Yes, Socrates, said Glaucon, and the whole of life is the only limit which wise men assign to the hearing of such discourses. But never mind about us; take heart yourself and answer the question in your own way: What sort of community of women and children is this which is to prevail among our guardians? and how shall we manage the
period between birth and education, which seems to require the greatest care? Tell us how these things will be. 
    Yes, my simple friend, but the answer is the reverse of easy; many more doubts arise about this than about our previous conclusions. For the practicability of what is said may be doubted; and looked at in another point of view, whether the scheme, if ever so practicable, would be for the best, is also doubtful. Hence I feel a reluctance to approach the subject, lest our aspiration, my dear friend, should turn out to be a dream only. 
    Fear not, he replied, for your audience will not be hard upon you; they are not sceptical or hostile. 
    I said: My good friend, I suppose that you mean to encourage me by these words. 
    Yes, he said. 
    Then let me tell you that you are doing just the reverse; the encouragement which you offer would have been all very well had I myself believed that I knew what I was talking about. To declare the truth about matters of high interest which a man honors and loves, among wise men who love him, need occasion no fear or faltering in his
mind; but to carry on an argument when you are yourself only a hesitating inquirer, which is my condition, is a dangerous and slippery thing; and the danger is not that I shall be laughed at (of which the fear would be childish), but that I shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sure of my footing, and drag my friends after me in my
fall. And I pray Nemesis not to visit upon me the words which I am going to utter. For I do indeed believe that to be an involuntary homicide is a less crime than to be a deceiver about beauty, or goodness, or justice, in the matter of laws. And that is a risk which I would rather run among enemies than among friends; and therefore you do well to encourage me. 
    Glaucon laughed and said: Well, then, Socrates, in case you and your argument do us any serious injury you shall be acquitted beforehand of the homicide, and shall not be held to be a deceiver; take courage then and speak. 
    Well, I said, the law says that when a man is acquitted he is free from guilt, and what holds at law may hold in argument. 
    Then why should you mind? 
    Well, I replied, I suppose that I must retrace my steps and say what I perhaps ought to have said before in the proper place. The part of the men has been played out, and now properly enough comes the turn of the women. Of them I will proceed to speak, and the more readily since I am invited by you. 
    For men born and educated like our citizens, the only way, in my opinion, of arriving at a right conclusion about the possession and use of women and children is to follow the path on which we originally started, when we said that the men were to be the guardians and watchdogs of the herd. 
    True. 
    Let us further suppose the birth and education of our women to be subject to similar or nearly similar regulations; then we shall see whether the result accords with our design. 
    What do you mean? 
    What I mean may be put into the form of a question, I said: Are dogs divided into he's and she's, or do they both share equally in hunting and in keeping watch and in the other duties of dogs? or do we intrust to the males the entire and exclusive care of the flocks, while we leave the females at home, under the idea that the bearing and the
suckling of their puppies are labor enough for them? 
    No, he said, they share alike; the only difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker. 
    But can you use different animals for the same purpose, unless they are bred and fed in the same way? 
    You cannot. 
    Then, if women are to have the same duties as men, they must have the same nurture and education? 
    Yes. 
    The education which was assigned to the men was music and gymnastics. Yes. 
    Then women must be taught music and gymnastics and also the art of war, which they must practise like the men? 
    That is the inference, I suppose. 
    I should rather expect, I said, that several of our proposals, if they are carried out, being unusual, may appear ridiculous. 
    No doubt of it. 
    Yes, and the most ridiculous thing of all will be the sight of women naked in the palaestra, exercising with the men, especially when they are no longer young; they certainly will not be a vision of beauty, any more than the enthusiastic old men who, in spite of wrinkles and ugliness, continue to frequent the gymnasia. 
    Yes, indeed, he said: according to present notions the proposal would be thought ridiculous. 
    But then, I said, as we have determined to speak our minds, we must not fear the jests of the wits which will be directed against this sort of innovation; how they will talk of women's attainments, both in music and gymnastics, and above all about their wearing armor and riding upon horseback! 
    Very true, he replied. Yet, having begun, we must go forward to the rough places of the law; at the same time begging of these gentlemen for once in their life to be serious. Not long ago, as we shall remind them, the Hellenes were of the opinion, which is still generally received among the barbarians, that the sight of a naked man was ridiculous and improper; and when first the Cretans, and then the Lacedaemonians, introduced the custom, the wits of that day might equally have ridiculed the innovation. 
