Plato:
The Nature and Origin of Tyranny
(Continued)
Republic, IX,
passim
Last of all comes the tyrannical man; about whom
we have once more to ask, how is he formed out of
the democratical? and how does he live, in
happiness or in misery?
Yes, he said, he is the only one remaining.
There is, however, I said, a previous question
which remains unanswered.
What question?
I do not think that we have adequately
determined the nature and number of the appetites,
and until this is accomplished the inquiry will
always be confused.
Well, he said, it is not too late to supply the
omission.
Very true, I said; and observe the point which I
want to understand: Certain of the unnecessary
pleasures and appetites I conceive to be unlawful;
everyone appears to have them, but in some persons
they are controlled by the laws and by reason, and
the better desires prevail over them -- either they
are wholly banished or they become few and weak;
while in the case of others they are stronger, and
there are more of them.
Which appetites do you mean?
I mean those which are awake when the reasoning
and human and ruling power is asleep; then the wild
beast within us, gorged with meat or drink, starts
up and, having shaken off sleep, goes forth to
satisfy his desires; and there is no conceivable
folly or crime -- not excepting incest or any other
unnatural union, or parricide, or the eating of
forbidden food -- which at such a time, when he has
parted company with all shame and sense, a man may
not be ready to commit.
Most true, he said.
But when a man's pulse is healthy and temperate,
and when before going to sleep he has awakened his
rational powers, and fed them on noble thoughts and
inquiries, collecting himself in meditation; after
having first indulged his appetites neither too
much nor too little, but just enough to lay them to
sleep, and prevent them and their enjoyments and
pains from interfering with the higher principle --
which he leaves in the solitude of pure
abstraction, free to contemplate and aspire to the
knowledge of the unknown, whether in past, present,
or future: when again he has allayed the passionate
element, if he has a quarrel against anyone -- I
say, when, after pacifying the two irrational
principles, he rouses up the third, which is
reason, before he takes his rest, then, as you
know, he attains truth most nearly, and is least
likely to be the sport of fantastic and lawless
visions.
I quite agree.
In saying this I have been running into a
digression; but the point which I desire to note is
that in all of us, even in good men, there is a
lawless wild-beast nature, which peers out in
sleep. Pray, consider whether I am right, and you
agree with me.
Yes, I agree.
And now remember the character which we
attributed to the democratic man. He was supposed
from his youth upward to have been trained under a
miserly parent, who encouraged the saving appetites
in him, but discountenanced the unnecessary, which
aim only at amusement and ornament?
True.
And then he got into the company of a more
refined, licentious sort of people, and taking to
all their wanton ways rushed into the opposite
extreme from an abhorrence of his father's
meanness. At last, being a better man than his
corruptors, he was drawn in both directions until
he halted midway and led a life, not of vulgar and
slavish passion, but of what he deemed moderate
indulgence in various pleasures. After this manner
the democrat was generated out of the oligarch?
Yes, he said; that was our view of him, and is
so still.
And now, I said, years will have passed away,
and you must conceive this man, such as he is, to
have a son, who is brought up in his father's
principles.
I can imagine him.
Then you must further imagine the same thing to
happen to the son which has already happened to the
father: he is drawn into a perfectly lawless life,
which by his seducers is termed perfect liberty;
and his father and friends take part with his
moderate desires, and the opposite party assist the
opposite ones. As soon as these dire magicians and
tyrant-makers find that they are losing
their hold on him, they contrive to implant in him
a master-passion, to be lord over his idle and
spendthrift lusts -- a sort of monstrous winged
drone -- that is the only image which will
adequately describe him.
Yes, he said, that is the only adequate image of
him.
And when his other lusts, amid clouds of incense
and perfumes and garlands and wines, and all the
pleasures of a dissolute life, now let loose, come
buzzing around him, nourishing to the utmost the
sting of desire which they implant in his
drone-like nature, then at last this lord of the
soul, having Madness for the captain of his guard,
breaks out into a frenzy; and if he finds in
himself any good opinions or appetites in process
of formation, and there is in him any sense of
shame remaining, to these better principles he puts
an end, and casts them forth until he has purged
away temperance and brought in madness to the
full.
Yes, he said, that is the way in which the
tyrannical man is generated.
And is not this the reason why, of old, love has
been called a tyrant?
I should not wonder.
Further, I said, has not a drunken man also the
spirit of a tyrant?
He has.
And you know that a man who is deranged, and not
right in his mind, will fancy that he is able to
rule, not only over men, but also over the
gods?
