Understanding the Purpose in the Creation of Plato’s Republic
Critiques of Democracy and Establishing Justice — Plato Takes Aim at Athens
Note: This piece was written based on the C. D. C. Reeves New Translation Edition, which can be found at this link: https://www.amazon.com/Republic-Hackett-Classics-Plato-ebook/dp/B003ZDO0GO
Part I: Background and Thesis
In Plato’s, Republic, Plato seeks to answer questions that exist in the human mind and have throughout our time of rising and falling as a collective species in the world. The book centers on the central question of what the true ‘form’ of justice is, but as the book progresses, the central argument is broadened as a way to seek out what the true answers could be. Plato uses dialogue between his teacher, Socrates, and other Athenians to guide the questions that he seeks to answer.
In trying to define what justice is, Socrates and friends begin to use the example of the ‘Ideal City’ or Polis, in the Greek translation, to generate knowledge over the subject. After outlining how the city would run through its markets, the education systems, and finally the rulers, Plato asserts that the best form of government rest in the Aristocracy, or in Greek: Aristokratia, meaning, “Ruled by the best”. The ‘best’ in Plato’s definitions being the philosophers, whom can perceive the universal ‘forms’ that are necessary to continue to govern the ‘Ideal city’ that pursues the form of justice to be carried out in its every day dealings. These ‘forms’ are supposed to exist as “what is”, meaning that they are never changing and a constant in the universe. But, those who cannot perceive them can only perceive the ever-changing version of these ‘forms’, creating a constant flux of change that only the ‘philosophers’, as Plato defines them, can see.
In his Ideal city, Plato believes that a city, ruled by a philosopher-king is the only way to carry out the proper form of justice. The problem that exists is with Plato’s definition of the ‘forms’. As he describes them, there is no true way to perceive them in our reality, but only to perceive things practicing these forms, unless you have a ‘philosopher heart’. We can imagine a tree and we can see a tree in the real world, but as Plato describes it, unless you have a “Gold Soul”, or have a philosopher’s heart, you can never truly understand them or perceive them clearly. Through his definitions of the forms and his setting up of the ideal city, Plato creates a dichotomy that he must believe is truly unattainable. This creates the question as to why these dialogues were created. If Plato doesn’t see the ideal city actually coming into existence, what caused him to write the dialogues, outside of normal human’s quests for knowledge and a hunger for answers? How can a “philosopher-king”, as Plato puts it, come into being? Has one existed that could be used as an example for Plato’s polis? The book offers up many questions that go towards what the forms are, and who can see them, but their answers can only exist in the reality we live in, this being outside the realm of the forms that Plato sets up. This creates a double-edged sword that Plato must be aware of.
By his own definitions his ideal city cannot come into existence, and this has to be the same logic that Plato follows as the dialogues continue. Near the ends of the dialogues, Plato shifts the conversation from what the ‘ideal city’ would contain, and looks towards the types of government that exists and which are the best and worst. This area of the dialogues provides an insight into what could be believed to be Plato’s true reasoning for his creation of The Republic. Plato lays out 5 different forms of government from best to worst, and just above the one he views as the most unjust and evil form of government, tyranny, Plato places democracy, categorizing it as one of the worst forms of government. This is the system of government that prevailed in Athens at the time, and his constant condemnations of this system of government can be seen throughout the book. This leads many to believe that Plato does not think the ‘ideal city’ can exist, but instead, Plato’s motivations for writing these dialogues serve as a critique of the Greek direct democracy that led to his teacher, Socrates, drinking the Hemlock and dying by its democratic hands.