    No doubt. 
    But when experience showed that to let all things be uncovered was far better than to cover them up, and the ludicrous effect to the outward eye had vanished before the better principle which reason asserted, then the man was perceived to be a fool who directs the shafts of his ridicule at any other sight but that of folly and vice, or
seriously inclines to weigh the beautiful by any other standard but that of the good. 
    Very true, he replied. 
    First, then, whether the question is to be put in jest or in earnest, let us come to an understanding about the nature of woman: Is she capable of sharing either wholly or partially in the actions of men, or not at all? And is the art of war one of those arts in which she can or cannot share? That will be the best way of commencing the inquiry,
and will probably lead to the fairest conclusion. 
    That will be much the best way. 
    Shall we take the other side first and begin by arguing against ourselves? in this manner the adversary's position will not be undefended. 
    Why not? he said. 
    Then let us put a speech into the mouths of our opponents. They will say: "Socrates and Glaucon, no adversary need convict you, for you yourselves, at the first foundation of the State, admitted the principle that everybody was to do the one work suited to his own nature." And certainly, if I am not mistaken, such an admission
was made by us. "And do not the natures of men and women differ very much indeed?" And we shall reply, Of course they do. Then we shall be asked, "Whether the tasks assigned to men and to women should not be different, and such as are agreeable to their different natures?" Certainly they should. "But if so, have you not fallen into a serious inconsistency in saying that men and women, whose natures are so entirely different, ought to perform the same actions?" What defence will you make for us, my good sir, against anyone who offers these objections? 
    That is not an easy question to answer when asked suddenly; and I shall and I do beg of you to draw out the case on our side. 
    These are the objections, Glaucon, and there are many others of a like kind, which I foresaw long ago; they made me afraid and reluctant to take in hand any law about the possession and nurture of women and children. 
    By Zeus, he said, the problem to be solved is anything but easy. Why, yes, I said, but the fact is that when a man is out of his depth, whether he has fallen into a little swimming-bath or into mid-ocean, he has to swim all the same. 
    Very true. 
    And must not we swim and try to reach the shore -- we will hope that Arion's dolphin or some other miraculous help may save us? 
    I suppose so, he said. 

    Well, then, let us see if any way of escape can be found. We acknowledged -- did we not? -- that different natures ought to have different pursuits, and that men's and women's natures are different. And now what are we saying? -- that different natures ought to have the same pursuits -- this is the inconsistency which is charged upon us. 
    Precisely. 
    Truly, Glaucon, I said, glorious is the power of the art of contradiction! 
    Why do you say so? 
    Because I think that many a man falls into the practice against his will. When he thinks that he is reasoning he is really disputing, just because he cannot define and divide, and so know that of which he is speaking; and he will pursue a merely verbal opposition in the spirit of contention and not of fair discussion. 
    Yes, he replied, such is very often the case; but what has that to do with us and our argument? 
    A great deal; for there is certainly a danger of our getting unintentionally into a verbal opposition. 
    In what way? Why we valiantly and pugnaciously insist upon the verbal truth, that different natures ought to have different pursuits, but we never considered at all what was the meaning of sameness or difference of nature, or why we distinguished them when we assigned different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same
natures. 
    Why, no, he said, that was never considered by us. 
    I said: Suppose that by way of illustration we were to ask the question whether there is not an opposition in nature between bald men and hairy men; and if this is admitted by us, then, if bald men are cobblers, we should forbid the hairy men to be cobblers, and conversely? 
    That would be a jest, he said. 
    Yes, I said, a jest; and why? because we never meant when we constructed the State, that the opposition of natures should extend to every difference, but only to those differences which affected the pursuit in which the individual is engaged; we should have argued, for example, that a physician and one who is in mind a physician may be said to have the same nature. 
    True. 
    Whereas the physician and the carpenter have different natures? 
    Certainly. 
    And if, I said, the male and female sex appear to differ in their fitness for any art or pursuit, we should say that such pursuit or art ought to be assigned to one or the other of them; but if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to a proof that a woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive; and we shall therefore continue to maintain that our guardians and their wives ought to have the same pursuits. 
    Very true, he said. 
    Next, we shall ask our opponent how, in reference to any of the pursuits or arts of civic life, the nature of a woman differs from that of a man? 
    That will be quite fair. 
    And perhaps he, like yourself, will reply that to give a sufficient answer on the instant is not easy; but after a little reflection there is no difficulty. 
