Republic (Plato)

Politeia; Latin: Res Publica[1]) is a Socratic dialogue, written

The Republic (Greek: Πολιτεία, Politeia
The Republic
by Plato around 380 BC, concerning justice (δικαιοσύνη), the order and character of the just
city-state, and the just man.[2] It is Plato's best-known work, and has proven to be one of
the world's most influential works of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually
and historically.[3][4]

In the dialogue, Socrates discusses with various Athenians and foreigners about the
meaning of justice and whether the just man is happier than the unjust man.[5] They
consider the natures of existing regimes and then propose a series of different,
hypothetical cities in comparison, culminating in Kallipolis (Καλλίπολις), a city-state ruled
by a philosopher king. They also discuss the theory of forms, the immortality of the soul,
and the role of the philosopher and of poetry in society.[6] The dialogue's setting seems to
be during the Peloponnesian War.[7]
Title page of the oldest manuscript:
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Gr.

2 Structure Author
1807 (late 9th century)
Plato
Original title Πολιτεία

2.1 By book Country Ancient Greece

Language Greek
Subject Political philosophy
2.1.1 Book I Published c. 380 BC

While visiting the Piraeus with Glaucon, Polemarchus asks Socrates to join him for a celebration. Socrates then asks Cephalus,
Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus their definitions of justice. Cephalus defines justice as giving what is owed. Polemarchus says
justice is "the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies." Thrasymachus proclaims "justice is nothing else than the
interest of the stronger." Socrates overturns their definitions and says that it is to your advantage to be just and disadvantage to
be unjust. The first book ends in aporia concerning its essence.

2.1.2 Book II
Socrates believes he has answered Thrasymachus and is done with the discussion of justice.

Socrates' young companions, Glaucon and Adeimantus, continue the argument of Thrasymachus for the sake of furthering the
discussion. Glaucon gives a speech in which he argues first that the origin of justice was in social contracts aimed at preventing
one from suffering injustice and being unable to take revenge, second that all those who practice justice do so unwillingly and
out of fear of punishment, and third that the life of the unjust man is far more blessed than that of the just man. Glaucon would
like Socrates to prove that justice is not only desirable, but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: those desired
both for their own sake and their consequences.

After Glaucon's speech, Adeimantus adds that, in this thought experiment, the unjust should not fear any sort of divine
judgement in the afterlife, since the very poets who wrote about such judgement also wrote that the gods would grant
forgiveness to those humans who made ample religious sacrifice. Adeimantus demonstrates his reason by drawing two detailed
portraits, that the unjust man could grow wealthy by injustice, devoting a percentage of this gain to religious sacrifices, thus
rendering him innocent in the eyes of the gods.

Socrates suggests that they look for justice in a city rather than in an individual man. After attributing the origin of society to the
individual not being self-sufficient and having many needs which he cannot supply himself, they go on to describe the
development of the city. Socrates first describes the "healthy state", but Glaucon asks him to describe "a city of pigs", as he finds
little difference between the two. He then goes on to describe the luxurious city, which he calls "a fevered state".[8] This requires
a guardian class to defend and attack on its account. This begins a discussion concerning the type of education that ought to be
given to these guardians in their early years, including the topic of what kind of stories are appropriate. They conclude that
stories that ascribe evil to the gods are untrue and should not be taught.

k
2.1.3 Book III
Socrates and his companions Adeimantus and Glaucon conclude their discussion concerning education. Socrates breaks the
educational system into two. They suggest that guardians should be educated in these four virtues: wisdom, courage, justice and
temperance. They also suggest that the second part of the guardians' education should be in gymnastics. With physical training
they will be able to live without needing frequent medical attention: physical training will help prevent illness and weakness.
Socrates asserts that both male and female guardians be given the same education, that all wives and children be shared, and
that they be prohibited from owning private property.

2.1.4 Book IV
Socrates and his companions conclude their discussion concerning the lifestyle of the guardians, thus concluding their initial
assessment of the city as a whole. Socrates assumes each person will be happy engaging in the occupation that suits them best.
If the city as a whole is happy, then individuals are happy. In the physical education and diet of the guardians, the emphasis is on
moderation, since both poverty and excessive wealth will corrupt them (422a1). Without controlling their education, the city
cannot control the future rulers. Socrates says that it is pointless to worry over specific laws, like those pertaining to contracts,
since proper education ensures lawful behavior, and poor education causes lawlessness (425a-425c).[9]

Socrates proceeds to search for wisdom, courage, and temperance in the city, on the grounds that justice will be easier to
discern in what remains (427e). They find wisdom among the guardian rulers, courage among the guardian warriors (or
auxiliaries), temperance among all classes of the city in agreeing about who should rule and who should be ruled. Finally,
Socrates defines justice in the city as the state in which each class performs only its own work, not meddling in the work of the
other classes (433b).

The virtues discovered in the city are then sought in the individual soul. For this purpose, Socrates creates an analogy between
the parts of the city and the soul (the city-soul analogy). He argues that psychological conflict points to a divided soul, since a
completely unified soul could not behave in opposite ways towards the same object, at the same time, and in the same respect
(436b).[10] He gives examples of possible conflicts between the rational, “spirited,” and appetitive parts of the soul, corresponding
to the rulers, auxiliaries, and producing classes in the city.

Having established the tripartite soul, Socrates defines the virtues of the individual. A person is wise if he is ruled by the part of
the soul that knows “what is beneficial for each part and for the whole,” courageous if his spirited part “preserves in the midst of
pleasures and pains” the decisions reached by the rational part, and temperate if the three parts agree that the rational part lead
(442c-d).[11] They are just if each part of the soul attends to its function and not the function of another. It follows from this
definition that one cannot be just if one doesn’t have the other cardinal virtues.[10]

2.1.5 Book V
Socrates, having to his satisfaction defined the just constitution of both city and psyche, moves to elaborate upon the four unjust
constitutions of these. Adeimantus and Polemarchus interrupt, asking Socrates instead first to explain how the sharing of wives
and children in the guardian class is to be defined and legislated, a theme first touched on in Book III. Socrates is overwhelmed
at their request, categorizing it as three "waves" of attack against which his reasoning must stand firm. These three waves
challenge Socrates' claims that

both male and female guardians ought to receive the same education
human reproduction ought to be regulated by the state and all offspring should be ignorant of their actual biological parents
such a city and its corresponding philosopher-king could actually come to be in the real world.

