Classic Political Philosophy for the Modern Man Read online

  Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.

  Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a state, can liberty have any limit?

  Certainly not.

  By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.

  How do you mean?

  I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and metic[2] is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.

  Yes, he said, that is the way.

  And these are not the only evils, I said—there are several lesser ones. In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.

  Quite true, he said.

  The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.

  Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?

  That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other state: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them; and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.

  When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.

  And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

  Yes, he said, I know it too well.

  Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.

  Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?

  The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy—the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.

  True.

  The excess of liberty, whether in states or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

  Yes, the natural order.

  And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?

  As we might expect.

  That, however, was not, as I believe, your question—you rather desired to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?

  Just so, he replied.

  Well, I said, I meant to refer to the class of idle spendthrifts, of whom the more courageous are the leaders and the more timid the followers, the same whom we were comparing to drones, some stingless, and others having stings.

  A very just comparison.

  These two classes are the plagues of every city in which they are generated, being what phlegm and bile are to the body. And the good physician and lawgiver of the state ought, like the wise bee-master, to keep them at a distance and prevent, if possible, their ever coming in; and if they have anyhow found a way in, then he should have them and their cells cut out as speedily as possible.

  Yes, by all means, he said.

  Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical state.

  That is true.

  And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.

  How so?

  Because in the oligarchical state they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema[3] and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.

  Very true, he said.

  Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.

  What is that?

  They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders sure to be the richest.

  Naturally so.

  They are the most squeezable persons and yield the largest amount of honey to the drones.

  Why, he said, there is little to be squeezed out of people who have little.

  And this is called the wealthy class, and the drones feed upon them.

  That is pretty much the case, he said.

  The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.

  True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.

  And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?

  Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.

  And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?

  What else can they do?

  And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy? True.

  And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.

  That is exactly the truth.

  Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.

  True.

  The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.

  Yes, that is their way.

  This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.

  Yes, that is quite clear.

  How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.

  What tale?

  The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it?

  Oh, yes.

  And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizen; some he kills and others he ban
ishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands; and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf—that is, a tyrant?

  Inevitably.

  This, I said, is he who begins to make a party against the rich?

  The same.

  After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown.

  That is clear.

  And if they are unable to expel him, or to get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him.

  Yes, he said, that is their usual way.

  Then comes the famous request for a bodyguard, which is the device of all those who have got thus far in their tyrannical career. ‘Let not the people’s friend,’ as they say, ‘be lost to them.’

  Exactly.

  The people readily assent; all their fears are for him—they have none for themselves.

  Very true.

  And when a man who is wealthy and is also accused of being an enemy of the people sees this, then, my friend, as the oracle said to Croesus, ‘By pebbly Hermus’ shore he flees and rests not and is not ashamed to be a coward.’ And quite right too, said he, for if he were, he would never be ashamed again.

  But if he is caught he dies.

  Of course.

  And he, the protector of whom we spoke, is to be seen, not ‘larding the plain’ with his bulk, but himself the overthrower of many, standing up in the chariot of state with the reins in his hand, no longer protector, but tyrant absolute.

  No doubt, he said.

  And now let us consider the happiness of the man, and also of the state in which a creature like him is generated.

  Yes, he said, let us consider that.

  At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets—he to be called a tyrant, who is making promises in public, and also in private, liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one!

  Of course, he said.

  But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.

  To be sure.

  Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him? Clearly.

  And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.

  He must.

  Now he begins to grow unpopular.

  A necessary result.

  Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.

  Yes, that may be expected.

  And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.

  He cannot.

  And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no, until he has made a purgation of the state.

  Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.

  Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part, but he does the reverse.

  If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.

  What a blessed alternative, I said—to be compelled to dwell only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at all!

  Yes, that is the alternative.

  And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?

  Certainly.

  And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?

  They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if he pays them.

  By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.

  Yes, he said, there are.

  But will he not desire to get them on the spot?

  How do you mean?

  He will rob the citizens of their slaves; he will then set them free and enrol them in his bodyguard.

  To be sure, he said; and he will be able to trust them best of all.

