Cle.The enquiry,no doubt,has a bearing upon our subject.
Ath.I imagine that Cyrus,though a great and patriotic general,had never given his mind to education,and never attended to the order of his household.
Cle.What makes you say so?
Ath.I think that from his youth upwards he was a soldier,and entrusted the education of his children to the women;and they brought them up from their childhood as the favourites of fortune,who were blessed already,and needed no more blessings.They thought that they were happy enough,and that no one should be allowed to oppose them in any way,and they compelled every one to praise all that they said or did.This was how they brought them up.
Cle.A splendid education truly!
Ath.Such an one as women were likely to give them,and especially princesses who had recently grown rich,and in the absence of the men,too,who were occupied in wars and dangers,and had no time to look after them.
Cle.What would you expect?
Ath.Their father had possessions of cattle and sheep,and many herds of men and other animals,but he did not consider that those to whom he was about to make them over were not trained in his own calling,which was Persian;for the Persians are shepherds-sons of a rugged land,which is a stern mother,and well fitted to produce sturdy race able to live in the open air and go without sleep,and also to fight,if fighting is required.He did not observe that his sons were trained differently;through the so-called blessing of being royal they were educated in the Median fashion by women and eunuchs,which led to their becoming such as people do become when they are brought up unreproved.And so,after the death of Cyrus,his sons,in the fulness of luxury and licence,took the kingdom,and first one slew the other because he could not endure a rival;and,afterwards,the slayer himself,mad with wine and brutality,lost his kingdom through the Medes and the Eunuch,as they called him,who despised the folly of Cambyses.
Cle.So runs the tale,and such probably were the facts.
Ath.Yes;and the tradition says,that the empire came back to the Persians,through Darius and the seven chiefs.
Cle.True.
Ath.Let us note the rest of the story.Observe,that Darius was not the son of a king,and had not received a luxurious education.When he came to the throne,being one of the seven,he divided the country into seven portions,and of this arrangement there are some shadowy traces still remaining;he made laws upon the principle of introducing universal equality in the order of the state,and he embodied in his laws the settlement of the tribute which Cyrus promised-thus creating a feeling of friendship and community among all the Persians,and attaching the people to him with money and gifts.Hence his armies cheerfully acquired for him countries as large as those which Cyrus had left behind him.Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes;and he again was brought up in the royal and luxurious fashion.Might we not most justly say:"O Darius,how came you to bring up Xerxes in the same way in which Cyrus brought up Cambyses,and not to see his fatal mistake?"For Xerxes,being the creation of the same education,met with much the same fortune as Cambyses;and from that time until now there has never been a really great king among the Persians,although they are all called Great.And their degeneracy is not to be attributed to chance,as I maintain;the reason is rather the evil life which is generally led by the sons of very rich and royal persons;for never will boy or man,young or old,excel in virtue,who has been thus educated.And this,I say,is what the legislator has to consider,and what at the present moment has to be considered by us.Justly may you,O Lacedaemonians,be praised,in that you do not give special honour or a special education to wealth rather than to poverty,or to a royal rather than to a private station,where the divine and inspired lawgiver has not originally commanded them to be given.For no man ought to have pre-eminent honour in a state because he surpasses others in wealth,any more than because he is swift of foot or fair or strong,unless he have some virtue in him;nor even if he have virtue,unless he have this particular virtue of temperance.
Meg.What do you mean,Stranger?
Ath.I suppose that courage is a part of virtue?
Meg.To be sure.
Ath.Then,now hear and judge for yourself:-Would you like to have for a fellow-lodger or neighbour a very courageous man,who had no control over himself?
Meg.Heaven forbid!
Ath.Or an artist,who was clever in his profession,but a rogue?
Meg.Certainly not.
Ath.And surely justice does not grow apart from temperance?
Meg.Impossible.
Ath.Any more than our pattern wise man,whom we exhibited as having his pleasures and pains in accordance with and corresponding to true reason,can be intemperate?
Meg.No.
Ath.There is a further consideration relating to the due and undue award of honours in states.
Meg.What is it?
Ath.I should like to know whether temperance without the other virtues,existing alone in the soul of man,is rightly to be praised or blamed?
Meg.I cannot tell.
Ath.And that is the best answer;for whichever alternative you had chosen,I think that you would have gone wrong.
Meg.I am fortunate.
Ath.Very good;a quality,which is a mere appendage of things which can be praised or blamed,does not deserve an expression of opinion,but is best passed over in silence.
Meg.You are speaking of temperance?
Ath.Yes;but of the other virtues,that which having this appendage is also most beneficial,will be most deserving of honour,and next that which is beneficial in the next degree;and so each of them will be rightly honoured according to a regular order.
Meg.True.
Ath.And ought not the legislator to determine these classes?
Meg.Certainly he should.