    Yes, perhaps. 
    Suppose then that we invite him to accompany us in the argument, and then we may hope to show him that there is nothing peculiar in the constitution of women which would affect them in the administration of the State. 
    By all means. 
    Let us say to him: Come now, and we will ask you a question: When you spoke of a nature gifted or not gifted in any respect, did you mean to say that one man will acquire a thing easily, another with difficulty; a little learning will lead the one to discover a great deal, whereas the other, after much study and application, no sooner learns than he forgets; or again, did you mean, that the one has a body which is a good servant to his mind, while the body of the other is a hinderance to him? -- would not these be the sort of differences which distinguish the man gifted by
nature from the one who is ungifted? 
    No one will deny that. 
    And can you mention any pursuit of mankind in which the male sex has not all these gifts and qualities in a higher degree than the female? Need I waste time in speaking of the art of weaving, and the management of pancakes and preserves, in which womankind does really appear to be great, and in which for her to be beaten by a
man is of all things the most absurd? 
    You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex: although many women are in many things superior to many men, yet on the whole what you say is true. 
    And if so, my friend, I said, there is no special faculty of administration in a State which a woman has because she is a woman, or which a man has by virtue of his sex, but the gifts of nature are alike diffused in both; all the pursuits of men are the pursuits of women also, but in all of them a woman is inferior to a man. 
    Very true. 
    Then are we to impose all our enactments on men and none of them on women? 
    That will never do. 
    One woman has a gift of healing, another not; one is a musician, and another has no music in her nature? 
    Very true. 
    And one woman has a turn for gymnastic and military exercises, and another is unwarlike and hates gymnastics? 
    Certainly. 
    And one woman is a philosopher, and another is an enemy of philosophy; one has spirit, and another is without spirit? 
    That is also true. 
    Then one woman will have the temper of a guardian, and another not. Was not the selection of the male guardians determined by differences of this sort? 
    Yes. 
    Men and women alike possess the qualities which make a guardian; they differ only in their comparative strength or weakness.
    Obviously. 
    And those women who have such qualities are to be selected as the companions and colleagues of men who have similar qualities and whom they resemble in capacity and in character? 
    Very true. 
    And ought not the same natures to have the same pursuits? 
    They ought. 
    Then, as we were saying before, there is nothing unnatural in assigning music and gymnastics to the wives of the guardians -- to that point we come round again. 
    Certainly not. 
    The law which we then enacted was agreeable to nature, and therefore not an impossibility or mere aspiration; and the contrary practice, which prevails at present, is in reality a violation of nature. 
    That appears to be true. 
    We had to consider, first, whether our proposals were possible, and secondly whether they were the most beneficial? 
    Yes. 
    And the possibility has been acknowledged? 
    Yes. 
    The very great benefit has next to be established? 
    Quite so. 
    You will admit that the same education which makes a man a good guardian will make a woman a good guardian; for their original nature is the same? 
    Yes. 
    I should like to ask you a question. 
    What is it? 
    Would you say that all men are equal in excellence, or is one man better than another? 
    The latter. 
    And in the commonwealth which we were founding do you conceive the guardians who have been brought up on our model system to be more perfect men, or the cobblers whose education has been cobbling? 
    What a ridiculous question! 
    You have answered me, I replied: Well, and may we not further say that our guardians are the best of our citizens? 
    By far the best. 
    And will not their wives be the best women? 

    Yes, by far the best. 
    And can there be anything better for the interests of the State than that the men and women of a State should be as good as possible? 
    There can be nothing better. 
    And this is what the arts of music and gymnastics, when present in such a manner as we have described, will accomplish? 
    Certainly. 
    Then we have made an enactment not only possible but in the highest degree beneficial to the State? 
    True. 
    Then let the wives of our guardians strip, for their virtue will be their robe, and let them share in the toils of war and the defence of their country; only in the distribution of labors the lighter are to be assigned to the women, who are the weaker natures, but in other respects their duties are to be the same. And as for the man who laughs at
naked women exercising their bodies from the best of motives, in his laughter he is plucking "a fruit of unripe wisdom," and he himself is ignorant of what he is laughing at, or what he is about; for that is, and ever will be, the best
of sayings, "that the useful is the noble, and the hurtful is the base." 
    Very true. 

    There is no difficulty, I said, in seeing how war will be carried on by them. 
    How? 