2.1.6 Book VI
Socrates' argument is that in the ideal city, a true philosopher with understanding of forms will facilitate the harmonious co-
operation of all the citizens of the city. This philosopher-king must be intelligent, reliable, and willing to lead a simple life.
However, these qualities are rarely manifested on their own, and so they must be encouraged through education and the study
of The Good. Just as visible objects must be illuminated in order to be seen, so must also be true of objects of knowledge if light
is cast on them. Just as light comes from the Sun, so does truth come from goodness. Goodness as the source of truth makes it
possible for the mind to know, just as light from the Sun makes the eyes able to see.

k
2.1.7 Book VII
Socrates elaborates upon the immediately preceding Analogies of the Sun and of the Divided Line in the Allegory of the Cave, in
which he insists that the psyche must be freed from bondage to the visible/sensible world by making the painful journey into the
intelligible world. He continues in the rest of this book by further elaborating upon the curriculum which a would-be
philosopher-king must study. This is the origin of the quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music.

Next, they elaborate on the education of the philosopher king. Until age 18, would-be guardians should be engaged in basic
intellectual study and physical training, followed by two years of military training. However, a correction is then introduced
where the study of gymnastics (martial arts) and warfare - 3 plus 2 years, respectively - are supplanted by philosophy for 5 years
instead. Next, they receive ten years of mathematics until age 30, and then five years of dialectic training. Guardians then spend
the next 15 years as leaders, trying to "lead people from the cave". (This refers to "the Allegory of the Cave") Upon reaching 50,
they are fully aware of the form of good, and totally mature and ready to lead.

2.1.8 Book VIII

Socrates discusses four unjust constitutions: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. He argues that a society will decay
and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny, the most unjust regime of all.

The starting point is an imagined, alternate aristocracy (ruled by a philosopher-king); a just government dominated by the
wisdom-loving element. When its social structure breaks down and enters civil war, it is replaced by timocracy. The timocratic
government is dominated by the spirited element, with a ruling class of property-owners consisting of warriors or generals
(Ancient Sparta is an example). As the emphasis on honor is compromised by wealth accumulation, it is replaced by oligarchy.
The oligarchic government is dominated by the desiring element, in which the rich are the ruling class. The gap between rich
and poor widens, culminating in a revolt by the underclass majority, establishing a democracy. Democracy emphasizes maximum
freedom, so power is distributed evenly. It is also dominated by the desiring element, but in an undisciplined, unrestrained way.
The populism of the democratic government leads to mob rule, fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit
to take power and establish tyranny. In a tyrannical government, the city is enslaved to the tyrant, who uses his guards to remove
the best social elements and individuals from the city to retain power (since they pose a threat), while leaving the worst. He will
also provoke warfare to consolidate his position as leader. In this way, tyranny is the most unjust regime of all.

In parallel to this, Socrates considers the individual or soul that corresponds to each of these regimes. He describes how an
aristocrat may become weak or detached from political and material affluence, and how his son will respond to this by becoming
overly ambitious. The timocrat in turn may be defeated by the courts or vested interests; his son responds by accumulating
wealth in order to gain power in society and defend himself against the same predicament, thereby becoming an oligarch. The
oligarch's son will grow up with wealth without having to practice thrift or stinginess, and will be tempted and overwhelmed by
his desires, so that he becomes democratic, valuing freedom above all.

2.1.9 Book IX
Having discussed the tyrannical constitution of a city, Socrates wishes to discuss the tyrannical constitution of a psyche. This is
all intended to answer Thrasymachus' first argument in Book I, that the life of the unjust man (here understood as a true tyrant)
is more blessed than that of the just man (the philosopher-king).

First, he describes how a tyrannical man develops from a democratic household. The democratic man is torn between tyrannical
passions and oligarchic discipline, and ends up in the middle ground: valuing all desires, both good and bad. The tyrant will be
tempted in the same way as the democrat, but without an upbringing in discipline or moderation to restrain him. Therefore, his
most base desires and wildest passions overwhelm him, and he becomes driven by lust, using force and fraud to take whatever
he wants. The tyrant is both a slave to his lusts, and a master to whomever he can enslave.

Because of this, tyranny is the regime with the least freedom and happiness, and the tyrant is most unhappy of all, since the
regime and soul correspond. His desires are never fulfilled, and he always must live in fear of his victims. Because the tyrant can
only think in terms of servant and master, he has no equals whom he can befriend, and with no friends the tyrant is robbed of
freedom. This is the first proof that it is better to be just than unjust. The second proof is derived from the tripartite theory of
soul. The wisdom-loving soul is best equipped to judge what is best through reason, and the wise individual judges wisdom to be
best, then honor, then desire. This is the just proportion for the city or soul and stands opposite to tyranny, which is entirely
satiated on base desires. The third proof follows from this. He describes how the soul can be misled into experiencing false
pleasure: for example, a lack of pain can seem pleasurable by comparison to a worse state. True pleasure is had by being fulfilled
by things that fit one's nature. Wisdom is the most fulfilling and is the best guide, so the only way for the three drives of the soul
to function properly and experience the truest pleasure is by allowing wisdom to lead. To conclude the third proof, the wisdom
element is best at providing pleasure, while tyranny is worst because it is furthest removed from wisdom.

Finally, Socrates considers the multiple of how much worse tyranny is than the kingly/disciplined/wise temperament, and even
quantifies the tyrant as living 729 times more painfully/less joyfully than the king. He then gives the example of a chimera to
further illustrate justice and the tripartite soul.

The discussion concludes by refuting Thrasymachus' argument and designating the most blessed life as that of the just man and
the most miserable life as that of the unjust man.

2.1.10 Book X
Concluding a theme brought up most explicitly in the Analogies of the Sun and Divided Line in Book VI, Socrates finally rejects
any form of imitative art and concludes that such artists have no place in the just city. He continues on to argue for the
immortality of the psyche and even espouses a theory of reincarnation. He finishes by detailing the rewards of being just, both in
this life and the next. Artists create things but they are only different copies of the idea of the original. "And whenever any one
informs us that he has found a man who knows all the arts, and all things else that anybody knows, and every single thing with a
higher degree of accuracy than any other man—whoever tells us this, I think that we can only imagine to be a simple creature
who is likely to have been deceived by some wizard or actor whom he met, and whom he thought all-knowing, because he
himself was unable to analyze the nature of knowledge and ignorance and imitation."[12]

"And the same object appears straight when looked at out of the water, and crooked when in the water; and the concave
becomes convex, owing to the illusion about colours to which the sight is liable. Thus every sort of confusion is revealed within
us; and this is that weakness of the human mind on which the art of conjuring and deceiving by light and shadow and other
ingenous devices imposes, having an effect upon us like magic."[12]

He speaks about illusions and confusion. Things can look very similar, but be different in reality. Because we are human, at times
we cannot tell the difference between the two.