That he will.
And the tyrannical man in the true sense of the
word comes into being when, either under the
influence of nature or habit, or both, he becomes
drunken, lustful, passionate? O my friend, is not
that so?
Assuredly.
Such is the man and such is his origin. And
next, how does he live?
Suppose, as people facetiously say, you were to
tell me.
I imagine, I said, at the next step in his
progress, that there will be feasts and carousals
and revellings and courtesans, and all that sort of
thing; Love is the lord of the house within him,
and orders all the concerns of his soul.
That is certain.
Yes; and every day and every night desires grow
up many and formidable, and their demands are
many.
They are indeed, he said.
His revenues, if he has any, are soon spent.
True.
Then come debt and the cutting down of his
property.
Of course.
When he has nothing left, must not his desires,
crowding in the nest like young ravens, be crying
aloud for food; and he, goaded on by them, and
especially by love himself, who is in a manner the
captain of them, is in a frenzy, and would fain
discover whom he can defraud or despoil of his
property, in order that he may gratify them?
Yes, that is sure to be the case.
He must have money, no matter how, if he is to
escape horrid pains and pangs.
He must.
And as in himself there was a succession of
pleasures, and the new got the better of the old
and took away their rights, so he being younger
will claim to have more than his father and his
mother, and if he has spent his own share of the
property, he will take a slice of theirs.
No doubt he will.
And if his parents will not give way, then he
will try first of all to cheat and deceive
them.
Very true.
And if he fails, then he will use force and
plunder them.
Yes, probably.
And if the old man and woman fight for their
own, what then, my friend? Will the creature feel
any compunction at tyrannizing over them?
Nay, he said, I should not feel at all
comfortable about his parents.
But, O heavens! Adeimantus, on account of some
newfangled love of a harlot, who is anything but a
necessary connection, can you believe that he would
strike the mother who is his ancient friend and
necessary to his very existence, and would place
her under the authority of the other, when she is
brought under the same roof with her; or that,
under like circumstances, he would do the same to
his withered old father, first and most
indispensable of friends, for the sake of some
newly found blooming youth who is the reverse of
indispensable?
Yes, indeed, he said; I believe that he
would.
Truly, then, I said, a tyrannical son is a
blessing to his father and mother.
He is indeed, he replied.
He first takes their property, and when that
fails, and pleasures are beginning to swarm in the
hive of his soul, then he breaks into a house, or
steals the garments of some nightly wayfarer; next
he proceeds to clear a temple. Meanwhile the old
opinions which he had when a child, and which gave
judgment about good and evil, are overthrown by
those others which have just been emancipated, and
are now the bodyguard of love and share his empire.
These in his democratic days, when he was still
subject to the laws and to his father, were only
let loose in the dreams of sleep. But now that he
is under the dominion of Love, he becomes always
and in waking reality what he was then very rarely
and in a dream only; he will commit the foulest
murder, or eat forbidden food, or be guilty of any
other horrid act. Love is his tyrant, and
lives lordly in him and lawlessly, and being
himself a king, leads him on, as a tyrant
leads a State, to the performance of any reckless
deed by which he can maintain himself and the
rabble of his associates, whether those whom evil
communications have brought in from without, or
those whom he himself has allowed to break loose
within him by reason of a similar evil nature in
himself. Have we not here a picture of his way of
life?
Yes, indeed, he said.
And if there are only a few of them in the
State, and the rest of the people are well
disposed, they go away and become the body-guard of
mercenary soldiers of some other tyrant who
may probably want them for a war; and if there is
no war, they stay at home and do many little pieces
of mischief in the city.
What sort of mischief?
For example, they are the thieves, burglars,
cut-purses, footpads, robbers of temples,
man-stealers of the community; or if they are able
to speak, they turn informers and bear false
witness and take bribes.
A small catalogue of evils, even if the
perpetrators of them are few in number.
Yes, I said; but small and great are comparative
terms, and all these things, in the misery and evil
which they inflict upon a State, do not come within
a thousand miles of the tyrant; when this
noxious class and their followers grow numerous and
become conscious of their strength, assisted by the
infatuation of the people, they choose from among
themselves the one who has most of the
tyrant in his own soul, and him they create
their tyrant.
Yes, he said, and he will be the most fit to be
a tyrant.
If the people yield, well and good; but if they
resist him, as he began by beating his own father
and mother, so now, if he has the power, he beats
them, and will keep his dear old fatherland or
motherland, as the Cretans say, in subjection to
his young retainers whom he has introduced to be
their rulers and masters. This is the end of his
passions and desires.