    Why, of course they will go on expeditions together; and will take with them any of their children who are strong enough, that, after the manner of the artisan's child, they may look on at the work which they will have to do when they are grown up; and besides looking on they will have to help and be of use in war, and to wait upon their
fathers and mothers. Did you never observe in the arts how the potters' boys look on and help, long before they touch the wheel? 
    Yes, I have. 
    And shall potters be more careful in educating their children and in giving them the opportunity of seeing and practising their duties than our guardians will be? 
    The idea is ridiculous, he said. 
    There is also the effect on the parents, with whom, as with other animals, the presence of their young ones will be the greatest incentive to valor. 
    That is quite true, Socrates; and yet if they are defeated, which may often happen in war, how great the danger is! the children will be lost as well as their parents, and the State will never recover. 
    True, I said; but would you never allow them to run any risk? 
    I am far from saying that. 
    Well, but if they are ever to run a risk should they not do so on some occasion when, if they escape disaster, they will be the better for it? 
    Clearly. 
    Whether the future soldiers do or do not see war in the days of their youth is a very important matter, for the sake of which some risk may fairly be incurred. 
    Yes, very important. 
    This then must be our first step -- to make our children spectators of war; but we must also contrive that they shall be secured against danger; then all will be well. 
    True. 
    Their parents may be supposed not to be blind to the risks of war, but to know, as far as human foresight can, what expeditions are safe and what dangerous? 
    That may be assumed. 
    And they will take them on the safe expeditions and be cautious about the dangerous ones? 
    True. 
    And they will place them under the command of experienced veterans who will be their leaders and teachers?
    Very properly. 

    Still, the dangers of war cannot be always foreseen; there is a good deal of chance about them? 
    True. 
    Then against such chances the children must be at once furnished with wings, in order that in the hour of need they may fly away and escape. 
    What do you mean? he said. 
    I mean that we must mount them on horses in their earliest youth, and when they have learnt to ride, take them on horseback to see war: the horses must not be spirited and warlike, but the most tractable and yet the swiftest that can be had. In this way they will get an excellent view of what is hereafter to be their own business; and if there is danger they have only to follow their elder leaders and escape. 
    I believe that you are right, he said. 
    Next, as to war; what are to be the relations of your soldiers to one another and to their enemies? I should be inclined to propose that the soldier who leaves his rank or throws away his arms, or is guilty of any other act of cowardice, should be degraded into the rank of a husbandman or artisan. What do you think? 
    By all means, I should say. 
    And he who allows himself to be taken prisoner may as well be made a present of to his enemies; he is their lawful prey, and let them do what they like with him. 
    Certainly. 
    But the hero who has distinguished himself, what shall be done to him? In the first place, he shall receive honor in the army from his youthful comrades; every one of them in succession shall crown him. What do you say? 
    I approve. 
    And what do you say to his receiving the right hand of fellowship? 
    To that too, I agree. 
    But you will hardly agree to my next proposal. 
    What is your proposal? 
    That he should kiss and be kissed by them. 
    Most certainly, and I should be disposed to go further, and say: Let no one whom he has a mind to kiss refuse to be kissed by him while the expedition lasts. So that if there be a lover in the army, whether his love be youth or maiden, he may be more eager to win the prize of valor. 
    Capital, I said. That the brave man is to have more wives than others has been already determined: and he is to have first choices in such matters more than others, in order that he may have as many children as possible? 
    Agreed. 
    Again, there is another manner in which, according to Homer, brave youths should be honored; for he tells how Ajax, after he had distinguished himself in battle, was rewarded with long chines, which seems to be a compliment appropriate to a hero in the flower of his age, being not only a tribute of honor but also a very
strengthening thing. 
    Most true, he said. 
    Then in this, I said, Homer shall be our teacher; and we too, at sacrifices and on the like occasions, will honor the brave according to the measure of their valor, whether men or women, with hymns and those other distinctions which we were mentioning; also with  "seats of precedence, and meats and full cups;" and in honoring them, we shall be at the same time training them. 
    That, he replied, is excellent. 
    Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say, in the first place, that he is of the golden race? 
    To be sure. 
    Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for affirming that when they are dead "they are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters of evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men"? 
    Yes; and we accept his authority. 
    We must learn of the god how we are to order the sepulture of divine and heroic personages, and what is to be their special distinction; and we must do as he bids? 
    By all means. 
    And in ages to come we will reverence them and kneel before their sepulchres as at the graves of heroes. And not only they but any who are deemed preeminently good, whether they die from age or in any other way, shall be admitted to the same honors. 
