Laws
life according to nature and in disobedience to law; for nobody believes
the Gods to be such as the law affirms. 'How true! and oh! how injurious
to states and to families!' But then, what should the lawgiver do?
Should he stand up in the state and threaten mankind with the severest
penalties if they persist in their unbelief, while he makes no attempt
to win them by persuasion? 'Nay, Stranger, the legislator ought never to
weary of trying to persuade the world that there are Gods; and he should
declare that law and art exist by nature.' Yes, Cleinias; but these are
difficult and tedious questions. 'And shall our patience, which was
not exhausted in the enquiry about music or drink, fail now that we are
discoursing about the Gods? There may be a difficulty in framing laws,
but when written down they remain, and time and diligence will make them
clear; if they are useful there would be neither reason nor religion in
rejecting them on account of their length.' Most true. And the general
spread of unbelief shows that the legislator should do something in
vindication of the laws, when they are being undermined by bad men.
'He should.' You agree with me, Cleinias, that the heresy consists in
supposing earth, air, fire, and water to be the first of all things.
These the heretics call nature, conceiving them to be prior to the soul.
'I agree.' You would further agree that natural philosophy is the source
of this impiety--the study appears to be pursued in a wrong way. 'In
what way do you mean?' The error consists in transposing first and
second causes. They do not see that the soul is before the body, and
before all other things, and the author and ruler of them all. And if
the soul is prior to the body, then the things of the soul are prior to
the things of the body. In other words, opinion, attention, mind, art,
law, are prior to sensible qualities; and the first and greater works of
creation are the results of art and mind, whereas the works of nature,
as they are improperly termed, are secondary and subsequent. 'Why do you
say "improperly"?' Because when they speak of nature they seem to mean
the first creative power. But if the soul is first, and not fire and
air, then the soul above all things may be said to exist by nature. And
this can only be on the supposition that the soul is prior to the body.
Shall we try to prove that it is so? 'By all means.' I fear that the
greenness of our argument will ludicrously contrast with the ripeness of
our ages. But as we must go into the water, and the stream is strong, I
will first attempt to cross by myself, and if I arrive at the bank, you
shall follow. Remembering that you are unaccustomed to such discussions,
I will ask and answer the questions myself, while you listen in safety.
But first I must pray the Gods to assist at the demonstration of their
own existence--if ever we are to call upon them, now is the time. Let
me hold fast to the rope, and enter into the depths: Shall I put the
question to myself in this form?--Are all things at rest, and is nothing
in motion? or are some things in motion, and some things at rest? 'The
latter.' And do they move and rest, some in one place, some in more?
'Yes.' There may be (1) motion in the same place, as in revolution on an
axis, which is imparted swiftly to the larger and slowly to the lesser
circle; and there may be motion in different places, having sometimes
(2) one centre of motion and sometimes (3) more. (4) When bodies in
motion come against other bodies which are at rest, they are divided
by them, and (5) when they are caught between other bodies coming from
opposite directions they unite with them; and (6) they grow by union and
(7) waste by dissolution while their constitution remains the same, but
are (8) destroyed when their constitution fails. There is a growth from
one dimension to two, and from a second to a third, which then becomes
perceptible to sense; this process is called generation, and the
opposite, destruction. We have now enumerated all possible motions
with the exception of two. 'What are they?' Just the two with which our
enquiry is concerned; for our enquiry relates to the soul. There is one
kind of motion which is only able to move other things; there is another
which can move itself as well, working in composition and decomposition,
by increase and diminution, by generation and destruction. 'Granted.'
(9) That which moves and is moved by another is the ninth kind of
motion; (10) that which is self-moved and moves others is the tenth. And
this tenth kind of motion is the mightiest, and is really the first, and
is followed by that which was improperly called the ninth. 'How do you
mean?' Must not that which is moved by others finally depend upon that
which is moved by itself? Nothing can be affected by any transition
prior to self-motion. Then the first and eldest principle of motion,
whether in things at rest or not at rest, will be the principle of
self-motion; and that which is moved by others and can move others will
be the second. 'True.' Let me ask another question:
What is the name which is given to self-motion when manifested in any
material substance? 'Life.' And soul too is life? 'Very good.' And are
there not three kinds of knowledge--a knowledge (1) of the essence, (2)
of the definition, (3) of the name? And sometimes the name leads us
to ask the definition, sometimes the definition to ask the name. For
example, number can be divided into equal parts, and when thus divided
is termed even, and the definition of even and the word 'even' refer
to the same thing. 'Very true.' And what is the definition of the thing
which is named 'soul'? Must we not reply, 'The self-moved'? And have we
not proved that the self-moved is the source of motion in other things?
'Yes.' And the motion which is not self-moved will be inferior to this?