"And does not the same hold also of the ridiculous? There are jests which you would be ashamed to make yourself, and yet on
the comic stage, or indeed in private, when you hear them, you are greatly amused by them, and are not at all disgusted at their
unseemliness—the case of pity is repeated—there is a principle in human nature which is disposed to raise a laugh, and this which
you once restrained by reason, because you were afraid of being thought a buffoon, is now let out again; and having stimulated
the risible faculty at the theatre, you are betrayed unconsciously to yourself into playing the comic poet at home."

With all of us, we may approve of something, as long we are not directly involved with it. If we joke about it, we are supporting it.

"Quite true, he said. And the same may be said of lust and anger and all the other affections, of desire and pain and pleasure,
which are held to be inseparable from every action—in all of them poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them
up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue."[12]

Sometimes we let our passions rule our actions or way of thinking, although they should be controlled, so that we can increase
our happiness.

2.2 Scholarly views

Three interpretations of the Republic are presented in the following section; they are not exhaustive in their treatments of the
work, but are examples of contemporary interpretation.

2.2.1 Bertrand Russell

In his A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Bertrand Russell identifies three parts to the Republic:[13]

1. Books I–V: from the attempt to define justice, the description of an ideal community (eutopia) and the education of its
Guardians;
2. Books VI–VII: the nature of philosophers, the ideal rulers of such a community;
3. Books VIII–X: the pros and cons of various practical forms of government.
The core of the second part is the Allegory of the Cave and the discussion of the theory of
ideal forms. The third part concerns the Five Regimes and is strongly related to the later
dialogue The Laws; and the Myth of Er.

2.2.2 Cornford, Hildebrandt, and Voegelin

Francis Cornford, Kurt Hildebrandt, and Eric Voegelin contributed to an establishment of
sub-divisions marked with special formulae in Greek:

Prologue
I.1. 327a–328b. Descent to the Piraeus P. Oxy. 3679, manuscript from the
I.2–I.5. 328b–331d. Cephalus. Justice of the Older Generation
I.6–1.9. 331e–336a. Polemarchus. Justice of the Middle Generation 3rd century AD, containing
I.10–1.24. 336b–354c. Thrasymachus. Justice of the Sophist fragments of Plato's Republic.
Introduction
II.1–II.10. 357a–369b. The Question: Is Justice better than Injustice?
Part I: Genesis and Order of the Polis
II.11–II.16. 369b–376e. Genesis of the Polis
II.16–III.18. 376e–412b. Education of the Guardians
III.19–IV.5. 412b–427c. Constitution of the Polis
IV.6–IV.19. 427c–445e. Justice in the Polis
Part II: Embodiment of the Idea
V.1–V.16. 449a–471c. Somatic Unit of Polis and Hellenes
V.17–VI.14. 471c–502c. Rule of the Philosophers
VI.19–VII.5. 502c–521c. The Idea of the Agathon
VII.6–VII.18. 521c–541b. Education of the Philosophers
Part III: Decline of the Polis
VIII.1–VIII.5. 543a–550c. Timocracy
VIII.6–VIII.9. 550c–555b. Oligarchy
VIII.10–VIII.13. 555b–562a. Democracy
VIII.14–IX.3. 562a–576b. Tyranny
Conclusion
IX.4–IX.13. 576b–592b Answer: Justice is Better than Injustice.
Epilogue
X.1–X.8. 595a–608b. Rejection of Mimetic Art
X.9–X.11. 608c–612a. Immortality of the Soul
X.12. 612a–613e. Rewards of Justice in Life
X.13–X.16. 613e–621d. Judgment of the Dead

The paradigm of the city—the idea of the Good, the Agathon—has manifold historical embodiments, undertaken by those who
have seen the Agathon, and are ordered via the vision. The centerpiece of the Republic, Part II, nos. 2–3, discusses the rule of the
philosopher, and the vision of the Agathon with the allegory of the cave, which is clarified in the theory of forms. The centerpiece
is preceded and followed by the discussion of the means that will secure a well-ordered polis (City). Part II, no. 1, concerns
marriage, the community of people and goods for the guardians, and the restraints on warfare among the Hellenes. It describes a
partially communistic polis. Part II, no. 4, deals with the philosophical education of the rulers who will preserve the order and
character of the city-state.

In part II, the Embodiment of the Idea, is preceded by the establishment of the economic and social orders of a polis (part I),
followed by an analysis (part III) of the decline the order must traverse. The three parts compose the main body of the dialogues,
with their discussions of the "paradigm", its embodiment, its genesis, and its decline.

The introduction and the conclusion are the frame for the body of the Republic. The discussion of right order is occasioned by
the questions: "Is justice better than injustice?" and "Will an unjust man fare better than a just man?" The introductory question
is balanced by the concluding answer: "Justice is preferable to injustice". In turn, the foregoing are framed with the Prologue
(Book I) and the Epilogue (Book X). The prologue is a short dialogue about the common public doxai (opinions) about justice.
Based upon faith, and not reason, the Epilogue describes the new arts and the immortality of the soul.

2.2.3 Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss identified a four-part structure to the Republic, perceiving the dialogues as a drama enacted by particular
characters, each with a particular perspective and level of intellect:

1. Book I: Socrates is forcefully compelled to the house of Cephalus. Three definitions of justice are presented, all are found
lacking.
2. Books II–V: Glaucon and Adeimantus challenge Socrates to prove why a perfectly just man, perceived by the world as an
unjust man, would be happier than the perfectly unjust man who hides his injustice and is perceived by the world as a just
man. Their challenge begins and propels the dialogues; in answering the challenge, of the "charge", Socrates reveals his
behavior with the young men of Athens, whom he later was convicted of corrupting. Because Glaucon and Adeimantus
presume a definition of justice, Socrates digresses; he compels the group's attempt to discover justice, and then answers the
question posed to him about the intrinsic value of the just life.
 3. Books V–VI: The "Just City in Speech" is built from the earlier books, and concerns three critiques of the city. Leo Strauss
reported that his student Allan Bloom identified them as: communism, communism of wives and children, and the rule of
philosophers. The "Just City in Speech" stands or falls by these complications.
4. Books VII–X: Socrates has "escaped" his captors, having momentarily convinced them that the just man is the happy man, by
reinforcing their prejudices. He presents a rationale for political decay, and concludes by recounting The Myth of Er
("everyman"), consolation for non-philosophers who fear death.