    That is very right, he said. 
    Next, how shall our soldiers treat their enemies? What about this? 
    In what respect do you mean? 
    First of all, in regard to slavery? Do you think it right that Hellenes should enslave Hellenic States, or allow others to enslave them, if they can help? Should not their custom be to spare them, considering the danger which there is that the whole race may one day fall under the yoke of the barbarians? 
    To spare them is infinitely better. 
    Then no Hellene should be owned by them as a slave; that is a rule which they will observe and advise the other Hellenes to observe. 
    Certainly, he said; they will in this way be united against the barbarians and will keep their hands off one another. 
    Next as to the slain; ought the conquerors, I said, to take anything but their armor? Does not the practice of despoiling an enemy afford an excuse for not facing the battle? Cowards skulk about the dead, pretending that they are fulfilling a duty, and many an army before now has been lost from this love of plunder. 
    Very true. 
    And is there not illiberality and avarice in robbing a corpse, and also a degree of meanness and womanishness in making an enemy of the dead body when the real enemy has flown away and left only his fighting gear behind him -- is not this rather like a dog who cannot get at his assailant, quarrelling with the stones which strike him instead? 
    Very like a dog, he said. 
    Then we must abstain from spoiling the dead or hindering their burial? 
    Yes, he replied, we most certainly must. 
    Neither shall we offer up arms at the temples of the gods, least of all the arms of Hellenes, if we care to maintain good feeling with other Hellenes; and, indeed, we have reason to fear that the offering of spoils taken from kinsmen may be a pollution unless commanded by the god himself? 
    Very true. 
    Again, as to the devastation of Hellenic territory or the burning of houses, what is to be the practice? 
    May I have the pleasure, he said, of hearing your opinion? 
    Both should be forbidden, in my judgment; I would take the annual produce and no more. Shall I tell you why?
    Pray do. 
    Why, you see, there is a difference in the names "discord" and "war," and I imagine that there is also a difference in their natures; the one is expressive of what is internal and domestic, the other of what is external and foreign; and the first of the two is termed discord, and only the second, war. 
    That is a very proper distinction, he replied. 
    And may I not observe with equal propriety that the Hellenic race is all united together by ties of blood and friendship, and alien and strange to the barbarians? 
    Very good, he said. 
    And therefore when Hellenes fight with barbarians, and barbarians with Hellenes, they will be described by us as being at war when they fight, and by nature enemies, and this kind of antagonism should be called war; but when Hellenes fight with one another we shall say that Hellas is then in a state of disorder and discord, they being
by nature friends; and such enmity is to be called discord. 
    I agree. 
    Consider then, I said, when that which we have acknowledged to be discord occurs, and a city is divided, if both parties destroy the lands and burn the houses of one another, how wicked does the strife appear! No true lover of his country would bring himself to tear in pieces his own nurse and mother: There might be reason in the
conqueror depriving the conquered of their harvest, but still they would have the idea of peace in their hearts, and
would not mean to go on fighting forever. 
    Yes, he said, that is a better temper than the other. 
    And will not the city, which you are founding, be an Hellenic city? 
    It ought to be, he replied. 
    Then will not the citizens be good and civilized? 
    Yes, very civilized. 
    And will they not be lovers of Hellas, and think of Hellas as their own land, and share in the common temples? 
    Most certainly. 
    And any difference which arises among them will be regarded by them as discord only -- a quarrel among friends, which is not to be called a war? 
    Certainly not. 
    Then they will quarrel as those who intend some day to be reconciled? Certainly. 
    They will use friendly correction, but will not enslave or destroy their opponents; they will be correctors, not enemies? 
    Just so. 
    And as they are Hellenes themselves they will not devastate Hellas, nor will they burn houses, nor ever suppose that the whole population of a city -- men, women, and children -- are equally their enemies, for they know that the guilt of war is always confined to a few persons and that the many are their friends. And for all these reasons they will be unwilling to waste their lands and raze their houses; their enmity to them will only last until the many innocent sufferers have compelled the guilty few to give satisfaction? 
    I agree, he said, that our citizens should thus deal with their Hellenic enemies; and with barbarians as the Hellenes now deal with one another. 
    Then let us enact this law also for our guardians: that they are neither to devastate the lands of Hellenes nor to burn their houses. 
    Agreed; and we may agree also in thinking that these, like all our previous enactments, are very good.

   Second Half of Book 5