Exactly.
When such men are only private individuals and
before they get power, this is their character;
they associate entirely with their own flatterers
or ready tools; or if they want anything from
anybody, they in their turn are equally ready to
bow down before them: they profess every sort of
affection for them; but when they have gained their
point they know them no more.
Yes, truly.
They are always either the masters or servants
and never the friends of anybody; the tyrant
never tastes of true freedom or friendship.
Certainly not.
And may we not rightly call such men
treacherous?
No question.
Also they are utterly unjust, if we were right
in our notion of justice?
Yes, he said, and we were perfectly right.
Let us, then, sum up in a word, I said, the
character of the worst man: he is the waking
reality of what we dreamed.
Most true.
And this is he who being by nature most of a
tyrant bears rule, and the longer he lives
the more of a tyrant he becomes.
That is certain, said Glaucon, taking his turn
to answer.
And will not he who has been shown to be the
wickedest, be also the most miserable? and he who
has tyrannized longest and most, most continually
and truly miserable; although this may not be the
opinion of men in general?
Yes, he said, inevitably.
And must not the tyrannical man be like the
tyrannical State, and the democratical man like the
democratical State; and the same of the others?
Certainly.
And as State is to State in virtue and
happiness, so is man in relation to man?
To be sure.
Then comparing our original city, which was
under a king, and the city which is under a
tyrant, how do they stand as to virtue?
They are the opposite extremes, he said, for one
is the very best and the other is the very
worst.
There can be no mistake, I said, as to which is
which, and therefore I will at once inquire whether
you would arrive at a similar decision about their
relative happiness and misery. And here we must not
allow ourselves to be panic-stricken at the
apparition of the tyrant, who is only a unit
and may perhaps have a few retainers about him; but
let us go as we ought into every corner of the city
and look all about, and then we will give our
opinion.
A fair invitation, he replied; and I see, as
everyone must, that a tyranny is the
wretchedest form of government, and the rule of a
king the happiest.
And in estimating the men, too, may I not fairly
make a like request, that I should have a judge
whose mind can enter into and see through human
nature? he must not be like a child who looks at
the outside and is dazzled at the pompous aspect
which the tyrannical nature assumes to the
beholder, but let him be one who has a clear
insight. May I suppose that the judgment is given
in the hearing of us all by one who is able to
judge, and has dwelt in the same place with him,
and been present at his daily life and known him in
his family relations, where he may be seen stripped
of his tragedy attire, and again in the hour of
public danger -- he shall tell us about the
happiness and misery of the tyrant when
compared with other men?
That again, he said, is a very fair
proposal.
Shall I assume that we ourselves are able and
experienced judges and have before now met with
such a person? We shall then have someone who will
answer our inquiries.
By all means.
Let me ask you not to forget the parallel of the
individual and the State; bearing this in mind, and
glancing in turn from one to the other of them,
will you tell me their respective conditions?
What do you mean? he asked.
Beginning with the State, I replied, would you
say that a city which is governed by a
tyrant is free or enslaved?
No city, he said, can be more completely
enslaved.
And yet, as you see, there are freemen as well
as masters in such a State?
Yes, he said, I see that there are -- a few; but
the people, speaking generally, and the best of
them are miserably degraded and enslaved.
Then if the man is like the State, I said, must
not the same rule prevail? His soul is full of
meanness and vulgarity -- the best elements in him
are enslaved; and there is a small ruling part,
which is also the worst and maddest.
Inevitably.
And would you say that the soul of such a one is
the soul of a freeman or of a slave?
He has the soul of a slave, in my opinion.
And the State which is enslaved under a
tyrant is utterly incapable of acting
voluntarily?
Utterly incapable.
And also the soul which is under a tyrant
(I am speaking of the soul taken as a whole) is
least capable of doing what she desires; there is a
gadfly which goads her, and she is full of trouble
and remorse?
Certainly.
And is the city which is under a tyrant
rich or poor?
Poor.
And the tyrannical soul must be always poor and
insatiable?
True.
And must not such a State and such a man be
always full of fear?
Yes, indeed.
Is there any State in which you will find more
of lamentation and sorrow and groaning and
pain?
Certainly not.
And is there any man in whom you will find more
of this sort of misery than in the tyrannical man,
who is in a fury of passions and desires?
Impossible.
Reflecting upon these and similar evils, you
held the tyrannical State to be the most miserable
of States?
And I was right, he said.