'True.' And if so, we shall be right in saying that the soul is prior
and superior to the body, and the body by nature subject and inferior to
the soul? 'Quite right.' And we agreed that if the soul was prior to
the body, the things of the soul were prior to the things of the body?
'Certainly.' And therefore desires, and manners, and thoughts, and true
opinions, and recollections, are prior to the length and breadth and
force of bodies. 'To be sure.' In the next place, we acknowledge that
the soul is the cause of good and evil, just and unjust, if we suppose
her to be the cause of all things? 'Certainly.' And the soul which
orders all things must also order the heavens? 'Of course.' One soul
or more? More; for less than two are inconceivable, one good, the other
evil. 'Most true.' The soul directs all things by her movements, which
we call will, consideration, attention, deliberation, opinion true and
false, joy, sorrow, courage, fear, hatred, love, and similar affections.
These are the primary movements, and they receive the secondary
movements of bodies, and guide all things to increase and diminution,
separation and union, and to all the qualities which accompany
them--cold, hot, heavy, light, hard, soft, white, black, sweet, bitter;
these and other such qualities the soul, herself a goddess, uses, when
truly receiving the divine mind she leads all things rightly to their
happiness; but under the impulse of folly she works out an opposite
result. For the controller of heaven and earth and the circle of the
world is either the wise and good soul, or the foolish and vicious soul,
working in them. 'What do you mean?' If we say that the whole course
and motion of heaven and earth is in accordance with the workings and
reasonings of mind, clearly the best soul must have the care of the
heaven, and guide it along that better way. 'True.' But if the heavens
move wildly and disorderly, then they must be under the guidance of the
evil soul. 'True again.' What is the nature of the movement of the soul?
We must not suppose that we can see and know the soul with our bodily
eyes, any more than we can fix them on the midday sun; it will be safer
to look at an image only. 'How do you mean?' Let us find among the ten
kinds of motion an image of the motion of the mind. You remember, as
we said, that all things are divided into two classes; and some of them
were moved and some at rest. 'Yes.' And of those which were moved, some
were moved in the same place, others in more places than one. 'Just so.'
The motion which was in one place was circular, like the motion of a
spherical body; and such a motion in the same place, and in the same
relations, is an excellent image of the motion of mind. 'Very true.' The
motion of the other sort, which has no fixed place or manner or relation
or order or proportion, is akin to folly and nonsense. 'Very true.'
After what has been said, it is clear that, since the soul carries round
all things, some soul which is either very good or the opposite carries
round the circumference of heaven. But that soul can be no other than
the best. Again, the soul carries round the sun, moon, and stars, and if
the sun has a soul, then either the soul of the sun is within and moves
the sun as the human soul moves the body; or, secondly, the sun is
contained in some external air or fire, which the soul provides and
through which she operates; or, thirdly, the course of the sun is guided
by the soul acting in a wonderful manner without a body. 'Yes, in one
of those ways the soul must guide all things.' And this soul of the
sun, which is better than the sun, whether driving him in a chariot or
employing any other agency, is by every man called a God? 'Yes, by every
man who has any sense.' And of the seasons, stars, moon, and year, in
like manner, it may be affirmed that the soul or souls from which they
derive their excellence are divine; and without insisting on the manner
of their working, no one can deny that all things are full of Gods. 'No
one.' And now let us offer an alternative to him who denies that there
are Gods. Either he must show that the soul is not the origin of all
things, or he must live for the future in the belief that there are
Gods.
Next, as to the man who believes in the Gods, but refuses to acknowledge
that they take care of human things--let him too have a word of
admonition. 'Best of men,' we will say to him, 'some affinity to the
Gods leads you to honour them and to believe in them. But you have heard
the happiness of wicked men sung by poets and admired by the world, and
this has drawn you away from your natural piety. Or you have seen the
wicked growing old in prosperity, and leaving great offices to their
children; or you have watched the tyrant succeeding in his career of
crime; and considering all these things you have been led to believe in
an irrational way that the Gods take no care of human affairs. That your
error may not increase, I will endeavour to purify your soul.' Do you,
Megillus and Cleinias, make answer for the youth, and when we come to
a difficulty, I will carry you over the water as I did before. 'Very
good.' He will easily be convinced that the Gods care for the small as
well as the great; for he heard what was said of their goodness and of
their having all things under their care. 'He certainly heard.' Then now
let us enquire what is meant by the virtue of the Gods. To possess mind
belongs to virtue, and the contrary to vice. 'That is what we say.' And
is not courage a part of virtue, and cowardice of vice? 'Certainly.'
And to the Gods we ascribe virtues; but idleness and indolence are not
virtues. 'Of course not.' And is God to be conceived of as a careless,
indolent fellow, such as the poet would compare to a stingless drone?
'Impossible.' Can we be right in praising any one who cares for great
matters and leaves the small to take care of themselves? Whether God or