Part II: Understanding Justice
To properly understand the underlying messages that Plato seeks to espouse in his work, it is necessary to break down much of Plato’s arguments and assess what can be based in reality, and what is mostly philosophical and abstract. After much debate about the proper definition of justice in book one of The Republic, Socrates is left trying to convince his Athenian friends that justice is a necessary and proper good, regardless of the circumstance, whereas the Athenians attempt to argue that there is a place in the world where injustice can be a good. In trying to decipher what justice is, Socrates argues in book one: “Isn’t justice a human virtue?”[1] The use of the word ‘virtue’ here is a critical part of Socrates’ reasoning. In Greek, this word virtue translates from areté, in Reeve’s glossary of terms provided in the book’s translation, he describes this in closer detail,
“If something is a knife or a man, its virtue, as knife or man, is that state or property of it that makes it good.”[2]
This means that the ‘virtue’ of something rests in its proper place in the world, its purpose for existence, and carrying out this purpose creates a moral good, by Plato’s definition. This is important in understanding Plato’s view on justice. Justice, in Plato’s mind, rests in bounds outside of the perceivable world, meaning that it is not predicated on the current circumstances of the perceived world. This goes completely counter to the argument posed by Thrasymachus, who states,
“I say justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger.”[3]
This definition of justice is something still encountered today. It argues that justice is merely a term created by those in power to control those who are weaker, basically ruling out any laws as “just or unjust”, but rather, who does it benefit the most, and if those include the people in power. This philosophy was famously argued by Thomas Hobbes who believed the State of Nature revolved around living beings’ quest for survival, meaning any means to achieve this end could be argued as ‘good’. Socrates spends the rest of book One discerning how this definition does not hold up to scrutiny because of its basis in the outer-world. To help persuade Thrasymachus, Socrates uses an argument based off of the ‘crafts’ of individual objects and people. In Greek, the word used here is technê, and is referenced by Plato in the same way “science” would be referenced by us in the modern world today.[4] This points to the belief that was held by most people in this time period that everything has a specific purpose in its creation, and this also goes back to Plato’s argument of justice. In Plato’s reasoning, for something to carry out its necessary purpose, this is a moral good, or is just. But when this is not the case it means that it is unjust in its nature, based off of Plato’s view. It is important to outline these beginning arguments that encompass the first book because the later books and the creation of the ‘ideal city’ are all based off the ideas that are agreed upon here.
Part III: The Ideal City and the Individual
Book two is where the construction of the ‘ideal city’, begins to take place. It starts with Socrates growing frustrated with the other Athenians unwillingness to see justice as intrinsically and instrumentally good. Socrates states,
“We say, don’t we, that there is a justice that belongs to a single man, and also one that belongs to a whole city? …Perhaps then, there will be more justice in the larger thing, and it will be easier to discern.”[5]
The crafting of the ideal city model, is entirely based off Socrates’ attempting to illustrate to the others his definition of justice and how justice is intrinsically and instrumentally good. Once the foundations like food sources, housing, markets and other basic necessities that are required for a city are stated, the conversation then shifts to the ‘crafts’ and ‘natures’ of individuals when discussing how the city would wage war and protect its boundaries. For selecting ‘guardians’ of the city as Socrates puts it, he says,
“Then our task, is to select, if we can, which natures, which sorts of natures, suit people to guard the city.”.[6]
This reasoning points to Plato believing that there are intrinsic natures that exist in people, connected with their personal ‘virtues’. Socrates uses the analogy of the dog to illustrate the proper guardian for the ideal city, saying that they are an example of the traits a good guardian requires because they are wary of those they don’t know, and friendly towards those they do know. Inside of this analogy lies one of the many fluxes that are contained in Republic. On one hand, Plato is arguing that everything has its own virtues intrinsically given to them, a cobbler makes shoes because it is in his ‘nature’ to do so. But on the other hand, directly after this statement, Socrates asks about how the city would educate these people to behave in the manner that they see as necessary. He wanted to know how to cultivate the traits that they needed. This creates a flux on Plato’s outlook over the natures of individuals. Part of his philosophy stems to argue that many traits are intrinsic, but once Socrates and others dive into how to educate their citizens, he gives off an impression that there is a way to nurture these types of traits in individuals, through their educational system they erect. This also gives a brief insight into Plato’s outlook on if the polis can come into being.
Individualism plays a key role in understanding Plato’s outlook on the ideal city and who it should make up. Part of Plato’s definition of justice rests in the hands of the individual, and this represents a contradiction into Plato’s creation of the ideal city. As the debate between Socrates and the other Athenians wears on, one of the Athenians, Glaucon, separates ‘good’ into three categories through his defining of his terms at the beginning of book two, where he argues in favor of injustice as a way to lead Socrates to give them a true definition for what justice is:
“The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge. Justice is in the middle between these two extremes.”[7]
Following this statement, Glaucon goes into a lengthy story about two men, one just and the other unjust. The two men are given rings that turn them invisible and they are given the freedom to do as they please. The unjust man would be seen as just to those who witness him, whereas the just man would not, according to Glaucon. The story is intended to illustrate that justice and injustice are separated by their reputations, not by what truly makes them ‘good’. It also tries to illustrate that when injustice is not perceived by individuals, then it will not be seen as such, and thus will not turn into a bad result, making it not intrinsically good, but also not creating bad result, this setting up Glaucon’s three terms for ‘good’.