3 Topics

3.1 Definition of justice

In the first book, two definitions of justice are proposed but deemed inadequate.[14] Returning debts owed, and helping friends
while harming enemies, are commonsense definitions of justice that, Socrates shows, are inadequate in exceptional situations,
and thus lack the rigidity demanded of a definition. Yet he does not completely reject them, for each expresses a commonsense
notion of justice that Socrates will incorporate into his discussion of the just regime in books II through V.

At the end of Book I, Socrates agrees with Polemarchus that justice includes helping friends, but says the just man would never
do harm to anybody. Thrasymachus believes that Socrates has done the men present an injustice by saying this and attacks his
character and reputation in front of the group, partly because he suspects that Socrates himself does not even believe harming
enemies is unjust. Thrasymachus gives his understanding of justice and injustice as "justice is what is advantageous to the
stronger, while injustice is to one's own profit and advantage".[15] Socrates finds this definition unclear and begins to question
Thrasymachus. Socrates then asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake by making a law that lessens their well-being, is still a
ruler according to that definition. Thrasymachus agrees that no true ruler would make such an error. This agreement allows
Socrates to undermine Thrasymachus' strict definition of justice by comparing rulers to people of various professions.
Thrasymachus consents to Socrates' assertion that an artist is someone who does his job well, and is a knower of some art,
which allows him to complete the job well. In so doing Socrates gets Thrasymachus to admit that rulers who enact a law that
does not benefit them firstly, are in the precise sense not rulers. Thrasymachus gives up, and is silent from then on. Socrates has
trapped Thrasymachus into admitting the strong man who makes a mistake is not the strong man in the precise sense, and that
some type of knowledge is required to rule perfectly. However, it is far from a satisfactory definition of justice.

At the beginning of Book II, Plato's two brothers challenge Socrates to define justice in the man, and unlike the rather short and
simple definitions offered in Book I, their views of justice are presented in two independent speeches. Glaucon's speech reprises
Thrasymachus' idea of justice; it starts with the legend of Gyges, who discovered a ring that gave him the power to become
invisible. Glaucon uses this story to argue that no man would be just if he had the opportunity of doing injustice with impunity.
With the power to become invisible, Gyges is able to seduce the queen, murder the king, and take over the kingdom. Glaucon
argues that the just as well as the unjust man would do the same if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from
punishment. The only reason that men are just and praise justice is out of fear of being punished for injustice. The law is a
product of compromise between individuals who agree not to do injustice to others if others will not do injustice to them.
Glaucon says that if people had the power to do injustice without fear of punishment, they would not enter into such an
agreement. Glaucon uses this argument to challenge Socrates to defend the position that the unjust life is better than the just
life. Adeimantus adds to Glaucon's speech the charge that men are only just for the results that justice brings one fortune, honor,
reputation. Adeimantus challenges Socrates to prove that being just is worth something in and of itself, not only as a means to an
end.

Socrates says that there is no better topic to debate. In response to the two views of injustice and justice presented by Glaucon
and Adeimantus, he claims incompetence, but feels it would be impious to leave justice in such doubt. Thus the Republic sets out
to define justice. Given the difficulty of this task as proven in Book I, Socrates in Book II leads his interlocutors into a discussion
of justice in the city, which Socrates suggests may help them see justice not only in the person, but on a larger scale, "first in
cities searching for what it is; then thusly we could examine also in some individual, examining the likeness of the bigger in the
idea of the littler" (368e–369a).[16]

For over two and a half millennia, scholars have differed on the aptness of the city-soul analogy Socrates uses to find justice in
Books II through V.[17] The Republic is a dramatic dialogue, not a treatise. Socrates' definition of justice is never unconditionally
stated, only versions of justice within each city are "found" and evaluated in Books II through Book V. Socrates constantly refers
the definition of justice back to the conditions of the city for which it is created. He builds a series of myths, or noble lies, to
make the cities appear just, and these conditions moderate life within the communities. The "earth born" myth makes all men
believe that they are born from the earth and have predestined natures within their veins. Accordingly, Socrates defines justice
as "working at that which he is naturally best suited", and "to do one's own business and not to be a busybody" (433a–433b) and
goes on to say that justice sustains and perfects the other three cardinal virtues: Temperance, Wisdom, and Courage, and that
justice is the cause and condition of their existence. Socrates does not include justice as a virtue within the city, suggesting that
justice does not exist within the human soul either, rather it is the result of a "well ordered" soul. A result of this conception of
justice separates people into three types; that of the soldier, that of the producer, and that of a ruler. If a ruler can create just
laws, and if the warriors can carry out the orders of the rulers, and if the producers can obey this authority, then a society will be
just.

The city is challenged by Adeimantus and Glaucon throughout its development: Adeimantus cannot find happiness in the city,
and Glaucon cannot find honor and glory. This hypothetical city contains no private property, no marriage, or nuclear families.
These are sacrificed for the common good and doing what is best fitting to one's nature. In Book V Socrates addresses the
question of "natural-ness" of and possibility for this city, concluding in Book VI, that the city's ontological status regards a
construction of the soul, not of an actual metropolis.

The rule of philosopher-kings appear as the issue of possibility is raised. Socrates never positively states what justice is in the
human soul/city; it appears he has created a city where justice is not found, but can be lost. It is as though in a well-ordered
state, justice is not even needed, since the community satisfies the needs of humans.

In terms of why it is best to be just rather than unjust for the individual, Plato prepares an answer in Book IX consisting of three
main arguments. Plato says that a tyrant's nature will leave him with "horrid pains and pangs" and that the typical tyrant engages
in a lifestyle that will be physically and mentally exacting on such a ruler. Such a disposition is in contrast to the truth-loving
philosopher king, and a tyrant "never tastes of true freedom or friendship". The second argument proposes that of all the
different types of people, only the philosopher is able to judge which type of ruler is best since only he can see the Form of the
Good. Thirdly, Plato argues, "Pleasures which are approved of by the lover of wisdom and reason are the truest." In sum, Plato
argues that philosophical pleasure is the only true pleasure since other pleasures experienced by others are simply a neutral
state free of pain.

