Ath. Let us note the rest of the story. Observe, that Darius was notthe son of a king, and had not received a luxurious education. When hecame to the throne, being one of the seven, he divided the countryinto seven portions, and of this arrangement there are some shadowytraces still remaining; he made laws upon the principle of introducinguniversal equality in the order of the state, and he embodied in hislaws the settlement of the tribute which Cyrus promised-thuscreating a feeling of friendship and community among all the Persians,and attaching the people to him with money and gifts. Hence his armiescheerfully acquired for him countries as large as those which Cyrushad left behind him. Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes; and heagain was brought up in the royal and luxurious fashion. Might wenot most justly say: "O Darius, how came you to bring up Xerxes in thesame way in which Cyrus brought up Cambyses, and not to see hisfatal mistake?" For Xerxes, being the creation of the sameeducation, met with much the same fortune as Cambyses; and from thattime until now there has never been a really great king among thePersians, although they are all called Great. And their degeneracyis not to be attributed to chance, as I maintain; the reason is ratherthe evil life which is generally led by the sons of very rich androyal persons; for never will boy or man, young or old, excel invirtue, who has been thus educated. And this, I say, is what thelegislator has to consider, and what at the present moment has to beconsidered by us. Justly may you, O Lacedaemonians, be praised, inthat you do not give special honour or a special education to wealthrather than to poverty, or to a royal rather than to a privatestation, where the divine and inspired lawgiver has not originallycommanded them to be given. For no man ought to have pre-eminenthonour in a state because he surpasses others in wealth, any more thanbecause he is swift of foot or fair or strong, unless he have somevirtue in him; nor even if he have virtue, unless he have thisparticular 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 havefor a fellow-lodger or neighbour a very courageous man, who had nocontrol 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 havinghis pleasures and pains in accordance with and corresponding to truereason, can be intemperate?
Meg. No.
Ath. There is a further consideration relating to the due andundue award of honours in states.
Meg. What is it?
Ath. I should like to know whether temperance without the othervirtues, existing alone in the soul of man, is rightly to be praisedor blamed?
Meg. I cannot tell.
Ath. And that is the best answer; for whichever alternative youhad 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 whichcan 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 appendageis also most beneficial, will be most deserving of honour, and nextthat which is beneficial in the next degree; and so each of themwill be rightly honoured according to a regular order.
Meg. True.
Ath. And ought not the legislator to determine these classes?
Meg. Certainly he should.
Ath. Suppose that we leave to him the arrangement of details. Butthe general division of laws according to their importance into afirst and second and third class, we who are lovers of law may makeourselves.
Meg. Very; good.
Ath. We maintain, then, that a State which would be safe andhappy, as far as the nature of man allows, must and ought todistribute honour and dishonour in the right way. And the right way isto place the goods of the soul first and highest in the scale,always assuming temperance to be the condition of them; and toassign the second place to the goods of the body; and the thirdplace to money and property. And it any legislator or state departsfrom this rule by giving money the place of honour, or in any waypreferring that which is really last, may we not say, that he or thestate is doing an unholy and unpatriotic thing?
Meg. Yes; let that be plainly declared.
Ath. The consideration of the Persian governments led us thus far toenlarge. We remarked that the Persians grew worse and worse. And weaffirm the reason of this to have been, that they too muchdiminished the freedom of the people, and introduced too much ofdespotism, and so destroyed friendship and community of feeling. Andwhen there is an end of these, no longer do the governors govern onbehalf of their subjects or of the people, but on behalf ofthemselves; and if they think that they can gain ever so small anadvantage for themselves, they devastate cities, and send fire anddesolation among friendly races. And as they hate ruthlessly andhorribly, so are they hated; and when they want the people to fightfor them, they find no community of feeling or willingness to risktheir lives on their behalf; their untold myriads are useless tothem on the field of battle, and they think that their salvationdepends on the employment of mercenaries and strangers whom they hire,as if they were in want of more men. And they cannot help beingstupid, since they proclaim by actions that the ordinarydistinctions of right and wrong which are made in a state are atrifle, when compared with gold and silver.
Meg. Quite true.
Ath. And now enough of the Persians, and their presentmaladministration of their government, which is owing to the excess ofslavery and despotism among them.
Meg. Good.