The first of Glaucon’s ‘goods’ is Instrumental good. An example of this used in the text would be wealth, since it reflects a neutral area where it could be used for both good and bad reasons. The second is intrinsic good, meaning the nature of the thing is good itself, like pleasure. Pleasure has no end goal other than good feelings involved and is “harmless” in its natural form. The final ‘good’ rests in between the other two and states this ‘good’ is both intrinsically good, as well as instrumental. An example used in the text by Socrates is medicine, which is intrinsically good to a person, and it also is used instrumentally so that a person may pursue other ‘goods’ like pleasure.[8] The setting up of these ‘goods’ by Glaucon are used as a guide for Socrates to show them that justice is an instrumental and intrinsic good, since their story examples of the men with invisible rings would indicate that if a person won’t be caught doing their injustices, then they could also be seen as intrinsically and instrumentally good because of the benefits they would bring if injustice was not perceived as it was. This argument is a deeper insight into the same one Thrasymachus makes in book one that justice is only advantageous for the strong.
Part IV: Understanding Plato’s Motive
This is where Plato’s outlook on individualism comes into play, as a way to dispel the ideas that Glaucon and Thrasymachus are espousing. The amount of effort that Plato depicts Socrates putting forth to define justice and to set up the ideal city, should illustrate the intentions behind the Republic’s creation. The way Plato’s work was written, in the form of a dialogue, provides deeper insight. If all of this was for setting up a perfect utopian city that could one day come into existence, why is it written as a dialogue and not as some form of a political manifesto? Was the point to set up the perfect city? Or was it more to critique the status-quo and search for deeper answers? The writing choice seems to argue the latter. Plato would have created a guide to espouse the ideal city if he truly believed for it to come into existence. It is also note-worthy to look into who Plato chose as his main character in the book. He chose people he knew in real life. Many of the Athenians were his friends and relatives, and the main character, Socrates, was his teacher. This creative choice should not be taken lightly.
The book moves on to critique the forms of government that existed in this time, and though most of one chapter is dedicated to tyrannical government, the one discussed before it is democracy, the form of government that Athens was governed by at this point in Plato’s life. It is the same government that used its direct democracy vote to convict Socrates for “Atheism and corrupting the youth”, for which he went on trial, was convicted, and forced to drink Hemlock poison that would end his life. This all with Plato in the background watching, and all of the knowledge we have of this comes from Plato’s other writing directly.[9] There was no way for Plato to not see this as unjust, an unjust ruling by an unjust, mob-driven system of government and this must have stuck with Plato as he continued his works. These events could be seen as a motivation for Plato’s harsh critiques of democracy in the Republic, and it can be argued that the use of Socrates as the main character, acting in a manner similar to as he did when he was alive, guiding his friends through the creation of a utopian city that would still retain its Greek roots, was used as condemnation and a thought experiment against the current regime. This is not able to be proven, and though it is true that Plato uses Socrates as the main character in many of his works, it should be seen as important when looking at Plato’s intentions for if the ideal city can come into being. But, the true form of justice in Plato’s mind seems to have individualism as part of the central definition. Justice, in Plato’s definition, is when an object or person is able to live out their purpose, or ‘virtue’, and do so without hindering the actions of others who are pursuing the same goal, this being mentioned in Reeve’s glossary definition of virtue, mentioned earlier. But is it with Plato’s outlook on individualism that we see a major contradiction that cuts against the ideal city set up by Socrates and the other Athenians.