Socrates points out the human tendency to be corrupted by power leads down the road to timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and
tyranny. From this, he concludes that ruling should be left to philosophers, who are the most just and therefore least susceptible
to corruption. This "good city" is depicted as being governed by philosopher-kings; disinterested persons who rule not for their
personal enjoyment but for the good of the city-state (polis). The paradigmatic society which stands behind every historical
society is hierarchical, but social classes have a marginal permeability; there are no slaves, no discrimination between men and
women. The men and women are both to be taught the same things, so they are both able to be used for the same things (451e).
In addition to the ruling class of guardians (φύλακες), which abolished riches, there is a class of private producers (demiourgoi),
who may be rich or poor. A number of provisions aim to avoid making the people weak: the substitution of a universal
educational system for men and women instead of debilitating music, poetry and theatre—a startling departure from Greek
society. These provisions apply to all classes, and the restrictions placed on the philosopher-kings chosen from the warrior class
and the warriors are much more severe than those placed on the producers, because the rulers must be kept away from any
source of corruption.

In Books V-VI the abolition of riches among the guardian class (not unlike Max Weber's bureaucracy) leads controversially to the
abandonment of the typical family, and as such no child may know his or her parents and the parents may not know their own
children. Socrates tells a tale which is the "allegory of the good government". The rulers assemble couples for reproduction,
based on breeding criteria. Thus, stable population is achieved through eugenics and social cohesion is projected to be high
because familial links are extended towards everyone in the city. Also the education of the youth is such that they are taught of
only works of writing that encourage them to improve themselves for the state's good, and envision (the) god(s) as entirely good,
just, and the author(s) of only that which is good.

In Books VII-X stand Plato's criticism of the forms of government. It begins with the dismissal of timocracy, a sort of
authoritarian regime, not unlike a military dictatorship. Plato offers an almost psychoanalytical explanation of the "timocrat" as
one who saw his father humiliated by his mother and wants to vindicate "manliness". The third worst regime is oligarchy, the rule
of a small band of rich people, millionaires that only respect money. Then comes the democratic form of government, and its
susceptibility to being ruled by unfit "sectarian" demagogues. Finally the worst regime is tyranny, where the whimsical desires of
the ruler became law and there is no check upon arbitrariness.

3.2 Theory of universals

The Republic contains Plato's Allegory of the cave with which he explains his concept of The Forms as an answer to the problem
of universals.

The allegory of the cave primarily depicts Plato's distinction between the world of appearances and the 'real' world of the
Forms,[18] as well as helping to justify the philosopher's place in society as king. Plato imagines a group of people who have lived
their entire lives as prisoners, chained to the wall of a cave in the subterranean so they are unable to see the outside world
behind them. However a constant flame illuminates various moving objects outside, which are silhouetted on the wall of the cave
visible to the prisoners. These prisoners, through having no other experience of reality, ascribe forms to these shadows such as
either "dog" or "cat".

Plato then goes on to explain how the philosopher is akin to a prisoner who is freed from the cave. The prisoner is initially
blinded by the light, but when he adjusts to the brightness he sees the fire and the statues and how they caused the images
witnessed inside the cave. He sees that the fire and statues in the cave were just copies of the real objects; merely imitations.
This is analogous to the Forms. What we see from day to day are merely appearances, reflections of the Forms. The philosopher,
however, will not be deceived by the shadows and will hence be able to see the 'real' world, the world above that of appearances;
the philosopher will gain knowledge of things in themselves. In this analogy the sun is representative of the Good. This is the
main object of the philosopher's knowledge. The Good can be thought of as the form of Forms, or the structuring of the world as
a whole.

The prisoner's stages of understanding correlate with the levels on the divided line which he imagines. The line is divided into
what the visible world is and what the intelligible world is, with the divider being the Sun. When the prisoner is in the cave, he is
obviously in the visible realm that receives no sunlight, and outside he comes to be in the intelligible realm.

The shadows witnessed in the cave correspond to the lowest level on Plato's line, that of imagination and conjecture. Once the
prisoner is freed and sees the shadows for what they are he reaches the second stage on the divided line, the stage of belief, for
he comes to believe that the statues in the cave are real. On leaving the cave, however, the prisoner comes to see objects more
real than the statues inside of the cave, and this correlates with the third stage on Plato's line, thought. Lastly, the prisoner turns
to the sun which he grasps as the source of truth, or the Form of the Good, and this last stage, named as dialectic, is the highest
possible stage on the line. The prisoner, as a result of the Form of the Good, can begin to understand all other forms in reality.

At the end of this allegory, Plato asserts that it is the philosopher's burden to reenter the cave. Those who have seen the ideal
world, he says, have the duty to educate those in the material world. Since the philosopher recognizes what is truly good only he
is fit to rule society according to Plato.

3.3 The dialectical forms of government

While Plato spends much of the Republic having Socrates narrate a conversation about the city he founds with Glaucon and
Adeimantus "in speech", the discussion eventually turns to considering four regimes that exist in reality and tend to degrade
successively into each other: timocracy, oligarchy (also called plutocracy), democracy and tyranny (also called despotism).

Timocracy

Socrates defines a timocracy as a government of people who love rule and honor. Socrates argues that the timocracy emerges
from aristocracy due to a civil war breaking out among the ruling class and the majority. Over time, many more births will occur
to people who lack aristocratic, guardian qualities, slowly drawing the populace away from knowledge, music, poetry and
"guardian education", toward money-making and the acquisition of possessions. This civil war between those who value wisdom
and those who value material acquisition will continue until a compromise is reached. The timocracy values war insofar as it
satisfies a love of victory and honor. The timocratic man loves physical training, and hunting, and values his abilities in warfare.

Oligarchy

Temptations create a confusion between economic status and honor which is responsible for the emergence of oligarchy. In
Book VIII, Socrates suggests that wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship, as his concerns will be directed centrally toward
increasing his wealth by whatever means, rather than seeking out wisdom or honor. The injustice of economic disparity divides
the rich and the poor, thus creating an environment for criminals and beggars to emerge. The rich are constantly plotting
against the poor and vice versa. The oligarchic constitution is based on property assessment and wealth qualification. Unlike the
timocracy, oligarchs are also unable to fight war, since they do not wish to arm the majority for fear of their rising up against
them (fearing the majority even more than their enemies), nor do they seem to pay mercenaries, since they are reluctant to
spend money.
Democracy

As this socioeconomic divide grows, so do tensions between social classes. From the conflicts arising out of such tensions, the
poor majority overthrow the wealthy minority, and democracy replaces the oligarchy preceding it. The poor overthrow the
oligarchs and grant liberties and freedoms to citizens, creating a most variegated collection of peoples under a "supermarket" of
constitutions. A visually appealing demagogue is soon lifted up to protect the interests of the lower class. However, with too
much freedom, no requirements for anyone to rule, and having no interest in assessing the background of their rulers (other
than honoring such people because they wish the majority well) the people become easily persuaded by such a demagogue's
appeal to try and satisfy people's common, base, and unnecessary pleasures.