Certainly, I said. And when you see the same
evils in the tyrannical man, what do you say of
him?
I say that he is by far the most miserable of
all men.
There, I said, I think that you are beginning to
go wrong.
What do you mean?
I do not think that he has as yet reached the
utmost extreme of misery.
Then who is more miserable?
One of whom I am about to speak.
Who is that?
He who is of a tyrannical nature, and instead of
leading a private life has been cursed with the
further misfortune of being a public
tyrant.
From what has been said, I gather that you are
right.
Yes, I replied, but in this high argument you
should be a little more certain, and should not
conjecture only; for of all questions, this
respecting good and evil is the greatest.
Very true, he said.
Let me then offer you an illustration, which
may, I think, throw a light upon this subject.
What is your illustration?
The case of rich individuals in cities who
possess many slaves: from them you may form an idea
of the tyrant's condition, for they both
have slaves; the only difference is that he has
more slaves.
Yes, that is the difference.
You know that they live securely and have
nothing to apprehend from their servants?
What should they fear?
Nothing. But do you observe the reason of
this?
Yes; the reason is, that the whole city is
leagued together for the protection of each
individual.
Very true, I said. But imagine one of these
owners, the master say of some fifty slaves,
together with his family and property and slaves,
carried off by a god into the wilderness, where
there are no freemen to help him -- will he not be
in an agony of fear lest he and his wife and
children should be put to death by his slaves?
Yes, he said, he will be in the utmost fear.
The time has arrived when he will be compelled
to flatter divers of his slaves, and make many
promises to them of freedom and other things, much
against his will -- he will have to cajole his own
servants.
Yes, he said, that will be the only way of
saving himself.
And suppose the same god, who carried him away,
to surround him with neighbors who will not suffer
one man to be the master of another, and who, if
they could catch the offender, would take his
life?
His case will be still worse, if you suppose him
to be everywhere surrounded and watched by
enemies.
And is not this the sort of prison in which the
tyrant will be bound -- he who being by
nature such as we have described, is full of all
sorts of fears and lusts? His soul is dainty and
greedy, and yet alone, of all men in the city, he
is never allowed to go on a journey, or to see the
things which other freemen desire to see, but he
lives in his hole like a woman hidden in the house,
and is jealous of any other citizen who goes into
foreign parts and sees anything of interest.
Very true, he said.
And amid evils such as these will not he who is
ill-governed in his own person -- the tyrannical
man, I mean -- whom you just now decided to be the
most miserable of all -- will not he be yet more
miserable when, instead of leading a private life,
he is constrained by fortune to be a public
tyrant? He has to be master of others when
he is not master of himself: he is like a diseased
or paralytic man who is compelled to pass his life,
not in retirement, but fighting and combating with
other men.
Yes, he said, the similitude is most exact.
Is not his case utterly miserable? and does not
the actual tyrant lead a worse life than he
whose life you determined to be the worst?
Certainly.
He who is the real tyrant, whatever men
may think, is the real slave, and is obliged to
practise the greatest adulation and servility, and
to be the flatterer of the vilest of mankind. He
has desires which he is utterly unable to satisfy,
and has more wants than anyone, and is truly poor,
if you know how to inspect the whole soul of him:
all his life long he is beset with fear and is full
of convulsions and distractions, even as the State
which he resembles: and surely the resemblance
holds?
Very true, he said.
Moreover, as we were saying before, he grows
worse from having power: he becomes and is of
necessity more jealous, more faithless, more
unjust, more friendless, more impious, than he was
at first; he is the purveyor and cherisher of every
sort of vice, and the consequence is that he is
supremely miserable, and that he makes everybody
else as miserable as himself.
No man of any sense will dispute your words.
Come, then, I said, and as the general umpire in
theatrical contests proclaims the result, do you
also decide who in your opinion is first in the
scale of happiness, and who second, and in what
order the others follow: there are five of them in
all -- they are the royal, timocratical,
oligarchical, democratical, tyrannical.
The decision will be easily given, he replied;
they shall be choruses coming on the stage, and I
must judge them in the order in which they enter,
by the criterion of virtue and vice, happiness and
misery.
Need we hire a herald, or shall I announce that
the son of Ariston (the best) has decided that the
best and justest is also the happiest, and that
this is he who is the most royal man and king over
himself; and that the worst and most unjust man is
also the most miserable, and that this is he who
being the greatest tyrant of himself is also
the greatest tyrant of his State?
Return
to Previous Page
Tyranny
& Despotism Index
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|