The central factor for the creation of the utopian ideal city is who will govern this city, Socrates states that it must be a philosopher-king that takes the mantel, this idea being proposed during Book 5. It is here where we are able to make some light of the claims that Plato truly did believe that the ideal city could come into being. Before this idea is proposed Socrates says: “Well, there is one change we could point to that I think would accomplish this. It certainly is not small or easy but it is possible.”[10] It is here that Socrates explicitly states it is possible for this to occur, But this does not necessarily entail that he believes the entire city can come into being, but more specifically just a philosopher-king could. If we follow the progression of the text, Socrates seems to be specifically referencing the philosopher-king and the likelihood that one could exist. Following this statement is Plato’s claim:
“Until philosophers rule as kings in their cities, or those who are nowadays called kings and leading men became genuine and adequate philosophers so that political power and philosophy become thoroughly blended together, while the numerous natures that now pursue either one exclusively are compelled not to do so, cities will have no rest from evils, my dear Glaucon, nor, I think, will the human race. And until that happens, the same constitution we have now described in our discussion will never be born to the extent that it can, or see the light of the sun.”[11]
The only way the ideal city could be formed in reality, according to Plato, would be if someone who has dedicated their life to philosophical understanding of the ‘forms’ were to take the throne, or if a current ruler were to commit himself to seeking out the proper ‘forms’ that exist. Plato has clear skepticism that this will ever come to be, as made clear in his statements when proposing the way to bring their city’s constitution to fruition. If Plato has serious doubts about this ever coming to be, and this being a central point into the creation and maintaining of the ideal city, is can be made clear the level of skepticism that Plato has about the creation of the ideal city as a whole. The creation of a philosopher-king also brings into doubt Plato’s definition of justice as a whole, as made clear when Plato outlines the parameters of what the rulers job would be, and how this reacts with the individualism that is key to Plato’s definition of the true form of justice.
In their creation of the ideal city, the Athenians and Socrates split the city into three classes: The guardians, auxiliaries, and the craftsmen, each of which have certain tasks that they are to complete for the city to retain itself without devolving into chaos. The Guardians would be the Aristokratia, or ruling class. The Auxiliaries would be the ‘warrior class’ charged with defending the city and its residents, and the artisans and craftsmen would be the money generator for the city’s expenses and necessities. Each of the social classes have a job to keep the city running, just as the soul has three aspects that create its functions, according to Plato. This means that each individual has a task and that task is to carry out their ‘virtues’ that compel them, and through this, justice will be dispersed. In book 4, Socrates asks: “But we surely have forgotten that the city was just because each of the three classes in it does its own work?” and later Socrates states: “We should also bear in mind, then, that in the case of each one of us as well, the one in whom each of the elements does its own job will be just and do his own job.”[12] But how does a ruler make sense to this dichotomy? If the creation of the city rests on everyone minding their own business and carrying out their purposes and virtues, how can this be applied evenly? Would the rulers not have the task of maintaining their domains, which would include ruling over and intervening in the lives of the other citizens, whom are carrying out their virtues? This contradiction rests in the hands of the job of the philosopher-king, which is the position that the entire constitution that the Athenians set up is predicated on. Would this obvious contradiction not be present in Plato’s mind as he wrote this work? If individualism is a key element to Plato’s justice, how does a philosopher-king, or any ruler at all not contradict this very definition? Whether this is evident to Plato is unknown, but it does raise the question of whether or not Plato did believe the ideal city could exist.
Part V: Understanding Plato’s ‘Forms’
The philosopher in Plato’s eyes, is one who seeks to understand the true ‘forms’ that exist outside of the perceivable reality. In Plato’s philosophy, reality is in a constant state of flux and changes, more specifically, always ‘becoming’, but never ‘being’.[13] Socrates eludes to this at the end of book 5 when discussing the form of beauty, stating:
“So, we have now discovered, it seems, that the masses’ many conventional norms concerning beauty and the rest are somehow rolling around between what is not and what purely is.”[14]
What Socrates is describing here is the separation between knowledge and belief, specifically their ‘forms’. What he is describing is the interaction that people in reality take part in when they observe something or something “behaving” in the manner of a form, such as a dog perceived in reality “behaving” in the form of a dog. What is perceived here is a dog acting in “dog-ness”, but this is only a piece of the story in Plato’s philosophy because the dog that is being perceived is in a constant state of change from the second it enters reality, it never stops changing. The dog begins as a puppy and ages into adulthood and then eventually passes into old age and dies and eventually is gone completely. The ‘form’ of dog has to be a constant state, and this cannot take place in the perceived reality we exist because everything that exists in this reality exists in a state of constant change, again, always ‘becoming’, but never ‘being’. Plato separates the forms of knowledge and belief to further illustrate this,
“And we agreed earlier that if anything turned out to be of that sort, it would have to be called an object of belief, not an object of knowledge — a wondering, in-between object grasped by the in-between powers.”[15]
Socrates is describing the ‘forms’ here in abstract. Anything that is perceived is something in constant change, but lying underneath this reality exists the true ‘forms’ of things, the constant states of those things in which reality perverts them with its constant flux. This distinction between knowledge and belief is also used as an illustration for the difference between common people and the philosophers, or as Plato describes them, the ones with “gold souls”. To have a gold soul or to be a philosopher, one must be able to appreciate the true ‘form’ of a thing and not the thing itself. Socrates in the beginning of book 6 illustrates this:
“…Since the philosophers are the ones who are able to grasp what is always the same in all respects, while those who cannot — those who wander among the many things that vary in every sort of way — are not philosophers, which of the two should be the leader of a city?”.[16]
The philosophers are the ones who don’t just perceive things in their constant fluxes and manifestations of the forms, but can see through this and appreciate the ideal form itself.