Tyranny

The excessive freedoms granted to the citizens of a democracy ultimately leads to a tyranny, the furthest regressed type of
government. These freedoms divide the people into three socioeconomic classes: the dominating class, the elites and the
commoners. Tensions between the dominating class and the elites cause the commoners to seek out protection of their
democratic liberties. They invest all their power in their democratic demagogue, who, in turn, becomes corrupted by the power
and becomes a tyrant with a small entourage of his supporters for protection and absolute control of his people.

4 Reception and interpretation

4.1 Ancient Greece

The idea of writing treatises on systems of government was followed some decades later by Plato's most prominent pupil
Aristotle, whose Politika systematises many of Plato's concepts, in some cases differing from his conclusions.

It has been suggested that Isocrates parodies the Republic in his work Busiris by showing Callipolis' similarity to the Egyptian
state founded by a king of that name.[19]

Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, wrote his own imitation of Plato's Republic, c. 300 BC. Zeno's Republic advocates a form
of anarchism in which all of the citizens are philosophers, and advocates a more radical form of sexual communism than that
proposed by Plato.

4.2 Ancient Rome

4.2.1 Cicero
The English title of Plato's dialogue is derived from Cicero's De re publica, written some three centuries later. Cicero's dialogue
imitates Plato's style and treats many of the same topics, and Cicero's main character Scipio Africanus expresses his esteem for
Plato and Socrates.

Res publica is not an exact translation of Plato's Greek title politeia. Rather, politeia is a general term for the actual and potential
forms of government for a Polis or city-state, and Plato attempts to survey all possible forms of the state. Cicero's discussion is
more parochial, focusing on the improvement of the participants' own state, the Roman Republic in its final stages.

4.2.2 Tacitus
In antiquity, Plato's works were largely acclaimed, but a few commentators regarded them as too theoretical. Tacitus,
commented on such works as The Republic and Aristotle's Politics in his Ann. (IV, 33):

Nam cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut primores aut Indeed, a nation or city is ruled by the people, or by an upper class,
singuli regunt: delecta ex iis (his) et consociata or by a monarch. A government system that is invented from a choice
(constituta) rei publicae forma laudari facilius quam of these same components is sooner idealised than realised; and
evenire, vel si evenit, haud diuturna esse potest. even if realised, there will be no future for it.
In this work, Tacitus undertakes the prosaic description and minute analysis of how real states are governed, attempting to
derive more practical lessons about good versus bad governance than can be deduced from speculations on ideal governments.

4.2.3 Augustine
In the pivotal era of Rome's move from its ancient polytheist religion to Christianity, Augustine wrote his magnum opus The City
of God: Again, the references to Plato, Aristotle and Cicero and their visions of the ideal state were legion: Augustine equally
described a model of the "ideal city", in his case the eternal Jerusalem, using a visionary language not unlike that of the preceding
philosophers.

4.3 Islam
Islamic philosophers were much more interested in Aristotle than Plato, but not having access to Aristotle's Politics, Ibn Rushd
(Averroes) produced instead a commentary on Plato's Republic. He advances an authoritarian ideal, following Plato's paternalistic
model. Absolute monarchy, led by a philosopher-king, creates a justly ordered society. This requires extensive use of
coercion,[20] although persuasion is preferred and is possible if the young are properly raised.[21] Rhetoric, not logic, is the
appropriate road to truth for the common man. Demonstrative knowledge via philosophy and logic requires special study.
Rhetoric aids religion in reaching the masses.[22]

Following Plato, Ibn Rushd accepts the principle of women's equality. They should be educated and allowed to serve in the
military; the best among them might be tomorrow's philosophers or rulers.[23][24] He also accepts Plato's illiberal measures such
as the censorship of literature. He uses examples from Arab history to illustrate just and degenerate political orders.[25]

4.4 Hegel
Hegel respected Plato's theories of state and ethics much more than those of the early modern philosophers such as Locke,
Hobbes and Rousseau, whose theories proceeded from a fictional "state of nature" defined by humanity's "natural" needs, desires
and freedom. For Hegel this was a contradiction: since nature and the individual are contradictory, the freedoms which define
individuality as such are latecomers on the stage of history. Therefore, these philosophers unwittingly projected man as an
individual in modern society onto a primordial state of nature. Plato however had managed to grasp the ideas specific to his
time:

Plato is not the man to dabble in abstract theories and principles; his truth-loving mind has recognized and
represented the truth of the world in which he lived, the truth of the one spirit that lived in him as in Greece itself. No
man can overleap his time, the spirit of his time is his spirit also; but the point at issue is, to recognize that spirit by its
content.[26]

For Hegel, Plato's Republic is not an abstract theory or ideal which is too good for the real nature of man, but rather is not ideal
enough, not good enough for the ideals already inherent or nascent in the reality of his time; a time when Greece was entering
decline. One such nascent idea was about to crush the Greek way of life: modern freedoms—or Christian freedoms in Hegel's
view—such as the individual's choice of his social class, or of what property to pursue, or which career to follow. Such individual
freedoms were excluded from Plato's Republic:

Plato recognized and caught up the true spirit of his times, and brought it forward in a more definite way, in that he
desired to make this new principle an impossibility in his Republic.[27]

Greece being at a crossroads, Plato's new "constitution" in the Republic was an attempt to preserve Greece: it was a reactionary
reply to the new freedoms of private property etc., that were eventually given legal form through Rome. Accordingly, in ethical
life, it was an attempt to introduce a religion that elevated each individual not as an owner of property, but as the possessor of an
immortal soul.

4.5 20th century

4.5.1 Gadamer
In his 1934 Plato und die Dichter (Plato and the Poets), as well as several other works, Hans-Georg Gadamer describes the utopic
city of the Republic as a heuristic utopia that should not be pursued or even be used as an orientation-point for political
development. Rather, its purpose is said to be to show how things would have to be connected, and how one thing would lead to
another—often with highly problematic results—if one would opt for certain principles and carry them through rigorously. This
interpretation argues that large passages in Plato's writing are ironic, a line of thought initially pursued by Kierkegaard.
4.5.2 Popper
The city portrayed in the Republic struck some critics as harsh, rigid, and unfree; indeed, as totalitarian. Karl Popper gave a voice
to that view in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies, where he singled out Plato's state as a dystopia. Popper divorced
Plato's ideas from those of Socrates, claiming that the former in his later years expressed none of the humanitarian and
democratic tendencies of his teacher. In particular, Popper accuses Plato of betraying Socrates. Gilbert Ryle, reviewing Popper's
text just two years after its publication[28] and agreeing with him, wrote that Plato "was Socrates' Judas."[29] Popper thought
Plato's envisioned state totalitarian as it advocated a government composed only of a distinct hereditary ruling class, with the
working class—who Popper argues Plato regards as "human cattle"—given no role in decision making. He argues that Plato has no
interest in what are commonly regarded as the problems of justice—the resolving of disputes between individuals—because Plato
has redefined justice as "keeping one's place".[30]

4.5.3 Voegelin
Eric Voegelin in Plato and Aristotle (Baton Rouge, 1957), gave meaning to the concept of 'Just City in Speech' (Books II-V). For
instance, there is evidence in the dialogue that Socrates himself would not be a member of his 'ideal' state. His life was almost
solely dedicated to the private pursuit of knowledge. More practically, Socrates suggests that members of the lower classes could
rise to the higher ruling class, and vice versa, if they had 'gold' in their veins—a version of the concept of social mobility. The
exercise of power is built on the 'noble lie' that all men are brothers, born of the earth, yet there is a clear hierarchy and class
divisions. There is a tripartite explanation of human psychology that is extrapolated to the city, the relation among peoples.
There is no family among the guardians, another crude version of Max Weber's concept of bureaucracy as the state non-private
concern. Together with Leo Strauss, Voegelin considered Popper's interpretation to be a gross misunderstanding not only of the
dialogue itself, but of the very nature and character of Plato's entire philosophic enterprise.

4.5.4 Strauss and Bloom

Some of Plato's proposals have led theorists like Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom to ask readers to consider the possibility that
Socrates was creating not a blueprint for a real city, but a learning exercise for the young men in the dialogue. There are many
points in the construction of the "Just City in Speech" that seem contradictory, which raise the possibility Socrates is employing
irony to make the men in the dialogue question for themselves the ultimate value of the proposals. In turn, Plato has
immortalized this 'learning exercise' in the Republic.

One of many examples is that Socrates calls the marriages of the ruling class 'sacred'; however, they last only one night and are
the result of manipulating and drugging couples into predetermined intercourse with the aim of eugenically breeding guardian-
warriors. Strauss and Bloom's interpretations, however, involve more than just pointing out inconsistencies; by calling attention
to these issues they ask readers to think more deeply about whether Plato is being ironic or genuine, for neither Strauss nor
Bloom present an unequivocal opinion, preferring to raise philosophic doubt over interpretive fact.

Leo Strauss's approach developed out of a belief that Plato wrote esoterically. The basic acceptance of the exoteric-esoteric
distinction revolves around whether Plato really wanted to see the "Just City in Speech" of Books V-VI come to pass, or whether
it is just an allegory. Strauss never regarded this as the crucial issue of the dialogue. He argued against Karl Popper's literal view,
citing Cicero's opinion that the Republic's true nature was to bring to light the nature of political things.[31] In fact, Strauss
undermines the justice found in the "Just City in Speech" by implying the city is not natural, it is a man-made conceit that
abstracts away from the erotic needs of the body. The city founded in the Republic "is rendered possible by the abstraction from
eros".[32]

An argument that has been used against ascribing ironic intent to Plato is that Plato's Academy produced a number of tyrants
who seized political power and abandoned philosophy for ruling a city. Despite being well-versed in Greek and having direct
contact with Plato himself, some of Plato's former students like Clearchus, tyrant of Heraclea; Chaeron, tyrant of Pellene; Erastus
and Coriscus, tyrants of Skepsis; Hermias of Atarneus and Assos; and Calippus, tyrant of Syracuse ruled people and did not
impose anything like a philosopher-kingship. However, it can be argued whether these men became "tyrants" through studying
in the Academy. Plato's school had an elite student body, some of whom would by birth, and family expectation, end up in the
seats of power. Additionally, it is important to remember that it is by no means obvious that these men were tyrants in the
modern, totalitarian sense of the concept. Finally, since very little is actually known about what was taught at Plato's Academy,
there is no small controversy over whether it was even in the business of teaching politics at all.[33]

4.5.5 Views on the city–soul analogy

Many critics, both ancient and modern (like Julia Annas), have suggested that the dialogue's political discussion actually serves as
an analogy for the individual soul, in which there are also many different "members" that can either conflict or else be integrated
and orchestrated under a just and productive "government." Among other things, this analogical reading would solve the
problem of certain implausible statements Plato makes concerning an ideal political republic. In a definitive treatment of the
subject, Blössner (2007)[34] presents and argues for the case that the Republic is best understood as an analysis of the workings
and moral improvement of the individual soul with remarkable thoroughness and clarity. This view, of course, does not preclude
a legitimate reading of the Republic as a political treatise (the work could operate at both levels). It merely implies that it
deserves more attention as a work on psychology and moral philosophy than it has sometimes received.

4.5.6 Practicality
The above-mentioned views have in common that they view the Republic as a theoretical work, not as a set of guidelines for
good governance. However, Popper insists that the Republic, "was meant by its author not so much as a theoretical treatise, but
as a topical political manifesto"[35] and Bertrand Russell argues that at least in intent, and all in all not so far from what was
possible in ancient Greek city-states, the form of government portrayed in the Republic was meant as a practical one by Plato.[36]

4.6 21st century

One of Plato's recurring techniques in the Republic is to refine the concept of justice with reference to various examples of
greater or lesser injustice. However, in The Concept of Injustice,[37] Eric Heinze challenges the assumption that 'justice' and
'injustice' form a mutually exclusive pair. Heinze argues that such an assumption traces not from strict deductive logic, but from
the arbitrary etymology of the word 'injustice'. Heinze critiques what he calls 'classical' Western justice theory for having
perpetuated that logical error, which first appears in Plato's Republic, but manifests throughout traditional political philosophy,
in thinkers otherwise as different as Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel and Marx.

In 2001, a survey of over 1,000 academics and students voted the Republic the greatest philosophical text ever written. Julian
Baggini argued that although the work "was wrong on almost every point, the questions it raises and the methods it uses are
essential to the western tradition of philosophy. Without it we might not have philosophy as we know it."[38]

In fiction, Jo Walton's 2015 novel The Just City explored the consequences of establishing a city-state based on the Republic in
practice.

5 Place in Plato's corpus

The Republic is generally placed in the middle period of Plato's dialogues—that is, it is believed to be written after the early
period dialogues but before the late period dialogues. However, the distinction of this group from the early dialogues is not as
clear as the distinction of the late dialogues from all the others. Nonetheless, Ritter, Arnim, and Baron—with their separate
methodologies—all agreed that the Republic was well distinguished, along with Parmenides, Phaedrus and Theaetetus.[39]

However, the first book of the Republic, which shares many features with earlier dialogues, is thought to have originally been
written as a separate work, and then the remaining books were conjoined to it, perhaps with modifications to the original of the
first book.[40]

6 Fragments
Several Oxyrhynchus Papyri fragments were found to contain parts of the Republic, and from other works such as Phaedo, or the
dialogue Gorgias, written around 200-300 CE.[41] Fragments of a different version of Plato's Republic were discovered in 1945,
part of the Nag Hammadi library, written ca. 350 CE.[42] These findings highlight the influence of Plato during those times in
Egypt.

7 Translations
Sachs, Joe (2007). Plato: Republic. Newburyport: Focus Publishing.
Allen, R.E. (2006). Plato: The Republic. New Haven: Yale University Press.
 Reeve, C.D.C. (2004). Plato: The Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Griffith, Tom (2000). Plato: The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waterfield, Robin (1994). Plato: Republic. Translated, with notes and an introduction. Oxford: Oxford World's Classics.
Grube, G.M.A. (1992). Plato: The Republic. Revised by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Bloom, Allan (1991) [1968]. The Republic of Plato. Translated, with notes and an interpretive essay. New York: Basic Books.
Sterling, Richard W.; Scott, William C. (1985). Plato: Republic. London: W. W. Norton & Company.
Larson, Raymond (1979). Plato: The Republic. Wheeling: Harlan Davidson.
Cornford, F.M. (1941). The Republic of Plato. New York & London: Oxford University Press.
Shorey, Paul (1930). Plato: Republic. Edited, translated, with notes and an introduction. London: W. Heinemann.
Davies, John L.; Vaughan, David J. (1929). The Republic of Plato. Translated into English, with an analysis and notes. London:
Macmillan and Co.
Lindsay, A.D. (1906). Plato: The Republic. London: J.M. Dent.
Jowett, Benjamin (1871). Plato: The Republic.
Burges, George (1854). Plato: The Republic, Timaeus and Critias. New and literal version. London: H.G. Bohn.
Taylor, Thomas (1804). The Republic. London: R. Wilks.
Spens, Harry (1763). The Republic of Plato in Ten Books. Glasgow: Robert and Andrew Foulis.

8 See also
Allegory of the Cave Nous
Analogy of the divided line Philosopher king
Collectivism Plato's number
Cultural influence of Plato's Republic Ring of Gyges
Metaphor of the sun Ship of state
Mixed government The Form of the Good
Myth of Er Theory of Forms
Noble Lie

9 Notes
1. Henri Estienne (ed.), Platonis opera quae extant omnia, Vol. 2, 1578, p. 327 (https://archive.org/stream/platonisoperaqua02plat#page/326/mode/2up).

2. Brickhouse, Thomas and Smith, Nicholas D. Plato (c. 427–347 BC) (http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/plato.htm), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of Tennessee, cf. Dating Plato's Dialogues.

3. National Public Radio (August 8, 2007). Plato's 'Republic' Still Influential, Author Says (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12594668). Talk of the Nation.

4. Plato: The Republic (http://www.allphilosophers.com/). Plato: His Philosophy and his life, allphilosophers.com

5. In ancient times, the book was alternately titled On Justice (not to be confused with the spurious dialogue of the same name). Lorenz, Hendrik (22 April 2009). "Ancient Theories of Soul" (http://plato.stanfor
d.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#3.2). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2013-12-10.

6. Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-158591-1.

7. Although "there would be jarring anachronisms if any of the candidate specific dates between 432 and 404 were assigned". Nails, Debra (2002), The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other
Socratics. Hackett Publishing. ISBN 0-87220-564-9, p. 324

8. Plato; Harold North Fowler; Paul Shorey (1977). Plato in Twelve Volumes (http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg030.perseus-eng1:2.372d). 5–6
5–6. 372d: W. Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-674-
99040-1.

9. Julia Annas, “Law in the Republic” from Virtue and Law in Plato and Beyond, (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2017) DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198755746.003.0002

10. Brown, Eric (2017), Zalta, Edward N., ed., "Plato's Ethics and Politics in The Republic" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/plato-ethics-politics/), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Fall 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2018-10-02

11. Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 translated by Paul Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969.

12. The Republic, Book X

13. Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy, begin of Book I, part 2, ch. 14.

14. "The Internet Classics Archive - The Republic by Plato" (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.introduction.html).

15. Plato. Book I, 344c. Plato Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2004. Print.

16. "Suppose that a short-sighted person had been asked by some one to read small letters from a distance; and it occurred to some one else that they might be found in another place which was larger and in
which the letters were larger..." (368, trans. Jowett).

17. For an oft-cited argument that the analogy does not work, see T. Penner, “Thought and Desire in Plato.” in G Vlastos ed., Plato, Vol. 2. Anchor Books, 1971

18. Silverman, Allan (2014), Zalta, Edward N., ed., "Plato's Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/plato-metaphysics/), The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2018-10-02

19. Most recently, Niall Livingstone, A Commentary on Isocrates' Busiris. Mnemosyne Supplement 223. Leiden: Brill, 2001 (see review by David C. Mirhady in Bryn Mawr Classical Review (http://ccat.sas.upenn.e
du/bmcr/2004/2004-09-37.html)). For earlier consideration of the similarities, see H. Thesleff, Studies in Platonic Chronology, Helsinki 1982, pp. 105f., and C. Eucken, Isokrates, Berlin 1983, pp. 172 ff. Both
Thesleff and Eucken entertain the possibility that Isocrates was responding to an earlier version of Republic than the final version we possess.

20. Black, Antony (2011). The History of Islamic Political Thought (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7486-3987-8.