  What a blessed creature, I said, must this tyrant be; he has put to death the others and has these for his trusted friends.

  Yes, he said; they are quite of his sort.

  Yes, I said, and these are the new citizens whom he has called into existence, who admire him and are his companions, while the good hate and avoid him.

  Of course.

  Verily, then, tragedy is a wise thing and Euripides a great tragedian.

  Why so?

  Why, because he is the author of the pregnant saying, ‘Tyrants are wise by living with the wise’; and he clearly meant to say that they are the wise whom the tyrant makes his companions.

  Yes, he said, and he also praises tyranny as godlike; and many other things of the same kind are said by him and by the other poets.

  And therefore, I said, the tragic poets being wise men will forgive us and any others who live after our manner if we do not receive them into our state, because they are the eulogists of tyranny.

  Yes, he said, those who have the wit will doubtless forgive us.

  But they will continue to go to other cities and attract mobs, and hire voices fair and loud and persuasive, and draw the cities over to tyrannies and democracies.

  Very true.

  Moreover, they are paid for this and receive honour—the greatest honour, as might be expected, from tyrants, and the next greatest from democracies; but the higher they ascend our constitution hill, the more their reputation fails, and seems unable from shortness of breath to proceed further.

  True.

  But we are wandering from the subject: let us therefore return and inquire how the tyrant will maintain that fair and numerous and various and ever-changing army of his.

  If, he said, there are sacred treasures in the city, he will confiscate and spend them; and in so far as the fortunes of attainted persons may suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which he would otherwise have to impose upon the people.

  And when these fail?

  Why, clearly, he said, then he and his boon companions, whether male or female, will be maintained out of his father’s estate.

  You mean to say that the people, from whom he has derived his being, will maintain him and his companions?

  Yes, he said; they cannot help themselves.

  But what if the people fly into a passion, and aver that a grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father, but that the father should be supported by the son? The father did not bring him into being, or settle him in life, in order that when his son became a man he should himself be the servant of his own servants and should support him and his rabble of slaves and companions; but that his son should protect him, and that by his help he might be emancipated from the government of the rich and aristocratic, as they are termed. And so he bids him and his companions depart, just as any other father might drive out of the house a riotous son and his undesirable associates.

  By heaven, he said, then the parent will discover what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom; and, when he wants to drive him out, he will find that he is weak and his son strong.

  Why, you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence? What! Beat his father if he opposes him?

  Yes, he will, having first disarmed him.

  Then he is a parricide, and a cruel gu
ardian of an aged parent; and this is real tyranny, about which there can be no longer a mistake: as the saying is, the people who would escape the smoke which is the slavery of freemen, has fallen into the fire which is the tyranny of slaves. Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery.

  True, he said.

  Very well; and may we not rightly say that we have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny, and the manner of the transition from democracy to tyranny?

  Yes, quite enough, he said.

  * * *

  While usually translated as ‘music' and ‘gymnastics', Plato intended to indicate activities of much broader scope. ↵

  A foreigner living in an ancient Greek city who had some of the privileges of citizenship. ↵

  An elevated platform used as an orator's podium in ancient Athens. ↵

  2

  Aristotle, Politics

  Introduction

  When Raphael painted ‘The School of Athens’, he depicted at the centre of the fresco Plato and Aristotle deep in conversation as they stroll forward towards the viewer. Plato is rendered as a wise old man pointing upwards toward the heavens, while next to him appears a younger, virile-looking Aristotle with hand held out horizontally in front, in an arrangement that represents figuratively the otherworldly idealism of the former and the this-worldly empiricism of the latter. Developing the contrast, Raphael shows Plato bearing his Timaeus, a work of abstract metaphysics, whereas Aristotle holds his Nicomachean Ethics, a guidebook on living well. The artist’s insight into the respective orientations of these two great ancient philosophers is, however, just as instructive for our understanding of their political philosophies as it for their philosophies generally: for where Plato dreamed of utopia in his Republic, Aristotle provides in his Politics one of the most down-to-earth accounts of politics in practice.