To Plato, the forms do exist, but can only be perceived and appreciated by those with gold souls, but how does this even begin to be taught or created in the ideal city to keep it lasting through time? There is no guarantee that a philosopher-king will come into power or inherit it. Would it not make sense to try and teach these characteristics to all individuals of the city so that they all could lead the happiest and most fulfilling lives? Or does Plato believe that only certain individuals can possess the ability to become philosophers? This idea of the forms also creates a problem for Plato. Isn’t the setting up of the ideal city setting up the ‘form’ of the perfect city that promotes justice and happiness among its people? So, according to Plato’s own theory on the forms, the ideal city could exist, but not in the perceivable reality that we live in, so does that mean it isn’t possible? Or does it mean that it is possible, but never can be truly observed by all because only those with gold souls can truly appreciate the true forms of the things, cities being no exception? Plato’s own definitions seem to contradict one another because he believes that the forms exist, but he also believes that only certain individuals can perceive the true forms for what they are and not the things behaving in the manner of the forms.
This also calls into question on exactly how this ideal city could come into being. If it could exist in this reality, how could it be never changing? Cities have to create new populations, they have to innovate and create new things and the people in them will have a constant state of change between them just based on the flow of time itself. How does it make sense for this ideal city to come into being? It would have to exist outside the realm of reality we can all perceive, making it impossible just based off of Plato’s own philosophy. It is unclear whether he is truly aware of this contradiction that presents itself, but the entire work of the Republic is predicated on the ‘form’ of justice and the value that justice has both intrinsically and instrumentally. This type of contradiction has to exist in Plato’s reasoning because it knocks down the entire idea that the ideal city could come into being. This begs the question, what is Plato’s true motivator for writing this work? Since the basis of the flow of information coming from Socrates towards his Athenian counterparts is based on the form of justice, maybe this means that Plato is seeking to outline what true justice is in a city, and how the current systems that exist in Athens in his day have horrible shortcomings, one of which that illustrates this perfectly being the trial and death of Socrates, whom only sought knowledge for himself and those around him. The motivator for this tragedy, being democracy that prevailed in Athens.
Part VI: Critiquing Democracy
In book 8, Socrates describes five different forms of government as a way to elude to the five types of people whom would rule these governments. The first he describes is done when he sets up the ideal city with the other Athenians, this being aristocracy. The aristocracy is a constitution (system) ruled by philosophers, whom has reason as the dominant part of their souls. Even when he sets up this best system of governance, he argues that this type of government will always eventually lead to another, lesser form of government in Plato’s eyes due to the fallibility of human beings. Aristocracy by Plato’s own definition is unsustainable, and eventually will always lead to another lesser governmental form. To Plato, the aristocracy will always give way to what he describes as timocracy, and this form of government is where the ‘warrior class’ of individuals mentioned previously take the helm of the city and lead it using the ‘spirited’ parts of their souls, this meaning they are guided by their anger and resentments, more than they are with their rationality.
In Plato’s mind, each of these forms of government leads to another through the passage of time. From aristocracy comes timocracy, once the spirited parts of the soul take over, a fall into oligarchy, where now they are guided by their ‘appetites’ for money. The leaders are more concerned with attaining property and wealth than their rationalities or their spiritedness. Factions will arise due to the circumstances in Plato’s view and eventually oligarchy will become democracy. To Plato once factions arise between the rich and the poor in the cities, democracy arises when the poor win the battle:
“Then democracy comes about, I suppose, when the poor are victorious, kill or expel the others, and give the rest an equal share in the constitution and the ruling offices, and the majority of offices in it are assigned by a lot.”[17]
It is once we reach this point that we begin to see the critiques of democracy that echo Plato describing current events that occur around in his timeline. Socrates describes democracy as looking like the most beautiful of all the constitutions.[18] He also describes it as containing all other forms of constitutions, “as a result of their license”.[19] Democracy to Plato, gives rise to the worst form of government, Tyranny, and he describes it as occurring similar to how oligarchy becomes democracy. In a democracy, freedom is seen as the noblest good that can be upheld, democracy thrives on people’s abilities to make choices for themselves and govern themselves, it is supposed to allow freedom of speech to help lead this process. Plato defines democracy’s major flaw, this including freedom,
“So, isn’t democracy’s insatiable desire for what it defines as the good also what destroys it?”[20]
What he is describing here is that democracy fails because it upholds freedom as its greatest possession, but because of this, the worst parts of people’s souls, and the worst appetites in the people are allowed to fester and take control, when rationality and the pursuit of the forms should be held as the best form of guidance. Because of this, people slowly become ‘slaves” to the democracy that they hold to such high esteem, and this gives way for the worst form of government, tyranny. It is no secret that Plato is writing this work during a democratic time in Greek history. Plato is the founder of what is known as the first university. This means that Plato became a teacher of the youth in Athens, a few years after his work was published. In this work, he describes democracy in a similar manner to tyranny and excoriates democracy, which is currently held in such high esteem in Athens in this period, based off how prevalent this form of government must have been, especially to the aristocrats and high ranking members of society. Socrates was convicted for corrupting youth and forced to drink hemlock, but in reality, his only goal was to invoke critical thinking of conventional topics to the population of Athens.
Plato could have been viewed as essentially doing the same exact thing as Socrates was doing in his time alive. He was charged with teaching the youth and the people of Athens through the university. Yet, his work echoes almost a distain for democracy. Plato’s claim, could be read as him saying that the people of Athens were slaves to their own democracy, and because of this, they make terrible choices because the wrong parts of the souls and appetites are in control of their judgement, leaving them not seeking freedom, but control. Book 8 begins with Plato saying that aristocracy gives way to other forms of government, so he must not truly believe the ideal city could exist, or least not exist for a long period of time. By Plato’s own definition, aristocracy is not sustainable, meaning through his own terms, his ideal city could not be sustainable, because eventually the wrong leader would come to power and the wrong appetites and constitutions would rise into power and control the rulers, and the only way to prevent this, in Plato’s eyes, would be proper education and proper selection of those with gold souls, which would be nearly impossible, even by Plato’s description.
The setting up of the ideal city was not a political compass for the people of Greece to use and create the best city that creates the most happiness for the most people and allows the true form of justice to flourish. The setting up of the ideal city serves as a model for Plato to describe his many theories ranging from the forms, to the true form of justice, to who can view these forms, to which systems of government are the best. The ideal city is itself an allegory used by Plato to communicate his philosophies and, more specifically, communicate his critiques of the current system that he lives in. The evidences points to even Plato not truly believing the ideal city could come into being. The only evidence that can be seen really points to Plato hoping that one day it could happen, and even if it did, even if a philosopher-king does come into being and takes or inherits power, it would be sustainable because eventually, the different constitutions always give way to the others, and this creates a never-ending cycle for governance in the world. The fallibility of man is what makes this ideal city impossible to come to fruition.
Work Cited:
[1] Plato, C.D.C Reeve. Republic. 335c
[2] Reeves. Republic. Pg. 329
[3] Republic. 338c
[4] Reeve. Republic. Pg. 327
[5]Republic. 368e
[6]Republic. 374e
[7]Republic. 359a5
[8]Republic. 405a-406c
[9] Plato. The Trial and Death of Socrates: Being the Euthyphron, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo of Plato, n.d.
[10] Republic. 473c
[11] Republic. 473e-d
[12] Republic. 441d-e
[13] Republic. Introduction. xv
[14] Republic. 479d-3
[15] Republic. 479d-7
[16] Republic. 484b-3
[17] Republic. 557a
[18] Republic. 557c-3
[19] Republic. 557d-3
[20] Republic. 562b-10
