded in Homer, drinks a posset of Pramnian
wine well besprinkled with barley-meal and grated cheese, which are
certainly inflammatory, and yet the sons of Asclepius who were at the
Trojan war do not blame the damsel who gives him the drink, or rebuke
Patroclus, who is treating his case.</p>
<p>Well, he said, that was surely an extraordinary drink to be given to a
person in his condition.</p>
<p>Not so extraordinary, I replied, if you bear in mind that in former days,
as is commonly said, before the time of Herodicus, the guild of Asclepius
did not practise our present system of medicine, which may be said to
educate diseases. But Herodicus, being a trainer, and himself of a sickly
constitution, by a combination of training and doctoring found out a way
of torturing first and chiefly himself, and secondly the rest of the
world.</p>
<p>How was that? he said.</p>
<p>By the invention of lingering death; for he had a mortal disease which he
perpetually tended, and as recovery was out of the question, he passed his
entire life as a valetudinarian; he could do nothing but attend upon
himself, and he was in constant torment whenever he departed in anything
from his usual regimen, and so dying hard, by the help of science he
struggled on to old age.</p>
<p>A rare reward of his skill!</p>
<p>Yes, I said; a reward which a man might fairly expect who never understood
that, if Asclepius did not instruct his descendants in valetudinarian
arts, the omission arose, not from ignorance or inexperience of such a
branch of medicine, but because he knew that in all well-ordered states
every individual has an occupation to which he must attend, and has
therefore no leisure to spend in continually being ill. This we remark in
the case of the artisan, but, ludicrously enough, do not apply the same
rule to people of the richer sort.</p>
<p>How do you mean? he said.</p>
<p>I mean this: When a carpenter is ill he asks the physician for a rough and
ready cure; an emetic or a purge or a cautery or the knife,—these
are 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
that sort of thing, he replies at once that he has no time to be ill, and
that he sees no good in a life which is spent in nursing his disease to
the neglect of his customary employment; and therefore bidding good-bye to
this sort of physician, he resumes his ordinary habits, and either gets
well and lives and does his business, or, if his constitution fails, he
dies and has no more trouble.</p>
<p>Yes, he said, and a man in his condition of life ought to use the art of
medicine thus far only.</p>
<p>Has he not, I said, an occupation; and what profit would there be in his
life if he were deprived of his occupation?</p>
<p>Quite true, he said.</p>
<p>But with the rich man this is otherwise; of him we do not say that he has
any specially appointed work which he must perform, if he would live.</p>
<p>He is generally supposed to have nothing to do.</p>
<p>Then you never heard of the saying of Phocylides, that as soon as a man
has a livelihood he should practise virtue?</p>
<p>Nay, he said, I think that he had better begin somewhat sooner.</p>
<p>Let us not have a dispute with him about this, I said; but rather ask
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 raise a further
question, whether this dieting of disorders, which is an impediment to the
application of the mind in carpentering and the mechanical arts, does not
equally stand in the way of the sentiment of Phocylides?</p>
<p>Of that, he replied, there can be no doubt; such excessive care of the
body, when carried beyond the rules of gymnastic, is most inimical to the
practice of virtue.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed, I replied, and equally incompatible with the management of a
house, an army, or an office of state; and, what is most important of all,
irreconcileable with any kind of study or thought or self-reflection—there
is a constant suspicion that headache and giddiness are to be ascribed to
philosophy, and hence all practising or making trial of virtue in the
higher sense is absolutely stopped; for a man is always fancying that he
is being made ill, and is in constant anxiety about the state of his body.</p>
<p>Yes, likely enough.</p>
<p>And therefore our politic Asclepius may be supposed to have exhibited the
power of his art only to persons who, being generally of healthy
constitution and habits of life, had a definite ailment; such as these he
cured by purges and operations, and bade them live as usual, herein
consulting the interests of the State; but bodies which disease had
penetrated through and through he would not have attempted to cure by
gradual processes of evacuation and infusion: he did not want to lengthen
out good-for-nothing lives, or to have weak fathers begetting weaker sons;—if
a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure
him; for such a cure would have been of no use either to himself, or to
the State.</p>
<p>Then, he said, you regard Asclepius as a statesman.</p>
<p>Clearly; and his character is further illustrated by his sons. Note that
they were heroes in the days of old and practised the medicines of which I
am speaking at the siege of Troy: You will remember how, when Pandarus
wounded Menelaus, they</p>
<p>'Sucked the blood out of the wound, and sprinkled soothing remedies,'</p>
<p>but they never prescribed what the patient was afterwards to eat or drink
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 before he was
wounded was healthy and regular in his habits; and even though he did
happen to drink a posset of Pramnian wine, he might get well all the same.
But they would have nothing to do with unhealthy and intemperate subjects,
whose lives were of no use either to themselves or others; the art of
medicine was not designed for their good, and though they were as rich as
Midas, the sons of Asclepius would have declined to attend them.</p>
<p>They were very acute persons, those sons of Asclepius.</p>
<p>Naturally so, I replied. Nevertheless, the tragedians and Pindar
disobeying our behests, although they acknowledge that Asclepius was the
son of Apollo, say also that he was bribed into healing a rich man who was
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, will not
believe them when they tell us both;—if he was the son of a god, we
maintain that he was not avaricious; or, if he was avaricious, he was not
the son of a god.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />