[566a]
banishes and slays and hints at the abolition of debts and the partition
of lands1—is
it not the inevitable consequence and a decree of fate2 that such a one be either slain by his
enemies or become a tyrant and be transformed from a man into a
wolf?” “It is quite inevitable,” he said.
“He it is,” I said, “who becomes the leader of
faction against the possessors of property.3” “Yes, he.”
“May it not happen that he is driven into exile and, being
restored in defiance of his enemies, returns a finished tyrant?”
“Obviously.” “And if they are unable
1 The apparent contradiction of the tone here with Laws 684 E could be regarded mistakenly as another “disharmony.” Grote iii. p. 107 says that there is no case of such radical measures in Greek history. Schmidt, Ethik der Griechen, ii. p. 374, says that the only case was that of Cleomenes at Sparta in the third century. See Georges Mathieu, Les Idées politiques d’Isocrate, p. 150, who refers to Andoc.De myst. 88, Plato, Laws 684, Demosth.Against Timocr. 149 (heliastic oath), Michel, Recueil d'inscriptions grecques, 1317, the oath at Itanos.
2 Cf. 619 C.
3 Cf. 565 A.
Plato. Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vols. 5 & 6 translated by Paul Shorey. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1969.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.